Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Failure of free markets

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 6:46:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've constantly been astounded by the ability of neoclassical economics to overwhelm all human impulse towards logic and common sense, especially when it comes to using "Free markets" to justify globalization and union busting.

Namely, the idea of information symmetry. Even though the nobel Prize in 2001 was awarded for showing how flawed the assumption is, free market fanatics assume it prima facie.
http://www.nobelprize.org...

The efficiency envisioned by free market fanatics is not possible as long as information asymmetries exist. Those asymmetries are inherent to many economic transactions.

By "free market fanatics" I refer to those who see absolutely no place for government in national or international economics transaction past stopping overt bribes and making sure companies do not stray from what they have contracted with their consumers.

Free market fanatics, however, depend on the assumption that prima facie all bargains between entities with no government involvement has perfect information symmetry until shown otherwise.

But this isn't even close to reality when it comes to developing countries and the developed, salesman and consumer, employer and employee.

"The borrower knows more than the lender about his creditworthiness; the
seller knows more than the buyer about the quality of his car; the CEO and board of a @257;rm know more than the shareholders about the pro@257;tability of the @257;rm; insurance clients know more than the insurance company about their accident risk; and tenants know more than the landowner about harvesting conditions and their own work e@256;ort."

The information asymmetries not only lead to adverse selection (through screening) in markets hurting only one side, but attempts to rectify asymmetries information through "signaling" lead to greater inefficiency since it has no function other than rectifying that asymmetry.

Most of you should be saying right now "no duh signaling and adverse selection works. That's basic econ 101."

Quite right. It is obvious. So why do neoclassical economic proponents all but ignore this?

Because it serves an ideological purpose for those who wish to have less government control. It's not economics for the sake of economics, its economics for the sake of justifying policy.

Things as simple as forced government disclosure of a company's profits can drastically reduce information asymmetries. But there is no incentive for true disclosure without threat of government action.

Want to form a private rating company to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought their ratings.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 11:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing about the free market is that is may not always be the first best course of action, but it is always the most pragmatically optimal policy. Too many unknown factors exist, and the economy is far too interconnected. The more you try to direct the economy, the more unintended side effects will be created. The more you try to influence or correct market imperfections, the more market imperfections will be created.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 2:08:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 11:27:28 PM, DanT wrote:
The thing about the free market is that is may not always be the first best course of action, but it is always the most pragmatically optimal policy. Too many unknown factors exist, and the economy is far too interconnected. The more you try to direct the economy, the more unintended side effects will be created. The more you try to influence or correct market imperfections, the more market imperfections will be created.

Rectifying information asymmetries doesn't require massive intervention.

Acts as simple as forcing disclosure of profits close the gap. But without regulatory oversight of some kind, it's practically impossible for an industry to exist which will not have massive information asymmetries.

It's the "prima facie perfect information" mindset that is behind destroying all regulatory oversight. The idea that "all market information is conveyed in the price and quantity" justifies stripping the government of any ability to control how the market functions.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 7:05:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 2:08:54 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/16/2013 11:27:28 PM, DanT wrote:
The thing about the free market is that is may not always be the first best course of action, but it is always the most pragmatically optimal policy. Too many unknown factors exist, and the economy is far too interconnected. The more you try to direct the economy, the more unintended side effects will be created. The more you try to influence or correct market imperfections, the more market imperfections will be created.

Rectifying information asymmetries doesn't require massive intervention.

Acts as simple as forcing disclosure of profits close the gap. But without regulatory oversight of some kind, it's practically impossible for an industry to exist which will not have massive information asymmetries.

It's the "prima facie perfect information" mindset that is behind destroying all regulatory oversight. The idea that "all market information is conveyed in the price and quantity" justifies stripping the government of any ability to control how the market functions.

I thought businesses are required to disclose their profits anyways. If not, this actually is a form of regulation that I would support.

But there are a few problems I have with the information asymmetric as market failure:
a) There are incentives both for firms and individuals to divulge information about oneself or to search for this information, so there's no reason there necessarily needs to be regulatory oversight. For example, if you can't get a CarFax on a used car, this signals its a poor car so car dealerships will give you the carfax.
b) There are expensive costs for complying with regulation. John Stossel used to be a consumer reporter who would look for businesses that would scam. He used to be an advocate for consumer protection. However, he quickly realized that there were still scams going on yet the cost of business was going up due to the cost of regulations. Hence, why he's now a libertarian.
c) There's obviously examples of asymmetric information in the government sector as well, so it's unfair to call it just a market failure.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 10:55:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 7:05:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/19/2013 2:08:54 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/16/2013 11:27:28 PM, DanT wrote:
The thing about the free market is that is may not always be the first best course of action, but it is always the most pragmatically optimal policy. Too many unknown factors exist, and the economy is far too interconnected. The more you try to direct the economy, the more unintended side effects will be created. The more you try to influence or correct market imperfections, the more market imperfections will be created.

Rectifying information asymmetries doesn't require massive intervention.

Acts as simple as forcing disclosure of profits close the gap. But without regulatory oversight of some kind, it's practically impossible for an industry to exist which will not have massive information asymmetries.

It's the "prima facie perfect information" mindset that is behind destroying all regulatory oversight. The idea that "all market information is conveyed in the price and quantity" justifies stripping the government of any ability to control how the market functions.

I thought businesses are required to disclose their profits anyways. If not, this actually is a form of regulation that I would support.

But there are a few problems I have with the information asymmetric as market failure:
a) There are incentives both for firms and individuals to divulge information about oneself or to search for this information, so there's no reason there necessarily needs to be regulatory oversight. For example, if you can't get a CarFax on a used car, this signals its a poor car so car dealerships will give you the carfax.
b) There are expensive costs for complying with regulation. John Stossel used to be a consumer reporter who would look for businesses that would scam. He used to be an advocate for consumer protection. However, he quickly realized that there were still scams going on yet the cost of business was going up due to the cost of regulations. Hence, why he's now a libertarian.
c) There's obviously examples of asymmetric information in the government sector as well, so it's unfair to call it just a market failure.

Businesses are required to disclose their profits truthfully. It's an example of government regulation that works towards reducing information asymmetries.

There are incentives only to divulge positive information.

For instance, car salesmen manipulate Carfax reports so that consumers are unaware that they are buying cars which have previously been in accidents.

http://louismgreen.com...

It can be expensive to comply with regulation, but the question is what costs are being offset? It costs a certain amount of money to publicly disclose your quarterly profits. That money may be in the form of printed pamphlets, stamps, electricity for email, whatever.

If the "free market" inherently has information asymmetries, then you all but guarantee market failure for the simple fact that neo-classical definitions of a "successful" free market involve perfect information conveyed solely through price and quantity.

Government regulation can rectify information asymmetries which will exist in "free markets" left to capitalists and consumers.

Does that it mean it always does? No.

But no one goes into an argument thinking the government and an individual can undergo transactions without information asymmetries.

Yet a good percentage of Libertarians and Conservatives will happily tell you that "the free market" interacts with reality as though no asymmetries exist.

It's common sense that information asymmetries exist between a government and individual.

Why insist some magical "hand" leads to individuals interacting in a marketplace any different?
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 4:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 6:46:38 PM, Wnope wrote:

Namely, the idea of information symmetry. Even though the nobel Prize in 2001 was awarded for showing how flawed the assumption is, free market fanatics assume it prima facie.

The efficiency envisioned by free market fanatics is not possible as long as information asymmetries exist. Those asymmetries are inherent to many economic transactions.

By "free market fanatics" I refer to those who see absolutely no place for government in national or international economics transaction past stopping overt bribes and making sure companies do not stray from what they have contracted with their consumers.

Free market fanatics, however, depend on the assumption that prima facie all bargains between entities with no government involvement has perfect information symmetry until shown otherwise.

Things as simple as forced government disclosure of a company's profits can drastically reduce information asymmetries. But there is no incentive for true disclosure without threat of government action.

Want to form a private rating company to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought their ratings.


As a free market fanatic who has been reading free market fanatics for decades, I have never cared about nor found anyone else who cares about information asymmetries. That I know more or less than someone with whom I am trading is both a common fact and utterly irrelevant to the moral argument favoring free trade.

The idea that I somehow "ought" to know about someone else's profits is absurd. The general slant of Wnope's argument is: so long as Wnope can see that someone is more knowledgeable than someone else, Wnope gets to pull a gun and start forcing his own views of what is valuable on both sides of a trade. This hints at omniscience on the part of Wnope or the regulators that Wnope would like to install in power.

I fear that Wnope may be a garden-variety "liberal", that is, one who believes that rich people are bad and poor people are good, employers are bad and employees are good, corporations are bad, Mom & Pops are good, etc., etc.

The hunger to make everyone equal with a gun is not a hunger for justice, but rather for power. Freedom means the freedom to be ignorant and mistaken. The desire to stop other's mistakes by denying them the opportunity to make mistakes is a mistake.

Want to form a private rating company to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought their ratings.

Want to form a government rating agency to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought the government.

Freedom requires responsibility - such as the responsibility for due diligence before entering a trade. The result of a nanny-state that robs people of the freedom to make mistakes is a population of irresponsible fools at the mercy of the mistakes of their nannies.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 8:36:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 4:43:43 PM, Howardofski wrote:

I fear that Wnope may be a garden-variety "liberal", that is, one who believes that rich people are bad and poor people are good, employers are bad and employees are good, corporations are bad, Mom & Pops are good, etc., etc.

How do you get from 'information asymmetries exist and result in market inefficiencies' to 'Wnope thinks that rich people are bad and poor people are good'?
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 9:07:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 8:36:53 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/20/2013 4:43:43 PM, Howardofski wrote:

I fear that Wnope may be a garden-variety "liberal", that is, one who believes that rich people are bad and poor people are good, employers are bad and employees are good, corporations are bad, Mom & Pops are good, etc., etc.

How do you get from 'information asymmetries exist and result in market inefficiencies' to 'Wnope thinks that rich people are bad and poor people are good'?

It was an offhand statement, not an integral part of his analysis of his arguments. That's pretty clear.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 9:19:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 6:46:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
Want to form a private rating company to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought their ratings.

Yes, because the government always acts in the interests of their citizens, and things like the government bank bailout and the Dodd-Frank Financial "Reform" Law has resulted in the five banks that held assets equal to 43% of the US economy in 2007 now controlling assets that equal 56% of the US economy.

Governments and big business are definitely not bed-fellows, and free-markets would spell doom for the economy.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 11:02:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 9:07:41 AM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:36:53 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/20/2013 4:43:43 PM, Howardofski wrote:

I fear that Wnope may be a garden-variety "liberal", that is, one who believes that rich people are bad and poor people are good, employers are bad and employees are good, corporations are bad, Mom & Pops are good, etc., etc.

How do you get from 'information asymmetries exist and result in market inefficiencies' to 'Wnope thinks that rich people are bad and poor people are good'?

It was an offhand statement, not an integral part of his analysis of his arguments. That's pretty clear.

I did not say what Wnope thinks. I stated a hunch ("I fear that...") of mine based on an observed pattern. The pattern is that liberals (interventionists) are forever finding "unfairness" in voluntary interactions which they use as an excuse to interfere. But nearly all their interferences are aimed at punishing success (the rich, the big, profits, etc.).

A further point: Wnope is saying that he (or someone with his wisdom) needs to interfere in a trade between two traders because one of the traders is ill informed. He does not mention that he, the interventionist, may suffer from information asymmetry himself and actually know less than he thinks about what is good for others. The free market premise is that I, not Wnope, am the expert on what is good for me.

Essentially, the interventionist is defining "market inefficiency" as "other people doing what they choose to do instead of doing what I think is best for them." This, I assume, would remind us of their parents, if we knew them. However, parents deciding what is best for their children is not at all like a gun-slinging government thug forcing his vision of fairness on other adults. And in the end, what the perverts called government force on everyone is always what is best for government perverts. What is best for them is always to find fault with success, in order to justify stealing from the rich. They are parasites, pretending to be altruists.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 7:07:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 11:02:51 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/21/2013 9:07:41 AM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:36:53 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/20/2013 4:43:43 PM, Howardofski wrote:

I fear that Wnope may be a garden-variety "liberal", that is, one who believes that rich people are bad and poor people are good, employers are bad and employees are good, corporations are bad, Mom & Pops are good, etc., etc.

How do you get from 'information asymmetries exist and result in market inefficiencies' to 'Wnope thinks that rich people are bad and poor people are good'?

It was an offhand statement, not an integral part of his analysis of his arguments. That's pretty clear.

I did not say what Wnope thinks. I stated a hunch ("I fear that...") of mine based on an observed pattern. The pattern is that liberals (interventionists) are forever finding "unfairness" in voluntary interactions which they use as an excuse to interfere. But nearly all their interferences are aimed at punishing success (the rich, the big, profits, etc.).

A further point: Wnope is saying that he (or someone with his wisdom) needs to interfere in a trade between two traders because one of the traders is ill informed. He does not mention that he, the interventionist, may suffer from information asymmetry himself and actually know less than he thinks about what is good for others. The free market premise is that I, not Wnope, am the expert on what is good for me.

Essentially, the interventionist is defining "market inefficiency" as "other people doing what they choose to do instead of doing what I think is best for them." This, I assume, would remind us of their parents, if we knew them. However, parents deciding what is best for their children is not at all like a gun-slinging government thug forcing his vision of fairness on other adults. And in the end, what the perverts called government force on everyone is always what is best for government perverts. What is best for them is always to find fault with success, in order to justify stealing from the rich. They are parasites, pretending to be altruists.

I'm not sure how you can accept the fact that information asymmetries exist, and then proceed to purposely ignore their effect on free markets. With perfect competition (which assumes perfect information), the free market does result in the most efficient outcomes and consumers' and producers' are based on supply and demand. However, as Joseph Stiglitz, writes varying the assumption of perfect information (in completely reasonable ways) has drastic consequences on free market outcomes. Since actors with imperfect information in free markets are unable to accurately asses the value of a product (while actors with better information lack the incentive to disclose that information), information asymmetries result in market inefficiencies.

Wnope isn't defining "market inefficiency" as "other people doing what they choose to do instead of doing what I think is best for them" - he's not advocating significant market intervention; he supports other people doing what they choose to do and the disclosure of information enables actors in free markets to make decisions in their best interests. I'm not sure how this is finding fault with success, stealing the rich, or justifying stealing from the rich. A better criticism than simply pretending that the problems Wnope presents don't exist would be to suggest free market alternatives to government regulated information disclosure - although Wnope briefly touches upon this, as InvictusManeo and darkkermit point out the issues Wnope brings up aren't limited to free markets.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 12:58:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 4:43:43 PM, Howardofski wrote:
At 11/16/2013 6:46:38 PM, Wnope wrote:

Namely, the idea of information symmetry. Even though the nobel Prize in 2001 was awarded for showing how flawed the assumption is, free market fanatics assume it prima facie.

The efficiency envisioned by free market fanatics is not possible as long as information asymmetries exist. Those asymmetries are inherent to many economic transactions.

By "free market fanatics" I refer to those who see absolutely no place for government in national or international economics transaction past stopping overt bribes and making sure companies do not stray from what they have contracted with their consumers.

Free market fanatics, however, depend on the assumption that prima facie all bargains between entities with no government involvement has perfect information symmetry until shown otherwise.

Things as simple as forced government disclosure of a company's profits can drastically reduce information asymmetries. But there is no incentive for true disclosure without threat of government action.

Want to form a private rating company to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought their ratings.


As a free market fanatic who has been reading free market fanatics for decades, I have never cared about nor found anyone else who cares about information asymmetries. That I know more or less than someone with whom I am trading is both a common fact and utterly irrelevant to the moral argument favoring free trade.

The idea that I somehow "ought" to know about someone else's profits is absurd. The general slant of Wnope's argument is: so long as Wnope can see that someone is more knowledgeable than someone else, Wnope gets to pull a gun and start forcing his own views of what is valuable on both sides of a trade. This hints at omniscience on the part of Wnope or the regulators that Wnope would like to install in power.

I fear that Wnope may be a garden-variety "liberal", that is, one who believes that rich people are bad and poor people are good, employers are bad and employees are good, corporations are bad, Mom & Pops are good, etc., etc.

The hunger to make everyone equal with a gun is not a hunger for justice, but rather for power. Freedom means the freedom to be ignorant and mistaken. The desire to stop other's mistakes by denying them the opportunity to make mistakes is a mistake.

Want to form a private rating company to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought their ratings.

Want to form a government rating agency to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought the government.

Freedom requires responsibility - such as the responsibility for due diligence before entering a trade. The result of a nanny-state that robs people of the freedom to make mistakes is a population of irresponsible fools at the mercy of the mistakes of their nannies.

This is a thread for people who think free markets lead to an optimal economic outcome. If you think that any kind of government action whatsoever is bad for ideological reasons, feel free to make a thread about it in the POLITICS forum.

This isn't about liberal or conservative. It's about the validity of neo-classical economics in reality, not college textbooks.

You're right, it's common knowledge information asymmetries exist. Which is why it's all the more remarkable that free market fanatics like yourself insist that market without government intervention will act on neo-classical principles (which assume perfect information).

Is Joseph Stiglitz is just some putz who has no idea what it's like to REALLY be involved in the international loans business?

Interesting that you've never heard of him.

I'm sure you're very well read when it comes to Friedman, Schumpeter, and the other theoreticians who champion unfettered economic and financial globalization.

You obviously aren't so well read when it comes to fact and history-based studies of how "free markets" play out among and within nations. Hell, even a history book of American economic policy from the 1800s will show what a joke neo-classical prescriptions for economies are.

There's nothing wrong with being rich or being a corporation.

But if you want to say "my economic theory will lead to nations/agents having optimal efficiency" then there's a problem.

"Freedom requires responsibility - such as the responsibility for due diligence before entering a trade."

Yeah... this is what I mean when I say you obviously aren't well read when it comes to more recent literature. The idea that just paying a little more attention to your environment or doing some googling will resolve this.

You can't do "due diligence" when the transaction, for instance, involves insider trading.

"Want to form a government rating agency to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought the government."

Regulatory capture can be a problem, but government regulation is the only real means for correcting information asymmetries beyond self-sacrificing altruism and watchdog groups.

Losing prima facie assumptions about perfect information allows for decision making that incorporates REALITY instead of neo-classical fantasies.

"The result of a nanny-state that robs people of the freedom to make mistakes is a population of irresponsible fools at the mercy of the mistakes of their nannies."

Please, put the Orwell down for one moment and go look at the state of international finance over the past twenty years. You seriously want to argue that every country that hasn't undergone unfettered liberalization and privatization of financial institutions is due to "mistakes" by a bunch of irresponsible fools?

I'm guessing you also think the only reason poor people exist is that they're too lazy to get a real job.

Everyone can be rich if the government stays out of it, look at those percentages for income mobility!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 1:01:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ironically, I am far from a "garden liberal." I'm more conservative when it comes to economic policy than the majority of them.

This doesn't mean I have to sacrifice my intellectual integrity and act like the world functions in a neo-classical way. That neoliberalism is a panacea.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 3:00:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 12:58:51 AM, Wnope wrote:

This is a thread for people who think free markets lead to an optimal economic outcome. If you think that any kind of government action whatsoever is bad for ideological reasons, feel free to make a thread about it in the POLITICS forum.

Since I think free markets lead to an optimal economic outcome, I must be in the right place. Since economics - the study of other people's money - is necessarily a moral issue, ideological arguments are extremely relevant. Economics IS ideology. Your position that information asymmetry is WRONG is an example of ideology.

This isn't about liberal or conservative. It's about the validity of neo-classical economics in reality, not college textbooks.

You're right, it's common knowledge information asymmetries exist. Which is why it's all the more remarkable that free market fanatics like yourself insist that market without government intervention will act on neo-classical principles (which assume perfect information).

I did not say or imply such a thing. Please read what I have previously written.

Is Joseph Stiglitz is just some putz who has no idea what it's like to REALLY be involved in the international loans business?

Interesting that you've never heard of him.

Interesting that you think I've never heard of him.

I'm sure you're very well read when it comes to Friedman, Schumpeter, and the other theoreticians who champion unfettered economic and financial globalization.

You are totally ignorant of what I've read.

You obviously aren't so well read when it comes to fact and history-based studies of how "free markets" play out among and within nations. Hell, even a history book of American economic policy from the 1800s will show what a joke neo-classical prescriptions for economies are.

You are totally ignorant of what I've read.

There's nothing wrong with being rich or being a corporation.

Sorry if I was presumptuous. Your ideological view that corporations should be forced to report their profits makes it seem that there is something wrong with them; otherwise why force them to confess the sin of profiting from trade?

But if you want to say "my economic theory will lead to nations/agents having optimal efficiency" then there's a problem.

My view is that optimal efficiency is in the eye of the beholder and those who wish to enforce optimal efficiency are merely wishing to substitute their own error-prone wishes for the error-prone wishes of others - by force.

"Freedom requires responsibility - such as the responsibility for due diligence before entering a trade."

Yeah... this is what I mean when I say you obviously aren't well read when it comes to more recent literature.

The silly implication here is that if I don't agree with you, it is proof that I am not aware of - have not read - certain literature. You fail to realize the possibility that I have read it and don't agree with it.

You can't do "due diligence" when the transaction, for instance, involves insider trading.

Yes you can.
1) There is nothing wrong or unusual about insider trading. Every trader has knowledge that other traders lack. Making knowledge a crime is absurd. You cannot show an example - even a hypothetical - of harm that comes from insider trading.
2) Due diligence means, among other things, assessing risk. In every trade, there is the risk that you are ignorant of some factors which may go against your position. When I am successful in a trade, do I owe an apology to those who knew less than I knew?

"Want to form a government rating agency to provide that information? We tried that, and the companies bought the government."

Regulatory capture can be a problem, but government regulation is the only real means for correcting information asymmetries beyond self-sacrificing altruism and watchdog groups.

Information asymmetries cannot and should not be corrected by government regulation. Read carefully: cannot. The presumption of omniscient, altruistic regulators is a fantasy.

Losing prima facie assumptions about perfect information allows for decision making that incorporates REALITY instead of neo-classical fantasies.

When will you be losing prima facie assumptions about perfect information that can be ensured by third parties to a trade using a gun and calling themselves 'authority'.

"The result of a nanny-state that robs people of the freedom to make mistakes is a population of irresponsible fools at the mercy of the mistakes of their nannies."

Please, put the Orwell down for one moment and go look at the state of international finance over the past twenty years. You seriously want to argue that every country that hasn't undergone unfettered liberalization and privatization of financial institutions is due to "mistakes" by a bunch of irresponsible fools?

No country on earth has "undergone unfettered liberalization and privatization of financial institutions". Dropping this or that regulation for the benefit of the banksters while keeping in place millions of regulations - also for their benefit - is not "unfettered liberalization".

I'm guessing you also think the only reason poor people exist is that they're too lazy to get a real job.

Bad guess. I believe that poor people exist mainly because they are prevented from competing by governments that have been bought by rich people who don't like the competition of a free market.

Everyone can be rich if the government stays out of it, look at those percentages for income mobility!
Everyone cannot be rich, since that term is relative, and there is no place to look because governments never "stay out of it". But if they did, most people would be far better off. Violence is only justified for self defense. Advocating violence as a remedy for unequal information is both an economic and a moral error. It does not and cannot work.

Finally, your premise that any serious school of economics seriously posits perfect knowledge is wrong. Everyone understands that there are information asymmetries. The real debate is about whether anyone can or should do anything about them. The answer is no. It is perfectly valid to claim that the free market knows best. That does not mean that the free market knows perfectly. Everyone is error-prone, but especially gun-slinging busy bodies who think the freedom of choice of others can be improved upon by their violence and pretended wisdom.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 4:15:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 3:00:44 PM, Howardofski wrote:

I think information asymmetry is "wrong?"

Information asymmetry in markets is no more "wrong" than the color orange. It's a factual occurence. You may as well say "transactions are wrong."

If you want economic efficiency under neo-classical rules, then information asymmetry becomes a big problem. If you are against all forms of government regulation because you think it's evil, then information asymmetries are irrelevant.

If you don't care about whether neo-classical assumptions apply to reality, then there's nothing more to be said on the subject. It's not a matter of "good" or "bad" it's a matter of "are free market fanatics empirically wrong in their approach?"

"Interesting that you think I've never heard of him."

You said you've never encountered anyone who cares about information asymmetries.

Joseph Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for it.

" Your ideological view that corporations should be forced to report their profits makes it seem that there is something wrong with them; otherwise why force them to confess the sin of profiting from trade?"

There's nothing wrong with profit. The problem is when people say "I know how we'll help the poor and undeveloped countries, let's force unfettered financial and trade liberalization because it leads towards a free market interactions." Or when people say "Free market is optimal, so any form of unionization or government intervention with contracts hurts those involved."

The only reason every company hasn't faked profits like Enron is that legally they are not allowed to. In a perfectly free market, companies would have no obligation to give true information. They wouldn't even be obligated to stop insider trading.

If all profits resulted from Bob making product A better than Sam or selling product A at a better price than Sam, neo-classical economics would capture the scenario quite well. But most wealth generation in the modern world is coming from financial activities, building wealth out of wealth, shorting a market that is purposefully sabotaged, influencing banks to give loans which are far too large to be repayed, and other ways to gain billions without "creating" anything.

"My view is that optimal efficiency is in the eye of the beholder and those who wish to enforce optimal efficiency are merely wishing to substitute their own error-prone wishes for the error-prone wishes of others - by force."

If your choices are to enter economic contract A (say, readjusting worker pay in a low-skill industry) or lose your entire life savings/home (lack of work in economic depression), then I find it hard to believe that force is not involved just as much as if the government were threatening to freeze your assets.

I am defining "efficiency" the way neo-classical economists wish to define it. If you deny "efficiency" has any definitive meaning even within neo-classical economics, I am sympathetic to the argument.

"You fail to realize the possibility that I have read it and don't agree with it."

Someone who says "I have never cared about nor found anyone else who cares about information asymmetries." in 21st century economics either hasn't done enough reading or is forgetting someone they once read.

" There is nothing wrong or unusual about insider trading. Every trader has knowledge that other traders lack. Making knowledge a crime is absurd. You cannot show an example - even a hypothetical - of harm that comes from insider trading."

It's one thing to be a good research and another to use information which cannot be legally obtained by other investors (which insiders can do) . That's an insurmountable advantage which lowers stability of the securities market. Managers can profit off shorting positions and engendering corporate failures.
http://www.frbatlanta.org...

"Due diligence means, among other things, assessing risk. In every trade, there is the risk that you are ignorant of some factors which may go against your position. When I am successful in a trade, do I owe an apology to those who knew less than I knew?"

You can take a woman to a bar, get her drunk, rape her, and say "heck, if she did her due diligence, she wouldn't have risked going out with a strange to get alcohol."

In that case, why would you owe her an apology? Her damn fault.

"Information asymmetries cannot and should not be corrected by government regulation. Read carefully: cannot. The presumption of omniscient, altruistic regulators is a fantasy."

Well aware regulators are human.

But it's pretty deranged to say information asymmetries cannot be corrected by government when... for instance... profit disclosure requirements are an existing example of this occurring.

"When will you be losing prima facie assumptions about perfect information that can be ensured by third parties to a trade using a gun and calling themselves 'authority'."

That's the thing. I don't have such assumptions.

No one does. Markets don't have perfect information.

When you start treating the economy as though transactions didn't involve perfect information, you can join the rest of us on planet earth.

When economists treat the economy as though it didn't have perfect information, we realize that free market fanatics like yourself prescribe disaster.

"No country on earth has "undergone unfettered liberalization and privatization of financial institutions". Dropping this or that regulation for the benefit of the banksters while keeping in place millions of regulations - also for their benefit - is not "unfettered liberalization".

I'd say that opening your country to the WTO fifth protocol alone pretty much breaks the floodgates. The more drastic the case (ex. Mexico), the more unfettered financial liberalization is revealed to be destructive towards long term growth and equality. Countries undergo a quick spurt of trade liberalized-growth followed by financial fragility and crises from financial liberalization.

http://www.wto.org...
http://www.econ.ucla.edu...

" I believe that poor people exist mainly because they are prevented from competing by governments that have been bought by rich people who don't like the competition of a free market."

Example?

" Violence is only justified for self defense. Advocating violence as a remedy for unequal information is both an economic and a moral error. It does not and cannot work."

It's a mindset like "truthful financial disclosure = unethical violence" that leads to a world where the rich can quite easily profit off the government and the poor.

" The real debate is about whether anyone can or should do anything about them. The answer is no."

Except...it's already done every day by thousands of existing regulations that we all take for granted (like...truthful disclosure).

"It is perfectly valid to claim that the free market knows best. "

Knows WHAT best? What the asking price of credit default swap should be?

"Gun-slinging busy bodies"

Right... like "free markets" just appear de novo in countries unless some liberal runs in to stop it. Like liberalization and globalization is some inevitable force which can only be stopped by intruders.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 9:01:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"But it's pretty deranged to say information asymmetries cannot be corrected by government when... for instance... profit disclosure requirements are an existing example of this occurring."

I"m not sure how an investor would be harmed by the non-disclosure of profits, assuming you voluntarily choose your investments. You can choose to invest in companies that disclose profits or not. Or, you can choose to form a business, such as Standard & Poors, that provides information regarding disclosure in a uniform way. You, as a business owner, can choose to disclose information to a company like Standard & Poors, or some other way, or not. As an investor, you can choose to invest blindly (ie Twitter IPO"s) or read reports from organizations like Standard & Poors, or not.

These are all voluntary choices. Now, what happens if we add force to this equation? Can we trust these entities more or less? In my opinion, the answer is less. If we can"t trust a corporation to correctly report profits, why would we expect we can trust some other entity (run by other humans made up of relatively the same brain matter) to enforce rules that improve this situation? Especially when that organization has a monopoly, is backed by guns, and is subject to the principal of corruption of power.

"Hell, even a history book of American economic policy from the 1800s will show what a joke neo-classical prescriptions for economies are."

I"d be interested in hearing more detail on what you mean by this. First of all, early economic policies tended to be mercantilist and remnants of that still exist today. The 1800"s also saw early attempts at central banking and bank regulation. The 1800"s also saw some of the greatest growth periods in history. There has never been a completely free market in the United States and certainly we are farther from that then we were in the 1800"s. Major industries are heavily regulated: energy, health care, finance. Almost every industry is regulated in some way.

But, regardless of all the above, you haven"t addressed Howardofski"s main points:

1) the concept of asymmetry is subjective because value is subjective and ever changing
2) the existence of asymmetries is not an argument against intervening in voluntary transactions

The question is, how do you attempt to address asymmetries? Voluntarily or by force.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 1:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 4:15:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/22/2013 3:00:44 PM, Howardofski wrote:

I think information asymmetry is "wrong?":
"Wrong" is a perfectly valid word to describe your position since you feel that this asymmetry should be corrected by violence.
...
You said you've never encountered anyone who cares about information asymmetries.
I said among free market fanatics.

...
There's nothing wrong with profit. The problem is when people say "I know how we'll help the poor and undeveloped countries, let's force unfettered financial and trade liberalization because it leads towards a free market interactions." Or when people say "Free market is optimal, so any form of unionization or government intervention with contracts hurts those involved."
"Unfettered" means unforced, yet you speak of forcing unfettered markets on someone. That's a contradiction in terms.

The only reason every company hasn't faked profits like Enron is that legally they are not allowed to.
All companies are crooks at heart. That is a lie, but so like a "liberal".

In a perfectly free market, companies would have no obligation to give true information. They wouldn't even be obligated to stop insider trading.
Right. And investors would not mistakenly invest in such companies, because of a belief that the morons called regulators were going to protect them. They would know better.

.. But most wealth generation in the modern world is coming from financial activities, building wealth out of wealth, shorting a market that is purposefully sabotaged, influencing banks to give loans which are far too large to be repayed, and other ways to gain billions without "creating" anything.
These problems are only possible in an unfree market where the clowns called government use violence to prevent competing currencies, competing banks, competing exchanges, etc. You are in the pattern of citing problems caused by government to justify solutions by government. So like a "liberal".

If your choices are to enter economic contract A (say, readjusting worker pay in a low-skill industry) or lose your entire life savings/home (lack of work in economic depression), then I find it hard to believe that force is not involved just as much as if the government were threatening to freeze your assets.
You are in the pattern of claiming that your needs justify using violence against the innocent. So like a "liberal".

I am defining "efficiency" the way neo-classical economists wish to define it.
"Efficiency" does not mean perfection, it means best. Your position seems to be that since the free market is imperfect, it is not efficient and should be "fixed" by force.

" There is nothing wrong or unusual about insider trading. Every trader has knowledge that other traders lack. Making knowledge a crime is absurd. You cannot show an example - even a hypothetical - of harm that comes from insider trading."

It's one thing to be a good research and another to use information which cannot be legally obtained by other investors (which insiders can do) .
Investors do not have a right to information unless they have a contract with the provider of that information. Information - truth - is a commodity, not a right. It is not for you to decide for everyone else just what information is needed and then force it to be provided.

You can take a woman to a bar, get her drunk, rape her, and say "heck, if she did her due diligence, she wouldn't have risked going out with a strange to get alcohol."
To offer rape (violence) as a metaphor for privacy (the withholding of information) so as to justify violence (law) to extract information is massively invalid.

But it's pretty deranged to say information asymmetries cannot be corrected by government when... for instance... profit disclosure requirements are an existing example of this occurring.
"Information asymmetry" refers to more than a single bit of information. Your argument here is like saying that wealth asymmetry can be solved by forcing a rich man to give a poor man $1. Pretending that you know which bit of information is important is just that: pretending.

When economists treat the economy as though it didn't have perfect information, we realize that free market fanatics like yourself prescribe disaster.
I have been consistently arguing that transactions don't (and can't) involve perfect information. You clearly are now claiming that I (and other free market fanatics) are saying exactly the opposite of what we are saying.

I'd say that opening your country to the WTO fifth protocol alone pretty much breaks the floodgates. The more drastic the case (ex. Mexico), the more unfettered financial liberalization is revealed to be destructive towards long term growth and equality. Countries undergo a quick spurt of trade liberalized-growth followed by financial fragility and crises from financial liberalization.
A market is not free (unfettered) that is controlled by any government. Until there are competing currencies, free (unlicensed) banking, unregulated trade, and sanctity of contract, there is no freedom. You are in the pattern of citing problems caused by government to justify solutions by government. So like a "liberal".

" I believe that poor people exist mainly because they are prevented from competing by governments that have been bought by rich people who don't like the competition of a free market."

Example?
Minimum wage laws. Business licensing laws. Mandatory report filing laws. Liability laws. Safety standards. Patent laws. Most of these laws are lobbied for by large companies to restrict competition since compliance is far more difficult for small or start-up companies. All such interferences are unnecessary and unjustified examples of violence against the innocent.

" Violence is only justified for self defense. Advocating violence as a remedy for unequal information is both an economic and a moral error. It does not and cannot work."

It's a mindset like "truthful financial disclosure = unethical violence" that leads to a world where the rich can quite easily profit off the government and the poor.
Mandatory information extraction is a violation of the rights of the holder of that information. You do not have a right to information unless you have a contract specifically granting you that right. Truth is a commodity. You do not have a right to anything that has to be supplied by another human being. No one is forcing you to trade.

" The real debate is about whether anyone can or should do anything about them. The answer is no."

Except...it's already done every day by thousands of existing regulations that we all take for granted (like...truthful disclosure).
I say something should not be done and you answer that it is done every day. So what? It is still true that it should not be done.

"It is perfectly valid to claim that the free market knows best. "

Knows WHAT best? What the asking price of [a] credit default swap should be?

Should be? Are you pretending that there is a price which "should" be. In a free market, price is a reflection of what people voluntarily decide on. The price of a credit default swap is whatever the seller (owner) and buyer agree on. Did you want to pull a gun and tell them what the price "should" be?

"Gun-slinging busy bodies"

Right... like "free markets" just appear de novo in countries unless some liberal runs in to stop it. Like liberalization and globalization is some inevitable force which can only be stopped by intruders.
Correct. People will do what they want to do unless some moron uses force against them.

I am done presenting my own position. You may have the last word - and I will read it. Thank you, Wnope, for a very interesting debate.

-Howardofski
SapphireSpire
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 4:31:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The purpose of government in a free nation is to defend us from force and fraud and to ensure a healthy free market by defending our equal property rights. There can be no exclusive rights. Equal rights cannot coexist with exclusive rights and a nation cannot be free without equal rights. Once governments begin granting exclusive rights, nobody is free and we end up living under an oppressive captive market instead of a free market. The adversities attributed to asymmetric information are actually the result of imperfect competition, monopolistic and monopsonistic conditions, that arise as a result of exclusive rights.
aicram62
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not going to say I read every post, and I definitely am not a scholar of economics. but... are you all with the same definition of "Free Market"?

I would think that even the poorest of the poor are still not on equal terms, else they would have no need to trade.

I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 10:50:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.

Free Market advocates want an end to violence. That is what Free means. It does not mean the "right to do anything", it means the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others. Those opposed to the Free Market are those who wish to do harm to others. If you debate the specifics, you will always find this is so. Unfortunately, those in favor of violence generally prefer to avoid honest debate and engage in a great deal of Orwellian rhetoric to disguise the simple fact that what they want is to steal.
SapphireSpire
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 5:30:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I'm not going to say I read every post, and I definitely am not a scholar of economics. but... are you all with the same definition of "Free Market"?


For a market to be free, productivity must be an equal right. Every person must have the right to sell whatever they may produce with their own capital and labor, as long as it doesn't violate consumer and environmental protection regulations, and should only be entitled to compensation for the work they actually do with their own capital and labor. The only right that ought to be secured under intellectual property is permanent recognition. To secure for someone a monopoly, even for limited times, requires that government violate the property rights of all other persons, which is antithetical to the free market and every other principle that free nations are based on.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 4:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2013 5:30:09 PM, SapphireSpire wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I'm not going to say I read every post, and I definitely am not a scholar of economics. but... are you all with the same definition of "Free Market"?


For a market to be free, productivity must be an equal right. Every person must have the right to sell whatever they may produce with their own capital and labor, as long as it doesn't violate consumer and environmental protection regulations, and should only be entitled to compensation for the work they actually do with their own capital and labor. The only right that ought to be secured under intellectual property is permanent recognition. To secure for someone a monopoly, even for limited times, requires that government violate the property rights of all other persons, which is antithetical to the free market and every other principle that free nations are based on.

Two problems with that analysis:

a) Intellectual property only secures a monopoly over the particular intellectual property, same as real property secures a monopoly over the particular real property. It's only by broadening the definition of the real commodity (i.e. "land", instead of "land on the corner of State and Main") that the monopolies become "competitive", and the same can be done for intellectual commodities.

b) Property needn't be monopolistic in order for it to interfere with an imagined right for owners of other property to do whatever they want with it. If intellectual property were granted to many, instead of to one, its licenses would be cheaper (provided its owners didn't cartelize like many real property-owners do, formally and informally), but it would still be a burden. Similarly, while I'm certainly glad there are many capitalists competing (albeit imperfectly) for labor instead of a unilateral monopsony, I need only imagine a right to do whatever I want with my labor (e.g. use any capital I choose and keep the whole of my product) in order to conclude that they're collectively interfering with that right. You're arbitrarily declaring real capital's right of exclusion legitimate and intellectual capital's right of exclusion illegitimate.

Even if it were true that using an idea cannot interfere with others' use of it (it isn't; for example, social Darwinists' corruption of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene has made it so that he can scarcely use the phrase without having to clear the matter up), that would hardly justify giving permanent sole proprietorship to the individual who first arrived at it. You may disagree with the terms of intellectual property, but it's at least plausible that the one entitled to the next 14-year patent will have advanced its arrival by an equal period of time. In the case of real property, there isn't even a pretense of proportionality, for even enclosure of land that might have already been worked in common for millennia grants the enterprising (and government-sponsored) thief a term of ownership excessive of all intellectual property combined.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 8:50:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is only one thing that makes a free market economy fail. A failure to enforce the rule of law. "There is no robbery under the pretext of law"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:21:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:50:38 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.

Free Market advocates want an end to violence. That is what Free means. It does not mean the "right to do anything", it means the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.

No, "peace" means an end to violence. "Free" means having freedoms. The full definition of freedom would include the liberties to do anything, including harm to others. Thus freedom necessarily has to be limited.

"Those opposed to the Free Market are those who wish to do harm to others."

The aim of government regulations is to protect others from being harmed by businesses.

"If you debate the specifics, you will always find this is so. Unfortunately, those in favor of violence generally prefer to avoid honest debate and engage in a great deal of Orwellian rhetoric to disguise the simple fact that what they want is to steal."

Steal what exactly?
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 10:26:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:21:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:50:38 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.

Free Market advocates want an end to violence. That is what Free means. It does not mean the "right to do anything", it means the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.

No, "peace" means an end to violence. "Free" means having freedoms. The full definition of freedom would include the liberties to do anything, including harm to others. Thus freedom necessarily has to be limited.

Amazing word gaming. Obviously if the full definition of freedom includes harming others, then those others who are harmed would no longer have freedom, so there would not be a free market. Political and market freedom does indeed mean the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others. Redefining the term by dropping the context of the discussion is invalid. You are equating "freedom" and "dictatorship" (the freedom of one person to oppress everyone else). Word gaming.

"Those opposed to the Free Market are those who wish to do harm to others."

The aim of government regulations is to protect others from being harmed by businesses.

More word gaming. A business is a group of individuals. Government is a group of individuals. All individuals are capable of doing harm. But doing harm in the name of preventing harm is doing harm nevertheless. Regulation is prior restraint, is a harm, and is a wrong.

"If you debate the specifics, you will always find this is so. Unfortunately, those in favor of violence generally prefer to avoid honest debate and engage in a great deal of Orwellian rhetoric to disguise the simple fact that what they want is to steal."

Steal what exactly?

The freedom to trade voluntarily. If I am prevented by you from trading what I own, then you are its owner, not me. That is stealing. Ownership means the right to control and to dispose of property. If you are controlling "my" property, it is not my property any longer. Pretending that you know what is best for other adults and that this knowledge gives you the right to force yourself on them is the excuse of all the violent parasites who call themselves government. Their main activity is stealing, whether they call it "revenue enhancement" or "regulation".
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 11:12:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 10:26:14 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:21:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:50:38 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.

Free Market advocates want an end to violence. That is what Free means. It does not mean the "right to do anything", it means the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.

No, "peace" means an end to violence. "Free" means having freedoms. The full definition of freedom would include the liberties to do anything, including harm to others. Thus freedom necessarily has to be limited.

Amazing word gaming. Obviously if the full definition of freedom includes harming others, then those others who are harmed would no longer have freedom, so there would not be a free market. Political and market freedom does indeed mean the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others. Redefining the term by dropping the context of the discussion is invalid. You are equating "freedom" and "dictatorship" (the freedom of one person to oppress everyone else). Word gaming.

Hardly word gaming. Freedom has little relation to violence. Obviously nobody can have full freedom because then they would have the freedom to remove the freedom of others. Freedom has to be limited in order to work. Presently, it is, and so it functions.

"Those opposed to the Free Market are those who wish to do harm to others."

The aim of government regulations is to protect others from being harmed by businesses.

More word gaming. A business is a group of individuals. Government is a group of individuals. All individuals are capable of doing harm. But doing harm in the name of preventing harm is doing harm nevertheless. Regulation is prior restraint, is a harm, and is a wrong.

Except that businesses are not directly harmed. They are merely prevented from having the freedom to harm employees. Regulation is absolutely necessary because, without it, businesses would exploit the workers just like they presently do in China. I'm sure you know all about the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age, when businesses were not regulated. And what happened as a result? Child labour. Huge fatality rates. The Triangle Shirtwaste Factory. Ungodly working hours for ungodly pathetic wages.

"If you debate the specifics, you will always find this is so. Unfortunately, those in favor of violence generally prefer to avoid honest debate and engage in a great deal of Orwellian rhetoric to disguise the simple fact that what they want is to steal."

Steal what exactly?

The freedom to trade voluntarily. If I am prevented by you from trading what I own, then you are its owner, not me. That is stealing. Ownership means the right to control and to dispose of property. If you are controlling "my" property, it is not my property any longer. Pretending that you know what is best for other adults and that this knowledge gives you the right to force yourself on them is the excuse of all the violent parasites who call themselves government. Their main activity is stealing, whether they call it "revenue enhancement" or "regulation".

Businesses are not prevented from trading what they own. They are rightful limits on what and how they can obtain things. This is not theft. Regulation is only theft in the sense that it removes the businesses' freedom to exploit the workers. At the very least, it is necessary. Government (in the US) constitutes elected officials, not tyrannical individuals, and it needs to impose some rules on the public lest we witness the worst tyranny of all - the tyranny of the majority. Absolute freedom is tyranny.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:12:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2013 9:21:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:50:38 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.

Free Market advocates want an end to violence. That is what Free means. It does not mean the "right to do anything", it means the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.

No, "peace" means an end to violence. "Free" means having freedoms. The full definition of freedom would include the liberties to do anything, including harm to others. Thus freedom necessarily has to be limited.

"Those opposed to the Free Market are those who wish to do harm to others."

The aim of government regulations is to protect others from being harmed by businesses.

"If you debate the specifics, you will always find this is so. Unfortunately, those in favor of violence generally prefer to avoid honest debate and engage in a great deal of Orwellian rhetoric to disguise the simple fact that what they want is to steal."

Steal what exactly?

Hello, Endark. Nice to see you here. lol
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:15:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 11:12:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:21:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:50:38 AM, Howardofski wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:10:44 AM, aicram62 wrote:
I think the Free Market advocates seem to want the right to do anything to get the advantage over their opponent. How is that working out for us? And if it's not working why can't we talk about other options.

Free Market advocates want an end to violence. That is what Free means. It does not mean the "right to do anything", it means the right to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.

No, "peace" means an end to violence. "Free" means having freedoms. The full definition of freedom would include the liberties to do anything, including harm to others. Thus freedom necessarily has to be limited.

"Those opposed to the Free Market are those who wish to do harm to others."

The aim of government regulations is to protect others from being harmed by businesses.

"If you debate the specifics, you will always find this is so. Unfortunately, those in favor of violence generally prefer to avoid honest debate and engage in a great deal of Orwellian rhetoric to disguise the simple fact that what they want is to steal."

Steal what exactly?

Hello, Endark. Nice to see you here. lol

This is either coincidental or you just appreciate irony.