What IS The Free Market

[dblack]

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.

Regardless of what we just lived through (I'd argue that it's most often state policy, or more accurately, ill-considered manipulation of state policy, that triggers market failures) applying democracy to our economic decisions is tantamount to totalitarian government in my view. Government power should be limited, ideally by a concise constitution, to those situations where coercive force is actually necessary. Nearly every decision we make can be characterized as 'economic' in nature, and I don't want to see government wield such a pervasive power over individual decisions.

 

[dblack]

. 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.

Alternately, it's a term used to describe those who let powerful ambition cloud their moral judgement, who indulge in graft, fraud and deceit to achieve their ends. But free markets don't endorse this kind of greed. Indeed, they can't function properly if it's allowed.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

As a congenital idiot, you are suggesting an economic model that has NEVER existed, and never will. You are proposing libertarian goals and a pure capitalist model that goes against the will of the population, and therefor can only move to non democratic government and end up like Somalia. Or, do you have a successful example of your Conservative wet dream?

 

[dblack]

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.

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Since power is a natural monopoly and governments were created to ensure public control over the monopoly of power, which private institutions would you trust enough to replace government?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

Sure. Of course. I'm just waiting to see what kind of ridiculous fantasy scenario you dream up to claim it wouldn't work.

 

[georgephillip]

Regardless of what we just lived through (I'd argue that it's most often state policy, or more accurately, ill-considered manipulation of state policy, that triggers market failures) applying democracy to our economic decisions is tantamount to totalitarian government in my view.

Let's try a specific example of government intervention in the stock market in 1982. John Shad, a former vice-chairman of EF Hutton and the first Wall Street insider to head the SEC in 50 years, rolled back restrictions on stock buybacks. Today, Shad's use of government power transfers $1 trillion/ year that once went to wages and other forms of production to corporate profits. This represents a wealth transfer from the lower 80% of households to the top 1%. Do you believe the blame for this manipulation lies with too much democracy in government or too much money in government?
"During the Reagan years, the SEC began to roll back those rules. The commission’s chairman from 1981 to 1987 was John Shad, a former vice chairman of E.F. Hutton and the first Wall Street insider to lead the commission in 50 years. He believed that the deregulation of securities markets would channel savings into economic investments more efficiently and that the isolated cases of fraud and manipulation that might go undetected did not justify onerous disclosure requirements for companies. The SEC’s adoption of Rule 10b-18 reflected that point of view."
Profits Without Prosperity - HBR

 

[dblack]

Do you believe the blame for this manipulation lies with too much democracy in government or too much money in government?

I'm not sure what either of those choices mean.
Nor would I claim to know who is to blame. But the manipulation wouldn't be possible without the regulatory infrastructure.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm not sure what either of those choices mean.
Nor would I claim to know who is to blame. But the manipulation wouldn't be possible without the regulatory infrastructure.

What would exist in the absence of the regulatory infrastructure, feudalism, anarchy, or...?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure what either of those choices mean.
Nor would I claim to know who is to blame. But the manipulation wouldn't be possible without the regulatory infrastructure.

What would exist in the absence of the regulatory infrastructure, feudalism, anarchy, or...?

We had no "regulator infrastructure" before the FDR Administration. What did we have before that? Is that your conception of Feudalism or anarchy?

 

[bripat9643]

Regardless of what we just lived through (I'd argue that it's most often state policy, or more accurately, ill-considered manipulation of state policy, that triggers market failures) applying democracy to our economic decisions is tantamount to totalitarian government in my view.

Let's try a specific example of government intervention in the stock market in 1982. John Shad, a former vice-chairman of EF Hutton and the first Wall Street insider to head the SEC in 50 years, rolled back restrictions on stock buybacks. Today, Shad's use of government power transfers $1 trillion/ year that once went to wages and other forms of production to corporate profits. This represents a wealth transfer from the lower 80% of households to the top 1%. Do you believe the blame for this manipulation lies with too much democracy in government or too much money in government?
"During the Reagan years, the SEC began to roll back those rules. The commission’s chairman from 1981 to 1987 was John Shad, a former vice chairman of E.F. Hutton and the first Wall Street insider to lead the commission in 50 years. He believed that the deregulation of securities markets would channel savings into economic investments more efficiently and that the isolated cases of fraud and manipulation that might go undetected did not justify onerous disclosure requirements for companies. The SEC’s adoption of Rule 10b-18 reflected that point of view."
Profits Without Prosperity - HBR

Your belief that profits would have gone to wages is totally unfounded. On reason wages are staying down is the fact that we are importing all kinds of low wage competition. That includes competition for high tech jobs. There are millions of Indians working here on H1-Bs. These people depress the wages that technical people can earn.

It has nothing to do with corporate profits. Corporations have to pay according to the supply and demand for labor. Since the Democrats have been in charge of immigration the supply is greater than the demand.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what either of those choices mean.
Nor would I claim to know who is to blame. But the manipulation wouldn't be possible without the regulatory infrastructure.

What would exist in the absence of the regulatory infrastructure, feudalism, anarchy, or...?

Free markets and ordinary law and order.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Since power is a natural monopoly and governments were created to ensure public control over the monopoly of power, which private institutions would you trust enough to replace government?

What the hell does "power is a natural monopoly" mean?

 

[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.

As a congenital idiot, you are suggesting an economic model that has NEVER existed, and never will. You are proposing libertarian goals and a pure capitalist model that goes against the will of the population, and therefor can only move to non democratic government and end up like Somalia. Or, do you have a successful example of your Conservative wet dream?

What is the economic model the leftwing schemes are based on? When has it ever existed?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Really? Who took over?

 

[georgephillip]

We had no "regulator infrastructure" before the FDR Administration. What did we have before that? Is that your conception of Feudalism or anarchy?

"Free market capitalism?"

 

[bripat9643]

We had no "regulator infrastructure" before the FDR Administration. What did we have before that? Is that your conception of Feudalism or anarchy?

"Free market capitalism?"

Pretty close. So you admit that we didn't have either Feudalism or anarchy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

governments were created to ensure public control over the monopoly of power,

dear, govts are monopolies and as such out Founders thought them the source of evil in human history and that was without seeing the great 20Century liberal monopolists: Hitler Stalin and Mao.

Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are proposing libertarian goals and a pure capitalist model that goes against the will of the population,

dear, the American revolution was opposed or ignored by 2/3 of the population.

 

[georgephillip]

What the hell does "power is a natural monopoly" mean?

Natural Monopoly Economics Help
Society has decided the power over the natural monopoly of violence is best controlled through government working in the best interests of all its citizens.

Do you have a better idea?