What IS The Free Market

[georgephillip]

Exactly. You want the people who do the things you value to have more money, more economic power, right? A free market makes it possible for each of us to do that. It allows us to invest our money freely, as individuals, according to our own values and priorities.

A free market contrived by oligarchs doesn't allow for any values or priorities other than those compatible with their own. You might imagine you are investing your money freely, but the fix is in.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. You want the people who do the things you value to have more money, more economic power, right? A free market makes it possible for each of us to do that. It allows us to invest our money freely, as individuals, according to our own values and priorities.

A free market contrived by oligarchs doesn't allow for any values or priorities other than those compatible with their own. You might imagine you are investing your money freely, but the fix is in.

Well sure. A market "contrived by oligarchs", by definition, isn't free.

 

[georgephillip]

What do you mean? I think we should each be free to spend our money how we like, on the things we value. I don't see what that has to do with casinos.

Are we discussing financial markets?

"Casino Capitalism, a book of prophetic insight written in the early 1970s, was indeed about how a new world of global finance, independent of states and of industrial production, had begun to emerge.

"It had been made possible by Richard Nixon's cutting the link of the dollar to gold in 1971 and by new forms of global communications technology.

"The 'casino' in the title refers not to the role of speculation and gambling in world finance, but to the fact that, for the first time in history, global markets were open twenty-four hours a day."
The revenge of ideas Karl Polanyi and Susan Strange openDemocracy

 

[dblack]

What do you mean? I think we should each be free to spend our money how we like, on the things we value. I don't see what that has to do with casinos.

Are we discussing financial markets?

I was merely questioning the idea that unequal economic power is a bad thing.

 

[ralfy]

. Competition is what prevents greed not capitalism.

Dear, competition is a critical part of capitalism and not socialism so it is 100% accurate and descriptive to say Republican capitalism prevents greed. How to you bring about competition after you have decided it is a good thing? You bring it about through the imposition of capitalism.

Do you understand?

Capitalism doesn't prevent greed but enhances it.

Capitalism isn't imposed. Rather, it imposes.

Finally, capitalism is based on increasing use of resources and energy. Given physical limitations of the biosphere, it is not sustainable.

 

[ralfy]

So provide an example of a command economy that isn't socialism. We'd all like to know how this mirical works.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

It should, but it ultimately can't because it works for business, especially Big Business.

 

[ralfy]

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation?

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

it's Darwinian and liberals are anti science!!

Special Ed..... please.

" Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic powerunequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing."

The catch is that unequal power counters free markets.

 

[ralfy]

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Markets are political creations. They can be under democratic control or oligarchic control. Town drunks are less of a threat to society than central bankers.

What should be noted, though, is that the main entities that dominate the global economy are not central banks or even government institutions.

 

[ralfy]

Elizabeth Warren or Ralph Nader would use their power to advance democratic control of markets.

actually dear socialism killed 120 million through slow starvation.

And if it doesn't slow down, global market capitalism will lead to more crises:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

 

[dblack]

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation?

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

it's Darwinian and liberals are anti science!!

Special Ed..... please.

" Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic powerunequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing."

The catch is that unequal power counters free markets.

How so? To be clear, I'm talking about economic power, not state power.

 

[georgephillip]

I was merely questioning the idea that unequal economic power is a bad thing.

Financial markets which are independent of states and production seems to me an example of when unequal economic power is a bad thing?

 

[dblack]

I was merely questioning the idea that unequal economic power is a bad thing.

Financial markets which are independent of states and production seems to me an example of when unequal economic power is a bad thing?

It's not clear to me what you mean by 'independent of states and production'. I don't see trade conducted independent of the state as a bad thing - quite the opposite. I'm not sure what a market 'independent of production' means, or why it would be inherently bad.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not sure what a market 'independent of production' means, or why it would be inherently bad.

Financial derivatives markets would seem to be one example. global bond value at the end of 2013 totaled 22.8 trillion. Global equities for 2014 was estimated at about $50 trillion. The total turnover and nominal value of derivatives in 2013 was $1,886 trillion. Derivatives are a prime example of trade conducted independent of production and the state, and their destructive potential represents a real threat to the real economy.

Coursera - Free Online Courses From Top Universities

^^^That link will take you to a free MOOC on the global political economy. The numbers I quoted were presented in Lecture 6.4 on Financial Markets.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what a market 'independent of production' means, or why it would be inherently bad.

Financial derivatives markets would seem to be one example. global bond value at the end of 2013 totaled 22.8 trillion. Global equities for 2014 was estimated at about $50 trillion. The total turnover and nominal value of derivatives in 2013 was $1,886 trillion. Derivatives are a prime example of trade conducted independent of production and the state, and their destructive potential represents a real threat to the real economy.

Coursera - Free Online Courses From Top Universities

^^^That link will take you to a free MOOC on the global political economy. The numbers I quoted were presented in Lecture 6.4 on Financial Markets.

I'll confess I'm not interested enough follow up on that, though I trust you that there's plenty of destructive corruption involved. But again, I was responding to what I took to be the general conviction that unequal economic power is inherently unfair, as though it goes against basic egalitarian principles and equal rights under the law.

I often see posts here intimating that it's wrong for some people to have more economic power than others. You seem to be applying the basic premise of democracy - one person/one vote - to economic relations, and I think that's a mistake.

 

[georgephillip]

I often see posts here intimating that it's wrong for some people to have more economic power than others. You seem to be applying the basic premise of democracy - one person/one vote - to economic relations, and I think that's a mistake.

We've just lived through an example of what happens when some people have more control over the economy than others. One person one vote works better for me than one dollar one vote. Boom and bust are baked into the capitalist cake, and giving the richest capitalists control over regulations designed to protect the majority from financial predators only ensures greater economic inequality for future generations.

 

[bripat9643]

Elizabeth Warren or Ralph Nader would use their power to advance democratic control of markets.

actually dear socialism killed 120 million through slow starvation.

And if it doesn't slow down, global market capitalism will lead to more crises:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Government meddling in the economy is what leads to crisis. Socialism leads to mass starvation.

 

[georgephillip]

Government meddling in the economy is what leads to crisis. Socialism leads to mass starvation

Would you prefer to elect government by virtue of one person one vote or one dollar one vote?

 

[bripat9643]

. Competition is what prevents greed not capitalism.

Dear, competition is a critical part of capitalism and not socialism so it is 100% accurate and descriptive to say Republican capitalism prevents greed. How to you bring about competition after you have decided it is a good thing? You bring it about through the imposition of capitalism.

Do you understand?

Capitalism doesn't prevent greed but enhances it.

Capitalism isn't imposed. Rather, it imposes.

Finally, capitalism is based on increasing use of resources and energy. Given physical limitations of the biosphere, it is not sustainable.

Capitalism harnesses greed, or more correctly, it harnesses self-interest. "Greed" is just a pejorative applied to those who are envied by the people using the term.

Capitalism is that social arrangement where government imposes nothing, so how is capitalism imposed?

As for it being "unsustainable," then you believe that man is doomed to live in poverty. That sure is a positive outlook on the future.

 

[bripat9643]

Government meddling in the economy is what leads to crisis. Socialism leads to mass starvation

Would you prefer to elect government by virtue of one person one vote or one dollar one vote?

I don't propose to have a government at all. Democracy is almost as bad as a dictatorship, and in some cases it's worse. All functions government performs should be replaced by private concerns.

 

[ralfy]

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

it's Darwinian and liberals are anti science!!

Special Ed..... please.

" Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic powerunequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing."

The catch is that unequal power counters free markets.

How so? To be clear, I'm talking about economic power, not state power.

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.