Can any Ayn Rand conservative point to a country where a purely freemarket exists? Is it Hong Kong!?

reply to post by ollncasino


So, after saying all this, is there a modern day country by your definition that practices this?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by campanionator
Unfortunately these concepts did not foresee the near necessity of certain basics that have
perpetual demand. Gas, Water, Electricity and Healthcare... The choices we are given are
simply the distributor of the product, while the nature and demand of the product is universal.

I don't understand what you mean.

Gas, Water, Electricity and Healthcare are commodities like all others in that in a free market, producers enter the market in the anticipation of making a profit.

They are not distinctive or nominally so, they are essentially the same product that is only different in it's presentation.

Can you tell the difference between Southern California Edison Electricity and Central Valley Com Electricity?

Or how about the care you get from YOUR doctor if you have United healthcare as opposed to Blue Cross?

Now on the other hand

There is a huge difference between a McDonalds hamburger and a Burger King

Or a Chevy and a Porche

A dog and a cat

A ball point pen and a felt pen

Coors, MGD, Stella, PBR...

The problem arises when the state either creates or allows a monopoly to exist. That is not a free market. That is a monopoly and the state should regulate to prevent one consumer gaining control of the market and exploiting consumers.

The government in a free market does have the role of regulating the market to prevent monopolies.

I argue that certain commodities act like monopolies regardless of the technical truth of that designation,
applei free market goggle to those things is pointless and ultimately bad for society.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

So, after saying all this, is there a modern day country by your definition that practices this?

It's a question of degree. The leaders of all countries can't resist taxing people and spending it on their own pet projects.

The USA used to be a free economy. Nowadays, with government spending at 42% of GDP, I believe, and a lot of government created/encouraged monopolies, it is no longer terribly free.

HongKong seems to top the list.

Strong enforcement of rights, strong regulation of markets to ensure competition and low government taxation.

Free market is about negative freedom, it has more to do with small amount of regulation and bureaucracy than taxes and government services. There will always be taxes, unless we are talking about Somalia, and government services do not really restrict anything, they just provide an alternative. Taking an equal share from everyone does not deform the market that much.

Originally posted by campanionator
Can you tell the difference between Southern California Edison Electricity and Central Valley Com Electricity?

Now on the other hand

There is a huge difference between a McDonalds hamburger and a Burger King

Producers attempt to differentiate their products in an attempt to create a partial monopoly. You can only buy a McDonald's burger from McDonald's. Hence, product differentiation is aimed at reducing consumer choice and competition not increasing it.

A homogenous commodity (i.e. electricity) arguably makes it more difficult for a producer to engage in monopolistic practices (charging a higher price) due to the fact that consumers can switch to a cheaper supplier and receive exactly the same commodity.

Originally posted by campanionator

I argue that certain commodities act like monopolies regardless of the technical truth of that designation

You can only buy a Rolls Royce from Rolls Royce. Gas or electricity on the other hand, as long as governments prevent monopolies, should gravitate to the lowest price due to the fact that consumers can switch from producer to producer, seeking the lowest price, without any change in the commodity received.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by campanionator
Can you tell the difference between Southern California Edison Electricity and Central Valley Com Electricity?

Now on the other hand

There is a huge difference between a McDonalds hamburger and a Burger King

Producers attempt to differentiate their products in an attempt to create a partial monopoly. You can only buy a McDonald's burger from McDonald's. Hence, product differentiation is aimed at reducing competition not increasing it.

Product differentiation is aimed at enticing the customer by my measure, I think product differentiation
ia a competitive act. McDonalds does not introduce a new burger to reduce it's competitive nature,
I think it is introduced to increase competition.

Interesting that we see that completely different.

A homogenous commodity (i.e. electricity) arguably makes it more difficult for a producer to engage in monopolistic practices (charging a higher price) due to the fact that consumers can switch to a cheaper supplier and receive exactly the same commodity.

I totally disagree with you here - producers in these types of products act in tandem with their (competition)
to raise the entire price floor. This is why I think "Free Market" principles cannot be applied to these types
of markets. There is NO benefit for any of five gas giants to reduce the price of gas or engage in any real
competition, to do so would harm the entire marketplace or profiteers, they are all very aware of this to.

Originally posted by campanionator
Gas or electricity on the other hand, as long as governments prevent monopolies, should gravitate to the lowest price due to the fact that consumers can switch from producer to producer, seeking the lowest price, without any change in the commodity received.

that is not true, how can there be any meaningful competition is the is ONE PIPELINE that feed the utility
to the entire zip code or township??? People cannot switch, because it is the nature of the delivery system
substructure. That is why commodities are different -

If the government ended ALL regulations tomorrow, could you make a phone call a get a choice between
4 different "types" or brands of electricity for your house??? why not?

There might be nominal shift in some of these markets, but that is where the illusion begins.

There is no profit motive for three corporations to destroy their entire price floor through competition.
In fact you will often see the reverse is true, RAISNG prices to match your competitions prices, thusly
increasing your margin. Gas is up 400% in 12 years, that is exactly how they did it.

There is no "Free Market" in Hong Kong. They are the PRC..Peoples republic of China.. Communist.

reply to post by Youareallschizophrenic


It seems you are partially mistaken.

From Wikipedia-

Under the principle of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong has a different political system from mainland China.
Hong Kong's independent judiciary functions under the common law framework. Hong Kong Basic Law, its constitutional document, which stipulates that Hong Kong shall have a "high degree of autonomy" in all matters except foreign relations and military defence, governs its political system.
Although it has a burgeoning multi-party system, a small-circle electorate controls half of its legislature. That is, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, the head of government, is chosen by an Election Committee of 400 to 1,200 members, a situation that will be in effect during the first 20 years of Chinese rule.

As one of the world's leading international financial centres, Hong Kong has a major capitalist service economy characterised by low taxation and free trade, and the currency, Hong Kong dollar, is the eighth most traded currency in the world.

.... Hong Kong has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.
Hong Kong has numerous high international rankings in various aspects. For instance, its economic freedom, financial and economic competitiveness, quality of life, corruption perception, Human Development Index, etc., are all ranked highly.

According to both UN and WHO estimates, Hong Kong has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world from 2012

reply to post by Bluesma


I stand corrected.

Originally posted by campanionator
"Free Market" principle have been endowed with mythical properties that don't really function
as they are sold.

It is a scam that the elites use to justify their pillaging market places and the economy.

Unfortunately many Americans buy into it, in cases where it does not apply, essentials.

It is really just a fantasy designed to protect TPTB (the real PTB, not the mythical sense)

edit on 7-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)

Agreed. Every economic textbook in the world will tell you that "free markets" ONLY function at optimal efficiency when firms are in "perfect competition" or "near-perfect" competition and have no significant material advantages over another firm.

Thus Adam Smith's, dirty little secret is that the only way "capitalism" can work is if things like wealth, land, and intellectual property is all held communally in order to promote as fierce of competition between firms as possible.

...but that's actually hardline Communism isn't it? So much for that idea, huh?

That's why economically speaking I'm a Meritocratic Normative Benthamite of the Utilitarian School of Thought. It's one of, if not the ONLY theory of economics that still more or less hasn't been proven to be a shortcut to an economic crash when followed closely.

I vote we give it a try....nothing else for the last 8,000 years of human history has proven effective in both the long and the short-haul...so we gotta do something, right?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by ollncasino

 

So, after saying all this, is there a modern day country by your definition that practices this?

Nope. In fact, there is not a single civilization or culture in the history of the planet earth that has had a truly "free market" system.

Even in communities such pastoral nomads, and wandering traders like gypsies and bedouins the chief normally has some sort of say as to who gets the best cut of meat or whatever.

To think about it properly you really have to simply look at the problem as Society A having markets which are "more free" or "less free" than Society B.

Somalia


_*_*_*_*_

reply to post by Southern Guardian


In my opinion every country has a free market available. It is usually referred to as the black market. It seems to operate pretty well! The only thing that bumps prices up is the threat or possibility of imprisonment. So in that sense it is not TOTALLY free, but as good as you will get.

I hear people in this thread saying that the powers that be want a free market etc... Hmmmm then why haven't they done it then? We all know that TPTB are government+big business they are damn near on in the same! So why haven't they managed to de-regulate everything? Oh is it because government loves us? Or maybe it is because they bend to the will of the people because they are so scared of people power?

The truth is big business LOVES regulation! Because regulation only helps them to maintain their monopoly! It is nothing for them to pay the huge costs involved starting a business and paying all the taxes obtain all the licenses and such, but for the average joe it is near on impossible to jump through all the hoops while trying to actually get the business off the ground at the same time!

Anyway the black market/free market is there you just gotta be a bit stealthy using it! TPTB don't seem to like it for some reason! How dare people make voluntary exchanges!

Companitor, I was intrigued by your claim that gas has risen 400% in 12 years. I would like to know how you calculated that because I am coming up with 238%.

Milominderbinder, your intricately labeled school of economic thought seems interesting, would you please provide links to back up your assertion of it's effectiveness. This is really interesting to me because Utilitarianism seems to operate above the principle of interpersonal utility comparisons, and I would like to read into their methodology. (Especially if they have formulated a measuring system for utility).

There should be a consensus on the definition of a free market to better move this conversation forward.
Is it a market with no regulations?
A market with no government regulations?

If it is a market with no regulations then that is improbable (I'm leaning towards impossible, but I hate the word).

I know it's not a country, but the closest thing to a free market we will experience in our lifetimes is the internet.

After further research, it appears the boys at Stanford can add some perspective to the whole fire and brimstone gas spike we are supposedly experiencing. -

With the inflation accounted for, the national average price of gasoline in 1919 is about $3.22 per gallon

large.stanford.edu...

There is no such thing as a completely "free" market as others have stated. There is also no such thing as a purely capitalist society.

In fact, Seabag and I just finished a debate on "Socialism is Good for America". It coincides with this thread quite well and you can see some very interesting points from both sides.

Check it out and don't forget to get involved in the debate forum!

Is Socialism Good for America?

America was the best example, the industrial revolution. Before the federal reserve, before the income tax, before the crash and world wars, before the well you get it extreme government over regulation.

Originally posted by raivo
Somalia


_*_*_*_*_

Yep.

Somalia 1991 - 2006, to be more precise. No government to speak of, no taxes, no regulation whatsoever.

I don't believe anyone can point to a country where a purely totalitarian market exists either. Business in communist China and Soviet bloc countries were known to involve heavy corruption and organized crime, usually involving government officials.

I believe the OP is in favor of totalitarian / dictatorship / soviet-style government controlled market where every transaction is audited and a portion is skimmed off for the benefit of the masses.

Personally, I would like to sell my used lawnmower without a heavy involvement of government auditing, taxes, and regulations. Scratch used lawnmower, I'd like to sell my services, without the heavy involvement of government auditing, taxes, and regulations. But I guess exchanging hours of my life for money, justifies government taking some of that and giving that to some poor slob that isn't exchanging hours of his life for money.

When I hear the term "free market," what always comes to mind is a [utopian] exchange of goods and services based SOLELY on supply and demand and 100% consumer driven by need as well as desire (for luxury items sought out for enjoyment rather than as status symbols).

I do not think there has yet been a working model of such a free market in the history of mankind, simply because it seems to be something we are evolving toward and it requires a humanity no longer focused on fear but on egalitarianism. Fear currently is the underlying drive behind all socioeconomic systems as well as government and the need to control dominates the desire to serve...which, in my mind, would be the true role of social leadership...no longer being truly described by the word 'government' which implies, just by definition, the idea of control and regulation.

Socialism as well, I think, could be applied to a government OR to an economic system, but if the economy was based on market socialism then government would be forced to re-evaluate its role based on the needs of the people dwelling in such an economy.

Contrary to popular belief, socialism does not imply government regulation when implemented in a society already established by capitalism wherein the means of production is not under government ownership to begin with. In a socialistic market economy, it is the PEOPLE who own the means of production...collectively...as opposed to just a few individuals owning it privately.

It would be like everyone who worked at a given establishment, for the duration of their employment, would have not only a responsibility to take part in producing and distributing the goods or services provided but would also all have a say in how things are run and instead of just wages, would share equally in the profits.

This would mean that quality would be greatly improved because it would mean much more to those producing and their quality of life/job satisfaction would also be greatly improved.

The problem with our current capitalist system is that when a few individuals own the means of production, they do not have to regard anyone other than themselves, ultimately, as far as decisions as well as profit. And if there are stockholders, they are not the workers or the manpower behind what is produced but receive the profits and make the decisions.

It would be like democracy in the market place...the pirates of Blackbeard's era are the only example of such a thing working out for any length of time, imo.

The productivity in this country has never been as high as it currently is but yet the standard of living for the working class is not improving and even might be degrading. This is because the pay that most receive is not determined by what they produce or even the demand for what they supply but more or less is just eked out to them according to what it takes to barely survive...by those who believe that unless they hold on to their wealth and power, they will be suffering themselves.

The failed examples of socialism that we have in our global history failed because they weren't established in a society that was already made strong and setup by capitalism. The most familiar being the USSR. They tried to go from a feudal society to socialism. But what had been previously owned and controlled by the royals/titled nobility was either destroyed/allowed to ruin or seized by the burgeoning government...which failed to pass it down in the right manner and set it up without authoritarian attempts to MAKE it work ahead of the evolutionary progress necessary in any society to facilitate such a change. They skipped the capitalism phase.

The reason we are given untrue definitions of these ideas and also influenced by ideas of certain things being evil and other things being desirable even though it is the opposite that would prove itself to be true if allowed to run its natural course is because those that control the means of production do not want to lose their authority over those that don't. And so they make it seem as if the only other option is the government owning what they own. They can't afford to let us realize that we should own society equally, all of us. Because we ARE society. Rich or poor...blue collar or white...we all have something to contribute of value and we should have the opportunity to do so as well as the unfettered right to reap the rewards of our own efforts...and the ability to work together for our own common good...instead of having to work for the good of just a few.

The idea of the USA being a government OF the people and FOR the people really makes the case for market socialism, imo. Right now the government is not representative of most of us simply because we lack the means to be anything other than more or less slave labor. And that is because the few that own the means of production are holding on to it with everything they've got. It isn't the government they are afraid of but of the slaves.

They tried to install a real free market in Argentina: they had to install a dictatorship. Free market is impossible and it's not a good thing at all.