|
Post by Don on Aug 30, 2017 8:02:18 GMT -5
You are seeing things as a binary: either we have free markets or we don't. If government regulations interfere at all, we don't have free markets. In reality, it is a continuum. We are certainly not the Wild West. We are also not a fascist or socialist regime. Businesses are more heavily regulated than you'd like, and less heavily regulated than Christine would like. That does not mean the degree of freedom is either 0% or 100%. I doubt anyone, including Christine, believes that businesses can "do anything." No, I'm seeing things on a continuum, and until someone can point out to me the vast unregulated portions of the economy where one can participate in unregulated trade with others, I'll continue to point out that claiming what we have is a "free market" is pure unadulterated bullshit. AAMOF, forget "vast" and point out to me any areas of the economy one may participate in without regulatory intervention. Flea markets, perhaps, in a few places. It's those who claim that "owners can do anything" and we have "free markets" in the face of today's regulatory structure who are engaging not only in binary thinking, but strikingly erroneous binary thinking. Failing to point that out in excruciating detail is part of how we've ended up where we are today. Words have meanings. "Free" and "heavily regulated" are antonyms, not synonyms. And I'm pretty uncomfortable with you claiming Christine doesn't mean what she says.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 30, 2017 8:27:19 GMT -5
Interesting exchange, but I think it fair to point out that Don was responding to the idea that big, powerful corporations were a consequence of the free market, as opposed to their existence being a consequence of governments getting involved in the economy (thus limiting the amount of freedom, therein).
Sorry, but I think Don has the right of this, by and large. To be sure, there are many factors involved, but the modern corporations we have today are a direct consequence of mercantilism, not capitalism. Governments--back in the day--mandated their (corporations) existence and insured the same by granting monopolies on various things. That doesn't really reflect a market orientations, at all. Exactly, the opposite, in fact.
If Don is overselling the benefits of a free market, others are certainly overselling it's negative consequences, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 30, 2017 9:23:01 GMT -5
Interesting exchange, but I think it fair to point out that Don was responding to the idea that big, powerful corporations were a consequence of the free market, as opposed to their existence being a consequence of governments getting involved in the economy (thus limiting the amount of freedom, therein). Sorry, but I think Don has the right of this, by and large. To be sure, there are many factors involved, but the modern corporations we have today are a direct consequence of mercantilism, not capitalism. Governments--back in the day--mandated their (corporations) existence and insured the same by granting monopolies on various things. That doesn't really reflect a market orientations, at all. Exactly, the opposite, in fact. If Don is overselling the benefits of a free market, others are certainly overselling it's negative consequences, imo. Rob's summed it up nicely, I think. The belief that big, powerful corporations are a consequence of the free market rather than mercantilism is what leads to the prattle about owners that can "do anything" in the face of the reality of volumes of regulation controlling nearly every aspect of the economy, promulgated by dozens of government agencies. This belief naturally leads to the assumption that the problem lies in a lack of regulation of the marketplace, when it's very easy to see the reality is quite different. If you hunger for control, it's important to convince people that things are out of control.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 30, 2017 11:47:06 GMT -5
No, I'm seeing things on a continuum, and until someone can point out to me the vast unregulated portions of the economy where one can participate in unregulated trade with others, I'll continue to point out that claiming what we have is a "free market" is pure unadulterated bullshit. AAMOF, forget "vast" and point out to me any areas of the economy one may participate in without regulatory intervention. Flea markets, perhaps, in a few places. It's those who claim that "owners can do anything" and we have "free markets" in the face of today's regulatory structure who are engaging not only in binary thinking, but strikingly erroneous binary thinking. Failing to point that out in excruciating detail is part of how we've ended up where we are today. Words have meanings. "Free" and "heavily regulated" are antonyms, not synonyms. "Heavily" is a subjective term. We have already established that your threshold for "heavily regulated" is far lower than most people's thresholds. It is still not clear to me what level of regulation, or indeed if any level of regulation, would not invalidate the concept of "free" in your mind. So when you say "calling our economy a free market is bullshit," again, all I hear is "We have more regulations than I'd like; therefore we do not have a free market." With the subtext being "Therefore we are practically the same as Venezuela." This makes it very hard to take your arguments seriously. "We have too many regulations" is a point that can debated reasonably. "We have a fascist/socialist economy and our overlords hold us in serfdom; you must be blind and naive and ignorant or else you just like licking your master's boots" is not.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 30, 2017 12:03:43 GMT -5
I think regulations have gotten out of hand, but I don't want to live in a world where we have none.
How much is too much would be largely dependent on what we're regulating.
Medical providers will clearly need more regulation than someone who sells snow cones, but they shouldn't be so heavily regulated where a Doctor goes out of business or moves to avoid them.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 30, 2017 12:09:28 GMT -5
Like I said, I'm perfectly willing to debate what level of regulation is reasonable. I just don't see Don debating this; rather, he's saying "We have regulations, therefore <insert libertarian catechisms>."
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 30, 2017 17:34:29 GMT -5
How is it a strawman when you keep repeating that corporations were created by government? Like I said, outside of the legal-status aspect, corporations are the result of the free market. They operate according to the rules of the free market; i.e., owners of these businesses can do whatever they want to do, hire or fire whoever they want to, provide or deny services to whomever they want to. That's freedom. But okay, if you're arguing that government should intervene more in the free market, regulate more to prevent free-market excesses, I'm cool with that. WTF is this "free market" you keep claiming is at the root of all this corporate evil? I didn't say it was the root of all evil, but I'm pretty sure greed is. I am not anti-free market. Free market doesn't cease to exist due to regulations any more than human interaction ceases to exist due to laws against murder. I too am happy to discuss instances where governments have overstepped and made things worse, not better, for businesses, including small businesses and start-ups and the like. I agree there have been some (e.g., the hair-braiding fiasco). The idea that government "created" corporations, therefore government is at fault when mega-corporations do something you don't approve of is what I was pushing back against. Corporations don't have "government-granted" power. They didn't grow big because of government; they grew big from attaining huge market share. That's free market. Whoever is the most successful wins. And the more successful you are, the more successful you become; it snowballs. This is the part of my argument you said was a strawman. It's not. And again, if you think government should step in and break up these mega-corporations, stop allowing them to get so big, I don't disagree. No, they probably won't actually do it, unless more Bernie Sanders types get elected. But would you be okay with it? Because it would be hella Big Government stepping in and stopping the snowball effect of the results of the free market. Yes, it really is. And no, you don't have to have a specific legal status to participate in the marketplace. You can be a sole proprietor. Yes, in many cases you need a license. In many cases, these licenses are very cheap. If you can't afford a $150/year license, you're probably not ready to start a business. When I said they could do whatever they wanted to do, I was not including discrimination of protected classes... or theft or fraud or murder. I would have thought that was obvious. But yes, I, as the owner of my corporation, can hire or fire whoever I want. If you were my employee, I could fire you for being annoying. I could turn down any potential client on the grounds that I didn't want to do the work. If I made each of those decisions "because you were gay" or "because they were gay," well, the Supreme Court is going to address that beginning in October. It's not clear at this point, but there's a big chance that baker will, in fact, "be absolved." And since you brought it up, I'd point to that asshole who refused to bake a fucking cake as Exhibit A for why free markets need regulations. Exhibit B would be "whites only" restaurants. Exhibit C would be that douchebag who jacked up the price of the AIDS medication. Exhibit D would be banks handing out mortgage loans like balloons at a carnival. And on and on and on. Free market is not a cure for this kind of shit. I don't think "government" is the cure, either, but free market vs. government regulation is the best sort of check and balance set up I can see that works, though not perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 30, 2017 18:17:57 GMT -5
Your definition of "free market" appears to be "a complete absence of laws or regulations." If the government has any power whatsoever, it's not a free market. That's not the definition rational people use. Apparently it's the definition a lot of people use, and they further believe that's what we have today. See the quote above about "owners of these businesses?" Christine's not the only one who believes that's what we have today, in the face of literally millions of regulations that prove otherwise. And they believe it so thoroughly that they blame that imaginary freedom to "do anything" on the "free" market and claim if only this "free" market were regulated, things would be better... while pretending it's the Wild West out there today. It's pure bullshit. This is a reading comprehension fail, Don. Amadan pointed out that the free market exists, even with regulations, according to rational people. You then accused *me* of defining the free market as the complete absence of regulations, when what I said was that owners of businesses are free to hire or fire, sell or not sell, enter into a contract or not enter into it, and yeah, basically, do whatever they want to do, outside of breaking the law, sorry I failed to include that. All of these decisions are generally made on a financial basis, and businesses are free to make these decisions. That's free market. I see it every day. Your examples (repeated, ad nauseum) about how's there's NO FREE MARKET CUZ GOVERNMENT are drop in the bucket compared to the millions of free-market interactions that occur every single day. So, the free market is alive and well, but since it's driven by financial decisions, which include greed, it doesn't always work out so great for everyone. Hence, regulations, imperfect as they may be.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 30, 2017 18:36:25 GMT -5
The idea that government "created" corporations, therefore government is at fault when mega-corporations do something you don't approve of is what I was pushing back against. Corporations don't have "government-granted" power. They didn't grow big because of government; they grew big from attaining huge market share. That's free market. Whoever is the most successful wins. And the more successful you are, the more successful you become; it snowballs. This is the part of my argument you said was a strawman. It's not. I understand your position, I think, but what you are saying is simply not true. Perhaps the problem it that your analysis is based on how corporations function and grow today...or in the last seventy years or so. But that period of time does not explain why things are as they are (with regard to corporations) right now, nor is it a correct analysis of the history of corporations in general. Again, corporations emerged for reasons related to mercantilism, not to free markets. And their growth--both individually and with regard to their numbers--was very much based on governments giving them special privileges. There's no way around this. Corporations--initially--didn't arise from competition at all. Now? Well sure, many corporations do grow from small to large to mega, based on success and/or market share. Yet still, there are others who continue to use the government as a means to grow. Right place, right time, and all that. For example, you're in Florida, so I assume you're familiar with the property insurance business. There's an industry that has almost nothing to do with competition, imo. Then there's Big Pharma and the countless "little pharmas," constantly trying to join the club by greasing the right palms in DC.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 30, 2017 18:46:11 GMT -5
The idea that government "created" corporations, therefore government is at fault when mega-corporations do something you don't approve of is what I was pushing back against. Corporations don't have "government-granted" power. They didn't grow big because of government; they grew big from attaining huge market share. That's free market. Whoever is the most successful wins. And the more successful you are, the more successful you become; it snowballs. This is the part of my argument you said was a strawman. It's not. I understand your position, I think, but what you are saying is simply not true. Perhaps the problem it that your analysis is based on how corporations function and grow today...or in the last seventy years or so. This is what matters. This is what is relevant. Can you really go back farther than 70 years to explain why Google has the lion's share of the market? Did Google get special privileges? If so, please explain. Irrelevant, imo. Relevant, imo. Fair enough. But they had to have enough money in the first place to be able to grease palms. So greed rears its ugly head everywhere. Just don't tell me it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for government, if we had this magical unicorn known as the "true free market."
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 30, 2017 19:22:17 GMT -5
I understand your position, I think, but what you are saying is simply not true. Perhaps the problem it that your analysis is based on how corporations function and grow today...or in the last seventy years or so. But that period of time does not explain why things are as they are (with regard to corporations) right now, nor is it a correct analysis of the history of corporations in general. Again, corporations emerged for reasons related to mercantilism, not to free markets. And their growth--both individually and with regard to their numbers--was very much based on governments giving them special privileges. There's no way around this. Apologies for quoting the same post twice, but I was just thinking more about this and my question is: what do you suppose would have emerged--what would our modern-day commerce look like--had government not engaged in mercantilism, or given special privileges to certain entities, centuries ago? Do you honestly think that, absent "government" of any kind, that the free market would be unadulterated by greed, immune to the tendency of the the wealthy to amass ever more wealth? Would there be no "mega-entities," of whatever form, cornering large segments of the market today, if it weren't for whatever role governments played a hundred or more years ago?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 30, 2017 22:47:32 GMT -5
All the greed and all the cash in the world can't be used to buy special privileges such as limited liability, or to erect barriers to competition, or to socialize their losses through bailouts, unless there is someone who can be bought, who has the power to distort the marketplace to the advantage of those who are doing the buying.
Absent the ability to purchase favorable conditions in the marketplace, companies would be forced to focus on the only way to generate wealth in an open marketplace; by pleasing their buyers better than their competitors.
No one can claim that truly free markets would bring nirvana. However, it's not hard to make the case that a "night watchman" type state, restricted to seeking restoration to those victimized by force or fraud, would provide economic institutions far less susceptible to influence pedaling, moral hazard, regulatory capture, rent-seeking, bailouts, and other crony crapitolist activities that empower existing corporations and protect the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 31, 2017 6:30:56 GMT -5
I understand your position, I think, but what you are saying is simply not true. Perhaps the problem it that your analysis is based on how corporations function and grow today...or in the last seventy years or so. This is what matters. This is what is relevant. Can you really go back farther than 70 years to explain why Google has the lion's share of the market? Did Google get special privileges? If so, please explain. Irrelevant, imo. If Don is saying mega-corporations exist as they exist today because the government granted them special privileges and you're saying that it's simply a consequence of competition and the free market, I don't see how it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 31, 2017 6:59:36 GMT -5
I understand your position, I think, but what you are saying is simply not true. Perhaps the problem it that your analysis is based on how corporations function and grow today...or in the last seventy years or so. But that period of time does not explain why things are as they are (with regard to corporations) right now, nor is it a correct analysis of the history of corporations in general. Again, corporations emerged for reasons related to mercantilism, not to free markets. And their growth--both individually and with regard to their numbers--was very much based on governments giving them special privileges. There's no way around this. Apologies for quoting the same post twice, but I was just thinking more about this and my question is: what do you suppose would have emerged--what would our modern-day commerce look like--had government not engaged in mercantilism, or given special privileges to certain entities, centuries ago? Do you honestly think that, absent "government" of any kind, that the free market would be unadulterated by greed, immune to the tendency of the the wealthy to amass ever more wealth? Would there be no "mega-entities," of whatever form, cornering large segments of the market today, if it weren't for whatever role governments played a hundred or more years ago? Well, the first question is impossible to answer, I think. Such actions were critical to the course of history, from the settlement of the New World (and the manner it was settled), to the Opium Wars and all that followed in China. The second question is easy to answer: no, I don't think that at all. I'm not Don. I'm not blaming the government for the existence of corporations, I'm explaining that existence. As to the third question, it's pretty much the same as the first, but it is important to note that the role that government has played in the evolution of corporations started at the beginning and has continued along the way. It was never a one-and-done type of thing. As to non-corporations (or non-traditional corporations) cornering market shares, here's an interesting thing to think about: the Catholic Church, where it prospered and where it didn't, in comparison to the creation and growth of corporations.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 31, 2017 8:27:11 GMT -5
Don seems to be blaming corporations on the government - if we don't lack free markets because of da gummint, we lack free markets because of corporations (insert "crony capitalism" or "crypto-corporatism" or some other libertarian buzz-phrase here) which were facilitated by da gummint.
As I understand it, Don's model of free markets would be one in which the government doesn't interfere, but absent a lack of government interference, we would somehow not end up with the East India Company.
I do not understand how this would work, but I've given up asking Don to explain how his world would work, since it seems to involve a magical anarcho-agrarian small community world in which there would be no nation-states but somehow we'd still have an Internet with telecommunications satellites and cancer drugs and international travel and space exploration. But no wars because those would be illegal, or something.
|
|