Free Market Regulation Question

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by poet1b

 

"The law" just took several trillion of your tax dollars and handed it to banks and corporations in the form of bailouts.

Great system you are supporting there.

The bailouts were facilitated by applying free market principles to a highly regulated system.

The free market principles were designed to undermine the regulatory system that worked for
50 years and more. That is what you ignore in your analysis

reply to post by imherejusttoread

I rarely live with law and order right now.

Do you live out in the jungle somewhere?

Or do you live in a city in the U.S.? If so, then you live in a community with an established law and order which allows you to live the life you live. The problem is that you take it all for granted, and that is where your unrealistic ideals about economics come into play.

The law of supply and demand also creates demand for leg breakers to force people to do as they are told. The Law of supply and demand does not protect people, create competition or efficiency, or prevent fraud.

The same flaw that exists in communism also exists in free market economics. People will take advantage any time the opportunity presents itself, and this concept that economics can somehow replace government, as both ideologies claim, is simply not feasible.

You are trying to claim that economic incentives alone will drive out the criminal element, when all historical evidence points out that this is not true.

Originally posted by poet1b
Do you live out in the jungle somewhere?

Or do you live in a city in the U.S.? If so, then you live in a community with an established law and order which allows you to live the life you live. The problem is that you take it all for granted.

I live on a piece of private property, willingly, surrounded by people who possess private property just like me; we pay taxes which support the roads we drive on, the police and emergency services that we may or may not utilize. We use the services of businesses with electricity, heat, cable, and other services we deem desirable.

There is absolutely no reason why all of these can't be provided without the existence of a state that does it at gun point.

The law of supply and demand also creates demand for leg breakers to force people to do as they are told. The Law of supply and demand does not protect people, create competition or efficiency, or prevent fraud.

You're contradicting yourself: you say that the law of supply and demand may produce violent individuals? Then it will also produce the means to mitigate that violence through the services above.

People will take advantage any time the opportunity presents itself

So lets centralize people, give them guns, a lawful monopoly on violence, and then expect that to deter crime. If people take advantage of any time the opportunity presents itself then it's even further illogical to give them the tools to do it more destructively. You subscribe to this, apparently:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Well Mr. LeFevre counters with:

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Originally posted by poet1b
this concept that economics can somehow replace government, as both ideologies claim, is simply not feasible.

Ignorance of economics does not make economics ignorant.

Economics produces law/politics, not vice versa. Law/politics is a consequence of economics.

You are trying to claim that economic incentives alone will drive out the criminal element

No, but it will provide all individuals with the best possible realistic solution to peace, as Milton Friedman said:

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.

Originally posted by poet1b
when all historical evidence points out that this is not true.

That's intellectually dishonest because i've provided you with lots of material to read and decide on, but it seems you're not interested in hearing things contrary to your own ignorance. I will make this point, however: you cannot name me one incident in history where the mass murdering of people was not the result of a government/state, and the reason is, as Albert Jay Nock said:

The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class—that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose.

A restricted market would work well especially restricting all that junk that gets imported in from china and other cheap labour markets. Also regulating the under/oversupply of some products.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
...What? Scarcity is the product of nature, not anyone manipulating the laws of physics for their selfish desires.

Right, then why are monopolies frowned upon?

Free-markets don't exist because it reduces power, not because someone always ends up in power. If the free-market always leads to putting someone in power then it wasn't a free-market and the free-market is the solution to removing power, whether that be through counter-economics or migration.

How is this different to what I posted? Free markets are not real and never have been. The ones that end up in power won't let them happen.

Originally posted by daskakik
Right, then why are monopolies frowned upon?

Because monopolies can't exist without state intervention i.e. a particular group of people are being favored over another. The only reasons monopolies may partially form is because the services provided are inferior to it's competitions and thus in order to stay afloat (like the numerous bailouts by the US), they would need to seek government assistance to regulate their competition. If there was no centralized government then the mechanism for establishing a monopoly isn't there:

the Mises analysis also supplies us the answer to the age-old criticism leveled at the unhampered, unregulated free-market economy: what if all firms banded together
into One Big Firm that would exercise a monopoly over the economy equivalent to socialism? The answer would be that such a firm could not calculate because of the absence of a market, and therefore that it would suffer grave losses and dislocations. Hence, while a socialist planning board need not worry about losses that would be made up by the taxpayer, One Big Firm would soon find itself suffering severe losses and would therefore disintegrate under this pressure. We might extend this analysis even further. For it seems to follow that, as we approach One Big Firm on the market, as mergers begin to eliminate capital goods markets in industry after industry, these calculation problems will begin to appear, albeit not as catastrophically as under full monopoly. In the same way the Soviet Union suffers calculation problems, albeit not so severe as would be the case were the entire world to be absorbed into the Soviet Union with the disappearance of the world market. If, then, calculation problems begin to arise as markets disappear, this places a free-market limit, not simply on One Big Firm, but even on partial monopolies that eradicate markets. Hence, the free market contains within itself a built-in mechanism limiting the relative size of firms in order to preserve markets throughout the economy. This point also serves to extend the notable analysis of Professor Coase on the market determinants of the size of the firm, or of the relative extent of corporate planning[...] Our thesis adds that the costs of internal corporate planning become prohibitive as soon as markets for capital goods begin to disappear, so that the free-market optimum will always stop well short not only of One Big Firm throughout the world market but also of any disappearance of specific markets and hence of economic calculation in that product or resource.

Originally posted by daskakik
How is this different to what I posted? Free markets are not real and never have been. The ones that end up in power won't let them happen.

Well, I should clarify by saying absolute free-markets don't exist. However, you can usually determine the state of an economy according to the governing body that market is in. The less government there is the more free the market will be.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
Because monopolies can't exist without state intervention i.e. a particular group of people are being favored over another.

People can manipulate supply and create artifical scarcity. It doesn't take a monopoly to manipulate a market. That was just one example of how it happens.

Local monopolies can exist without a state. Like poet1b's example of one store owner running the competition out of town. You can argue that the other store owner can defend himself, but if there is no fear of persecution, then sooner or later there will only be one general store in town.

Well, I should clarify by saying absolute free-markets don't exist. However, you can usually determine the state of an economy according to the governing body that market is in. The less government there is the more free the market will be.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that that market is doing better or worse because of the size of that governing body.

Originally posted by daskakik
Local monopolies can exist without a state. Like poet1b's example of one store owner running the competition out of town. You can argue that the other store owner can defend himself, but if there is no fear of persecution, then sooner or later there will only be one general store in town.

And he will lose his customers. How's he going to stay in business without demand? He won't. What's he going to do then? Threaten consumers? They will leave. Customers can't leave with a state monopoly on territory who implement restrictions that limit their freedom to migrate.

I don't know of any monopolies that have ever existed in the absence of the state.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that that market is doing better or worse because of the size of that governing body.

The existence of a state means the existence of monopolized violence, which is contrary to free-market principles; when violence is monopolized the economy is no longer as free as it was before the state, it sets a precedent.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
And he will lose his customers. How's he going to stay in business without demand? He won't. What's he going to do then? Threaten consumers? They will leave. Customers can't leave with a state monopoly on territory who implement restrictions that limit their freedom to migrate.

I don't know of any monopolies that have ever existed in the absence of the state.

Just because he gets rid of the other store owner doesn't mean that the demand disappears, but as I said monopolies are just one example. You can have someone with enough money buy up a large portion of a staple product which creates artifical scarcity and drives up the price. Without regulation how would this be prevented?

The existence of a state means the existence of monopolized violence, which is contrary to free-market principles; when violence is monopolized the economy is no longer as free as it was before the state, it sets a precedent.

Your giving austrian school stock responses. I never said that the state wasn't force and contrary to a free market. I said that the size of a country's government isn't always indicative of the health of its market.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


Wow, are you sure you aren't a communist, because you sound like a communist, claiming we don't need government to establish law and order.

Everything you describe in your community was created by people coming together, establishing government, collecting taxes, and building the necessary infrastructure to allow all of this to exist. Utilities exist because government grants them easements to put their property on other peoples property.

you cannot name me one incident in history where the mass murdering of people was not the result of a government/state

Easy, Rawanda, and that is just one of many. Mainly, groups like the mob kill only a select few people, and the rest fall in line.

What you have provided are quotes from people, most of whom I have already read, and then added your own interpretation as to the meaning of those quotes, which is not worth debating.

Here is the fact of the matter, no economy has ever succeeded on a large scale without some form of government, representative governments arguably being the only successful kind on the modern world.

An economy functioning without government is communism. That was Marx goal.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

I didn't support the people pushing free market economics that created these bailouts, chance are that you did, and now you want to pretend that it wasn't free market policies that created the problem in the first place.

At what point do you admit you were conned by this free market scam.

If you think free market economics had anything to do with the bailouts, then you clearly don't have a grasp on what free market economics is. Where there are subsidies, bailouts, and government meddling, the free market doesn't exist. I don't know that there's ever been a free market system anywhere. At least not one that I can point to.

reply to post by evilod


The apparent philosophy (re-marketed communism), that is free market economics, didn't back the bailouts, but the politicians who preach this stuff did back the bailouts, and the policies that created the economic crisis in the first place.

It is you who does not grasp the truth about free market economics.

reply to post by poet1b

The only politician I know of who truly advocates free market principles is Ron Paul, and he didn't support the bailouts. I can't speak for and will defend no other politician, but I can say that if one is claiming to be for free markets and votes for bailouts and subsidies, etc, then they typify the overwhelming majority of politicians, they say one thing and do another.

Also, free market does not equate to lawlessness. If fraud has been committed, or contract breached, the law/government is *supposed* to deal with such. When the government instead chooses to impose the will of a failing corporation onto the citizens, we are not talking about free market principles. That is corruption.

With the economy now a days, I believe that in no matter what market we are in the banks are going to lose much more money than what they already lost.

reply to post by evilod

Also, free market does not equate to lawlessness. If fraud has been committed, or contract breached, the law/government is *supposed* to deal with such.

Yeah, it does, and that is what happens. On paper looks great, but in reality, nothing but wide spread lawlessness.

The same problem with communism.

Originally posted by daskakik
Just because he gets rid of the other store owner doesn't mean that the demand disappears

If the demand doesn't disappear, neither will the supply, meaning he can try to throw his competition out of the area but another one will come in and take it's place.

But if you go to the worst part of a town/city, you don't see much commerce going on besides black-market commerce, which is dangerous precisely because it's illegal. What happens when it's not illegal? Gangs/mafias no longer have a monopoly on it's distribution. They have to compete; the illegality eliminates their monopolized advantage.

You can have someone with enough money buy up a large portion of a staple product which creates artifical scarcity and drives up the price. Without regulation how would this be prevented?

And if his service is inferior, the market will reduce his profits and he will be forced to compete. A monopoly doesn't mean a monopoly on demand it means a monopoly on supply, which isn't possible unless there's a government/state present. It's the demand/consumer that dictates the market, not the supplier. If there's no demand, there's no profit. If there's no profit, there's no supply.

I said that the size of a country's government isn't always indicative of the health of its market.

And I said yes it is because the presence of a government means a restricted code of association, meaning less freedom to associate, and the freedom to associate is one of the cornerstones of a free-market. The less government there is, the more free the people are to associate, which produces the market because a market is simply a statistical concept it's not real. Individuals associating with individuals are real, and that's what a market is: the division of labor.

Originally posted by poet1b
Wow, are you sure you aren't a communist, because you sound like a communist.

I don't think you know what communism is, and the lack of a precise (or precision in any of your concerns/objections for that matter) definition satisfies that suspicion.

Everything you describe in your community was created by people coming together

A free-market.

establishing government, collecting taxes

The end of a free-market.

building the necessary infrastructure to allow all of this to exist

The products of a free-market.

Utilities exist because...

There's a demand for them.

government...

Restricts them.

Easy, Rawanda...

Rwanda was the result of a government elite fostering hatred and fear to keep itself in power.

that is just one of many.

Keep them coming, please.

What you have provided are quotes from people, most of whom I have already read

And yet didn't understand what you were reading. I provided a historical analysis of competing courts that developed modern law, a technical analysis of how law and order is present in the absence of a state, and brief history of government from a historian's perspective. You've provided nothing but anecdotes and confused thinking.

and then added your own interpretation as to the meaning of those quotes, which is not worth debating.

Where? I've not seen you refute any of the things I said without reducing to this single principle: there is no right or wrong without government, which is more an issue of psychology/psychologism phenomenon than it is an observation of nature qua nature.

no economy has ever succeeded on a large scale without some form of government

Here.

Your definition of 'economy' is also curious; government is the consequence of an economy. There is no government without an economy. There have and will always be economies without a government because economies are the first relationships formed between certain people. Here is how Socrates defined an economy in The Republic (which you can read here):

Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State.

True, he said.
And they exchange with one another, and one gives, and another receives, under the idea that the exchange will be for their good.

The term state here is better defined in modern terms as economy because economy has a rather recent etymology, actually.

Originally posted by evilod

I Where there are subsidies, bailouts, and government meddling, the free market doesn't exist.

Politicians try to apply free market principles to regulated industry, free market is not and all
or nothing practice in our society.

The bail out occurred because people applied/engineered poorly designed free market principles
to sectors that were previously barred from the practices they employed to tank the economy
with derivative products.

So if a free market doesn't exist, why do people try to apply parts of free market ideas in what
you are calling and NON free market?

Clearly many free market proponents think that free market can be applied in many different doses.
Is free market in fact just and excuse to sell the public corporate power and consolidation of that power?
Seems to be used as a way to get away with murder.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
If the demand doesn't disappear, neither will the supply, meaning he can try to throw his competition out of the area but another one will come in and take it's place.

Actually, until someone else comes along he will have sole control of the supply and therfore a monopoly, which proves that your idea that a state is needed for a monopoly is wrong.

And if his service is inferior, the market will reduce his profits and he will be forced to compete. A monopoly doesn't mean a monopoly on demand it means a monopoly on supply, which isn't possible unless there's a government/state present. It's the demand/consumer that dictates the market, not the supplier. If there's no demand, there's no profit. If there's no profit, there's no supply.

That was just an example of market manipulation and not a monopoly. It isn't a service, it is manipulation of the supply of a commodity. The demand is there because it is a staple. He's not trying to double or triple his money, he's just wants to see how much he can bump up the price.

And I said yes it is because the presence of a government means a restricted code of association, meaning less freedom to associate, and the freedom to associate is one of the cornerstones of a free-market. The less government there is, the more free the people are to associate, which produces the market because a market is simply a statistical concept it's not real. Individuals associating with individuals are real, and that's what a market is: the division of labor.

You can say whatever you want, but real world examples say you are wrong.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


Nice parlor tricks, but all you are doing is taking cheap shots.

Sorry, but business monopolies do occur naturally, and often force is used, with or without government, and more quickly without some form of government. Pretending differently is just clinging to idealistic nonsense.

Oh I understand what these people are saying, and it isn't what you claim they are stating.

Laws and order can be present without a government on a small scale. This is how most communities operate, but on a larger scale, a form of government is required for numerous reason. I suggest you take a look at the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Treaties of Locke on which the U.S. Constitution was based for the basic purposes of government.

In the same thing, market activity does happen without government involvement, on a small scale, but that doesn't create an economy. An economy is a system for dealing with market activities, money, all that stuff. All systems require a level of governance. With out the government, there is no system. You can try to chicken egg this argument to death, but they are clearly related, and the quality of any economy is determined by how it is governed.

Originally posted by poet1b

Sorry, but business monopolies do occur naturally, and often force is used, with or without government, and more quickly without some form of government.

Actually, if you examine the system of monarchy, it is the end result of free market competition.
One person or family has consolidated power, wealth and has converted it into a formal title which
was finally won after long bouts of competition with other families and interests.

The other truth is, private forces eventually become the governing force, they end up making laws
and rules which essentially cuts out the population, again, much like monarchy. Eventually everyone
has no choice but to accept whatever the rich/kings/masters decide is right in their eyes. It eventually
become tyrannical because you are giving very little choice, their way or the highway. It is very
totalitarian once you conceptualize where it goes and how it gets there.

Poet, I am glad you are here to lay down good stuff as usual.