Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sell me on the Free Market

ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 7:35:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I'm considering Gary Johnson for my presidential vote. I like most of what he says, but I have reservations about the Free Market economic ideal.

The foundation of a Free Market is deregulating business. What regulations get in the way of business growth? Minimum wage is brought up often enough. Let the market decide the value of labor. How does the market do that? Supply and demand, of course. The problem there is that perception plays a big role in supply and demand, and perception can be manipulated.

Environmental regulations get in the way of business growth too. It's cheaper to dump toxic waste in a ditch or river than to safely dispose of it, so if you take away regulations like that businesses will do so without repercussion (some still do it now, but it's harder and there's a lot of risk).

How does a Free Market prevent monopolies? With technology rapidly advancing there will be new inventions that radically reduce the cost of business and when a single entity owns the right to that technology they will be able to drive all competitors out of business, buy them out, etc, and now the world is beholden to them.

Do we get rid of copyright and patent laws? Those are regulations preventing businesses from growing by copying competitors' ideas. Without patents how will a hardworking inventor every make money off of their inventions when someone else with a bigger wallet comes along and outproduces them?

I'm just pulling arguments out of my a** at this point. I'm just trying to get ideas flowing. What are the merits of a Free Market, how do we implement it, and how does it deal with corruption?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 11:13:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:35:46 PM, ZenBear wrote:

I don't have time right now, but I'll get back to this as soon as possible, assuming someone else doesn't jump in before me. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 12:26:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM, Semiya wrote:
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.

You sound like you need a helicopter ride.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 12:43:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM, Semiya wrote:
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.

And people call me a neo nazi
Im not a Nazi
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 2:21:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/9/2016 12:43:29 AM, Capital wrote:
At 9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM, Semiya wrote:
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.

And people call me a neo nazi

He/she was being sarcastic, but it was still stupid.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 6:49:48 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/9/2016 2:21:06 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 9/9/2016 12:43:29 AM, Capital wrote:
At 9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM, Semiya wrote:
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.

And people call me a neo nazi

He/she was being sarcastic, but it was still stupid.

Putting aside the sarcasm, what incentive is there to essentially regulate yourself in the interest of public health, safety, security, etc. if it would be more lucrative not to? When competition is everything, how do you justify taking an expense that your competitors don't? I often see people claim, "Well the consumers will just buy from the company with better ethics." That doesn't really work, though. Look at Walmart; incredibly successful because it offers the lowest prices, and it does so through paying its employees as little as they can get away with (as I understand it). Ethics don't matter to most people because many are barely scraping by and need whatever discount they can find, or just don't care enough about ethics to justify the cost.

Some companies go the extra mile and make it work. Costco pays well above the minimum wage, offers excellent benefits, and is still outstandingly successful. I don't know what kind of salary the CEO makes, but I doubt it's on the same level as the Waltons. Why are they able to do this? Is it the better option from a strictly financial perspective?
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 5:17:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:35:46 PM, ZenBear wrote:
I'm considering Gary Johnson for my presidential vote. I like most of what he says, but I have reservations about the Free Market economic ideal.

The foundation of a Free Market is deregulating business. What regulations get in the way of business growth? Minimum wage is brought up often enough. Let the market decide the value of labor. How does the market do that? Supply and demand, of course. The problem there is that perception plays a big role in supply and demand, and perception can be manipulated.


Incorrect the foundation of Free Market is voluntary exchange. Any regulation that prevent voluntary exchange prevent business growth. If someone is willing to working at a certain wage why stop them, it is their choice. The may or may not learn that their job is worth more, but that is their responsibility to learn that.

Environmental regulations get in the way of business growth too. It's cheaper to dump toxic waste in a ditch or river than to safely dispose of it, so if you take away regulations like that businesses will do so without repercussion (some still do it now, but it's harder and there's a lot of risk).


See EPA. Environmental regulations do more harm than good, and environmental harm is often overstated. For instance paper companies don't want to cut down all the tree because they need them to continue to be in business, so they always plant more. Economics is all about managing scarcity.

How does a Free Market prevent monopolies? With technology rapidly advancing there will be new inventions that radically reduce the cost of business and when a single entity owns the right to that technology they will be able to drive all competitors out of business, buy them out, etc, and now the world is beholden to them.


Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. In a free market however they benefit the consumer immensely. Say I am the only shop in town that makes rubber duckys. I can only charge so much, why? If I charge too much someone may spot an opportunity to come in as a competitor or people will no longer want rubber duckys. If I charge too little the business will go under. So by why of the free market I have to charge exactly what the consumer perceives to be the right price.
Now what is currently happening, is company A lobbied for protectionist policy that only allows a certain type of rubber to be used in toys. That rubber is produced by company B and is owned by company A. To prevent competition company A gets discounts on company B rubber and overcharges any other company. Company A is pulling in two streams of revenue and can charge whatever they want because they control the price of the rubber for other companies. This can't happen in a free market.

Do we get rid of copyright and patent laws? Those are regulations preventing businesses from growing by copying competitors' ideas. Without patents how will a hardworking inventor every make money off of their inventions when someone else with a bigger wallet comes along and outproduces them?


Yes. You make it and you make it the best. If I can take your design and make it better the world wins.

I'm just pulling arguments out of my a** at this point. I'm just trying to get ideas flowing. What are the merits of a Free Market, how do we implement it, and how does it deal with corruption?
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 5:28:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:35:46 PM, ZenBear wrote:

I'm just pulling arguments out of my a** at this point. I'm just trying to get ideas flowing. What are the merits of a Free Market, how do we implement it, and how does it deal with corruption?

Also Gary Johnson is an idiot and far from a believer in the Free Market.

Corruption self corrects in a free market. For instance, the reason Jim Crow was made law, was because businesses didn't care who was dining they only cared that they paid.

Implementing the Free Market happens on it's own. Black markets are a thriving example of people wanting to be free. If you took away regulation people would naturally engage in free market.
binkshimself
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 4:45:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Putting aside the sarcasm, what incentive is there to essentially regulate yourself in the interest of public health, safety, security, etc. if it would be more lucrative not to?

Explain when it has ever been lucrative to hurt, kill, or piss off your customers?

Sure, there are instances where a business does something sketchy and people find out about it. But most of the time these businesses are already regulated by some government entity which had no effect on them doing X immoral/irresponsible act. The reason a business will cater to the customer's wants and needs is because the wealth of the businessman depends on the customer. If we take the leftist narrative that capitalist businesses are greedy, then it makes sense for them to maximize present and future utility by NOT screwing over their customers.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

- Adam Smith
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:37:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:35:46 PM, ZenBear wrote:
I'm considering Gary Johnson for my presidential vote. I like most of what he says, but I have reservations about the Free Market economic ideal.

The foundation of a Free Market is deregulating business. What regulations get in the way of business growth? Minimum wage is brought up often enough. Let the market decide the value of labor. How does the market do that? Supply and demand, of course. The problem there is that perception plays a big role in supply and demand, and perception can be manipulated.

Environmental regulations get in the way of business growth too. It's cheaper to dump toxic waste in a ditch or river than to safely dispose of it, so if you take away regulations like that businesses will do so without repercussion (some still do it now, but it's harder and there's a lot of risk).

How does a Free Market prevent monopolies? With technology rapidly advancing there will be new inventions that radically reduce the cost of business and when a single entity owns the right to that technology they will be able to drive all competitors out of business, buy them out, etc, and now the world is beholden to them.

Do we get rid of copyright and patent laws? Those are regulations preventing businesses from growing by copying competitors' ideas. Without patents how will a hardworking inventor every make money off of their inventions when someone else with a bigger wallet comes along and outproduces them?

I'm just pulling arguments out of my a** at this point. I'm just trying to get ideas flowing. What are the merits of a Free Market, how do we implement it, and how does it deal with corruption?

Don't. The Free Market, quite simply, is a destructive social force that advocates the use of hierarchy to steal the surplus of workers and use it for your own profit.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 6:07:05 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/9/2016 6:49:48 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 9/9/2016 2:21:06 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 9/9/2016 12:43:29 AM, Capital wrote:
At 9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM, Semiya wrote:
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.

And people call me a neo nazi

He/she was being sarcastic, but it was still stupid.

Putting aside the sarcasm, what incentive is there to essentially regulate yourself in the interest of public health, safety, security, etc. if it would be more lucrative not to? When competition is everything, how do you justify taking an expense that your competitors don't? I often see people claim, "Well the consumers will just buy from the company with better ethics." That doesn't really work, though. Look at Walmart; incredibly successful because it offers the lowest prices, and it does so through paying its employees as little as they can get away with (as I understand it). Ethics don't matter to most people because many are barely scraping by and need whatever discount they can find, or just don't care enough about ethics to justify the cost.

Some companies go the extra mile and make it work. Costco pays well above the minimum wage, offers excellent benefits, and is still outstandingly successful. I don't know what kind of salary the CEO makes, but I doubt it's on the same level as the Waltons. Why are they able to do this? Is it the better option from a strictly financial perspective?

The best answer I can give, is to say that for any given question, see if the same problem can't be turned around on the government also. The question isn't whether the market is perfect, but rather what system best integrates the maximum amount of externalities possible. Yes, there are still externalities in a free market context, but these are by definition distributed to whatever degree it is possible to do so. Where power of decision is centralised, what is out of view is that much more difficult to integrate. It's simply a bias to set up a distinction and imagine one entity (e.g. the state) as benevolent and another (e.g. a firm) as selfishly motivated. We should compare the two possible distributions of power as abstract forms of society and see which exercises greater bias.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 6:28:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:37:08 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
Don't. The Free Market, quite simply, is a destructive social force that advocates the use of hierarchy to steal the surplus of workers and use it for your own profit.

Imagining "workers" to be a separate category is an obvious bias. Every relation in the free market is reversible, so there is no reified category like that. We could just as easily economically frame the employers as the customer, and the labour side as a firm. The labour theory emphasizes only the "supply" side of the curve, which is an absurd and flagrant example of prejudicing the analysis in advance.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 6:30:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 6:28:46 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:37:08 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
Don't. The Free Market, quite simply, is a destructive social force that advocates the use of hierarchy to steal the surplus of workers and use it for your own profit.

Imagining "workers" to be a separate category is an obvious bias. Every relation in the free market is reversible, so there is no reified category like that. We could just as easily economically frame the employers as the customer, and the labour side as a firm. The labour theory emphasizes only the "supply" side of the curve, which is an absurd and flagrant example of prejudicing the analysis in advance.

Then how is it that there is a very obvious gap between the working classes, and the upper classes? There's very clearly the people who work and live on the unlivable wage and are subject to wage slavery, and those who live off of them and make all of the money
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 7:00:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 6:30:44 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 6:28:46 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:37:08 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
Don't. The Free Market, quite simply, is a destructive social force that advocates the use of hierarchy to steal the surplus of workers and use it for your own profit.

Imagining "workers" to be a separate category is an obvious bias. Every relation in the free market is reversible, so there is no reified category like that. We could just as easily economically frame the employers as the customer, and the labour side as a firm. The labour theory emphasizes only the "supply" side of the curve, which is an absurd and flagrant example of prejudicing the analysis in advance.

Then how is it that there is a very obvious gap between the working classes, and the upper classes? There's very clearly the people who work and live on the unlivable wage and are subject to wage slavery, and those who live off of them and make all of the money

There's a supply / demand problem with workers, and firms who want to buy that work. This means either that the number of firms (i.e. customers) is being artificially held down (e.g. by over-regulation) or that the workers need to change the nature of what they're selling. If you want to see what I'm talking about, it's basically just a variation of the deadweight loss problem as represented via a supply / demand curve. The very fact that there's an oversupply of labour (or any other commodity) indicates that kind of problem, since at equilibrium, nobody would be selling anything for less than the trouble it's worth.

This is the structural reason in the system. However, we should keep in mind also that what we live in now is not capitalism but bureaucratism. Also, there is the influence of technology: every instance of progress in technology transforms a bundle of middle-level skilled jobs into a few very high-level jobs managing the technology, and perhaps some low-level ones maintaining it. However, this is only a temporary influence, and its deadening effect on the economy would not take hold in a free market, where people would be able to spread out again and find an engagement equivalent to their level of skill.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 7:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 11:25:16 PM, Semiya wrote:
The free market is a magical and benevolent god that only loves you and wants your happiness. Never mind that it would build orphanages out of arsenic and the bones of dead puppies if that would save it a nickel and there weren't regulations against it.

When we're talking about the economy itself, saving a nickel and saving lives mean the same thing. There's just profit and loss, and structural differences in how different societies decide who dictates the distribution: all else is a particular preference about how that wealth is used. The delusion of the statist is to imagine that any orphanage has been built because of the benevolence of a state, or due to the dialectical movement of society. It's individual people who get orphanages built: people who demand something better, and are ready to put that demand into action.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 7:52:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/9/2016 5:17:19 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
Incorrect the foundation of Free Market is voluntary exchange. Any regulation that prevent voluntary exchange prevent business growth. If someone is willing to working at a certain wage why stop them, it is their choice. The may or may not learn that their job is worth more, but that is their responsibility to learn that.

Hard to learn these things when the information is hidden or suppressed. Businesses can still keep their books private, ergo the real value of their workers will be indeterminate. Beyond that, not everything is understandable by a layman. How is an average citizen supposed to research and understand every drug a doctor might prescribe, or pharmaceutical company advertises to treat a disease the citizen may or may not have, while still maintaining their own life and business skills?

See EPA. Environmental regulations do more harm than good, and environmental harm is often overstated. For instance paper companies don't want to cut down all the tree because they need them to continue to be in business, so they always plant more. Economics is all about managing scarcity.

Straw man. There is a direct monetary incentive for paper companies to plant trees. There is no such incentive for an auto shop to safely dispose of its toxic waste instead of dumping it into a sewer/local water supply.

Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. In a free market however they benefit the consumer immensely. Say I am the only shop in town that makes rubber duckys. I can only charge so much, why? If I charge too much someone may spot an opportunity to come in as a competitor or people will no longer want rubber duckys. If I charge too little the business will go under. So by why of the free market I have to charge exactly what the consumer perceives to be the right price.
Now what is currently happening, is company A lobbied for protectionist policy that only allows a certain type of rubber to be used in toys. That rubber is produced by company B and is owned by company A. To prevent competition company A gets discounts on company B rubber and overcharges any other company. Company A is pulling in two streams of revenue and can charge whatever they want because they control the price of the rubber for other companies. This can't happen in a free market.

Or Company A is the manufacturer and the distributor, and now nobody can compete with their prices because they have a monopoly on the entire process. Instead of talking about rubber duckies, let's talk about pharmaceuticals again. A drug that is necessary for survival by a certain population has its price inflated because it has captive customers, and trying to compete with the product is prohibitively expensive from R&D to distribution. Remember, the original company could own all the current distributors all around the nation in the best locations, and trying to not only recreate the product but also buy in to existing distribution channels (unlikely, since they're owned by the competition) or build new ones all together is obscenely expensive.

Yes. You make it and you make it the best. If I can take your design and make it better the world wins.

Until the wealthiest people in the world throw their money into every race, outproducing all their competition because they can throw more resources at it faster and more efficiently than any up-and-coming competitor. Then, with no competition left, they can charge whatever they can get away with, and keep their employees (which would be a gigantic portion of the population) working for slave wages.

At 9/9/2016 5:28:17 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
Corruption self corrects in a free market.

How?

At 9/10/2016 4:45:32 AM, binkshimself wrote:
Explain when it has ever been lucrative to hurt, kill, or piss off your customers?

Chemotherapy, and pharmaceuticals in general. Better to keep them sick so they keep paying for treatment.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Sure, there are instances where a business does something sketchy and people find out about it. But most of the time these businesses are already regulated by some government entity which had no effect on them doing X immoral/irresponsible act. The reason a business will cater to the customer's wants and needs is because the wealth of the businessman depends on the customer. If we take the leftist narrative that capitalist businesses are greedy, then it makes sense for them to maximize present and future utility by NOT screwing over their customers.

Assuming they care about the future beyond their own lifespans, which many don't. There are also many cases of business doing shady things and nobody finds out until it's far too late, and I guarantee there are businesses doing shady things that nobody has, or likely ever will find out about. Just because government regulation doesn't always stop this doesn't mean we should decriminalize it.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 7:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
What prevents a Free Market from becoming a Plutocracy when the wealthiest people in the world can, instead of competing with every entrepreneur that comes along, ally with each other to suppress the population, through misinformation, crippled education systems, slave wages and monopolies?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 8:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 7:57:52 PM, ZenBear wrote:
What prevents a Free Market from becoming a Plutocracy when the wealthiest people in the world can, instead of competing with every entrepreneur that comes along, ally with each other to suppress the population, through misinformation, crippled education systems, slave wages and monopolies?

The incentives wouldn't be distributed that way. There is no state there ensuring that the determinants are all coordinated such that the revenue each party would gain in participating in such a cartel outweigh the costs. Accurate information, for example, is a kind of commodity for which consumers have a high demand.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 11:11:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 8:15:47 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/10/2016 7:57:52 PM, ZenBear wrote:
What prevents a Free Market from becoming a Plutocracy when the wealthiest people in the world can, instead of competing with every entrepreneur that comes along, ally with each other to suppress the population, through misinformation, crippled education systems, slave wages and monopolies?

The incentives wouldn't be distributed that way. There is no state there ensuring that the determinants are all coordinated such that the revenue each party would gain in participating in such a cartel outweigh the costs. Accurate information, for example, is a kind of commodity for which consumers have a high demand.

How did you come to this opinion? Why does there need to be a state (I assume you mean public government) in order to coordinate the deal?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 11:19:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 11:11:46 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 9/10/2016 8:15:47 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/10/2016 7:57:52 PM, ZenBear wrote:
What prevents a Free Market from becoming a Plutocracy when the wealthiest people in the world can, instead of competing with every entrepreneur that comes along, ally with each other to suppress the population, through misinformation, crippled education systems, slave wages and monopolies?

The incentives wouldn't be distributed that way. There is no state there ensuring that the determinants are all coordinated such that the revenue each party would gain in participating in such a cartel outweigh the costs. Accurate information, for example, is a kind of commodity for which consumers have a high demand.

How did you come to this opinion? Why does there need to be a state (I assume you mean public government) in order to coordinate the deal?

There needs to be a state to give corporations such power. That's what he meant.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 11:25:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 6:30:44 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 9/10/2016 6:28:46 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/10/2016 5:37:08 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
Don't. The Free Market, quite simply, is a destructive social force that advocates the use of hierarchy to steal the surplus of workers and use it for your own profit.

Imagining "workers" to be a separate category is an obvious bias. Every relation in the free market is reversible, so there is no reified category like that. We could just as easily economically frame the employers as the customer, and the labour side as a firm. The labour theory emphasizes only the "supply" side of the curve, which is an absurd and flagrant example of prejudicing the analysis in advance.

Then how is it that there is a very obvious gap between the working classes, and the upper classes? There's very clearly the people who work and live on the unlivable wage and are subject to wage slavery, and those who live off of them and make all of the money

You say that as if it's a surprise that individuals working at better and more competitive jobs make more money. How is rewarding harder work and education a bad aspect of a system?

And once again, as you've refused to answer my previous posts, can you define what wage slavery is, rather than spouting on about it as if quixotically?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 11:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 11:25:09 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You say that as if it's a surprise that individuals working at better and more competitive jobs make more money. How is rewarding harder work and education a bad aspect of a system?

And once again, as you've refused to answer my previous posts, can you define what wage slavery is, rather than spouting on about it as if quixotically?

Ever heard of Google?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
You're under the assumption that everyone making higher wages worked hard for their positions, which is incredibly naive. Education is cost prohibitive, both in time and money, and many people work extremely hard balancing two jobs putting in over 16 hours/day not including transit time and never see a dime go to savings or anything other than paying for the bare necessities.

At 9/10/2016 11:19:57 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
There needs to be a state to give corporations such power. That's what he meant.

How so? If they have the money to outproduce their competition, innovate faster with a higher R&D budget, advertise better, and control the information that is available to consumers through ownership of the media and enough disinformation on the net to dissuade people from believing anything they read even when it's true, what can a small business do to compete?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:17:27 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 11:37:43 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 9/10/2016 11:19:57 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
There needs to be a state to give corporations such power. That's what he meant.

How so? If they have the money to outproduce their competition, innovate faster with a higher R&D budget, advertise better, and control the information that is available to consumers through ownership of the media and enough disinformation on the net to dissuade people from believing anything they read even when it's true, what can a small business do to compete?

ZenBear, I will try and give you my arguments within the next day or so. If I forget, just send me a PM and I'll give you my line of logic. I'd like to discuss your skepticisms in more detail soon.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:30:46 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 11:11:46 PM, ZenBear wrote:
At 9/10/2016 8:15:47 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/10/2016 7:57:52 PM, ZenBear wrote:
What prevents a Free Market from becoming a Plutocracy when the wealthiest people in the world can, instead of competing with every entrepreneur that comes along, ally with each other to suppress the population, through misinformation, crippled education systems, slave wages and monopolies?

The incentives wouldn't be distributed that way. There is no state there ensuring that the determinants are all coordinated such that the revenue each party would gain in participating in such a cartel outweigh the costs. Accurate information, for example, is a kind of commodity for which consumers have a high demand.

How did you come to this opinion? Why does there need to be a state (I assume you mean public government) in order to coordinate the deal?

When you describe the flaws in what the cartel is doing (proving bad information, underpaying workers and so on) what you are describing are gaps in the market. A gap in the market is an incentive to compete, it is a possible source of profit for a competitor.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:57:43 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 3:30:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
When you describe the flaws in what the cartel is doing (proving bad information, underpaying workers and so on) what you are describing are gaps in the market. A gap in the market is an incentive to compete, it is a possible source of profit for a competitor.

An incentive, sure, but that doesn't mean they have the capacity to compete. Create enough income inequality and nobody will have the capital to get a business of the ground. Or you threaten them with violence, trash their business, buy out their suppliers/distributors, etc.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:45:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 3:57:43 AM, ZenBear wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:30:46 AM, sdavio wrote:
When you describe the flaws in what the cartel is doing (proving bad information, underpaying workers and so on) what you are describing are gaps in the market. A gap in the market is an incentive to compete, it is a possible source of profit for a competitor.

An incentive, sure, but that doesn't mean they have the capacity to compete. Create enough income inequality and nobody will have the capital to get a business of the ground. Or you threaten them with violence, trash their business, buy out their suppliers/distributors, etc.

The more monopolistic the cartel grows, the incentive associated with competition grows in exact proportion. The existence of a monopoly super powered enough to transcend this balance presumes state intervention, since no other firm could gain enough leverage to outbid the buying power of the rest of the entire economy combined.

Trashing other businesses and stuff like that is no different in principle than just providing a worse quality product to consumers. In this case it would be obvious, for instance, if I asked, "why doesn't a particular firm accumulate enough wealth that they can stand to lose some, and then just provide an inferior product and overcharge for it?" The answer is of course that it's within their rights to do so, but they will underperform in the market.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 6:18:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Restrictions upon the free action of that cartel are limited, not just by competitors within the same field, but by the weight of the entire economy as a whole. I think this can be obscured by the fact that the government combines many disparate industries, no matter how unrelated, within a single cartel - this would clearly be impossible within a free market. There is no reason that the firm involved in educating two year olds should decide to set up a parallel enterprise providing national defense, health care, insurance and so on.

Once the case of disequilibrium in S/D gets bad enough, competition becomes a factor not only from competitors within the same industry, but from all other industries in the economy. To take a simple example, if the industry is books in print, at some point people would start to read ebooks instead, then maybe doing something totally different like watching tv shows or looking at the same information online. However, this itself is an absurd situation since the reward involved in competing should be so high at this point that people would be flooding in from all corners to attempt it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 1:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
And once again, as you've refused to answer my previous posts

Maybe he dislikes being stalked.
Meh!
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:38:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 1:34:47 PM, Axonly wrote:
And once again, as you've refused to answer my previous posts

Maybe he dislikes being stalked.

Stalked? I would suggest you understand that this is a public forum site before making these petulant accusations.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.