Free Markets are not Freedom

[CuriousOnlooker]

Hi there,

This is my first post, please forgive me if I am posting in the wrong place :)

I may well be mistaken, but I think RP believes in free markets? Surely, free markets mean freedom for monopolies to form, to suffocate competition and to endanger the people's freedom (of choice, for example)? In a true free market, A big co-orporation with a monopoly does not have responsibility to anyone but their share holders; this will not necessarily include protecting the enviroment, avoiding price fixing, 'helping the people', etc (I.e, in a monopoly on fast food, a company has no fear from competition or regulation if they add toxic growth hormones to their food. Only consumer backlash, but they're a monopoly, so consumers would have nowhere else to go).

Just a couple of thoughts. :)

-Curious Onlooker

[torchbearer]

How can a monopoly exsist in a truly free market economy, that is the question you must first answer.

[sophocles07]

First off: you are probably a troll.

Second:
in a monopoly on fast food, a company has no fear from competition or regulation if they add toxic growth hormones to their food. Only consumer backlash, but they're a monopoly, so consumers would have nowhere else to go

Is fast food really that good of an example, troll? It's by no means necessary; it's not like health care or water--it's cheeseburgers drenched in unhealthy greases etc.

You might, if not a troll, want to read over some of this board's economic threads/subforum areas instead of starting out with the same cliche BS that pro-regulation, pro-government munchkins always drivel on about.

[pcosmar]

Interesting first post.
You are fortunately mistaken, uninformed and quite wrong.

Please educate yourself.
Google is your friend.

[Banana]

You need to add the consideration of private property rights.

Example: A company pollutes. The pollution spills over into neighbors' lands.

Free Market: Neighbors sue because private property has been violated and thus win. Gives the competition a strong incentive to not copy the mistake of the first company.

Present System: Company buys pollution rights from EPA. Neighbors sues company but is dismissed since the company shows the court that they have the right to pollute. They then file an appeal with EPA. EPA rejects the appeal because they're bought and paid for by the same company.


Bottom line: Government is the problem.

[torchbearer]

First off: you are probably a troll.

Second:

Is fast food really that good of an example, troll? It's by no means necessary; it's not like health care or water--it's cheeseburgers drenched in unhealthy greases etc.

You might, if not a troll, want to read over some of this board's economic threads/subforum areas instead of starting out with the same cliche BS that pro-regulation, pro-government munchkins always drivel on about.

Don't be so harsh.. ;)
This may be an innocent question... and if it isn't, i find trolls to be a great educational TOOL to explain policy to onlookers.

[brianewart]

Atlas Shrugged?

[soapmistress]

And I suppose it would be a novel idea for consumers to put their money where their mouth is?

Don't support businesses that conduct matters in an unbecoming fashion, whether it's pollution or treating workers badly or importing from countries that use child labor.

The abdication of personal and moral responsibility to those who govern you is intellectual sloth!

Don't like Walmart? Don't shop there.

Don't like Nestle killing kids overseas? Stop buying CoffeeMate.

Monopolies are definitely not on my top 10 hitlist at the moment anyways. We have bigger fish to fry than the inconveniences of having too much freedom at hand.

[Tdcci]

How can a monopoly exsist in a truly free market economy, that is the question you must first answer.

In a telecommunications market where a barriers to entry include wiring up houses and building huge infrastructure.

[familydog]

And I suppose it would be a novel idea for consumers to put their money where their mouth is?

Don't support businesses that conduct matters in an unbecoming fashion, whether it's pollution or treating workers badly or importing from countries that use child labor.

The abdication of personal and moral responsibility to those who govern you is intellectual sloth!

Don't like Walmart? Don't shop there.

Don't like Nestle killing kids overseas? Stop buying CoffeeMate.

Monopolies are definitely not on my top 10 hitlist at the moment anyways. We have bigger fish to fry than the inconveniences of having too much freedom at hand.

Nestle kills kids? :eek:

[Tdcci]

Nestle kills kids? :eek:

No, that's French for "giving them employment and an opportunity to work themselves out of poverty".

[TheEvilDetector]

Hi there,

This is my first post, please forgive me if I am posting in the wrong place :)

I may well be mistaken, but I think RP believes in free markets? Surely, free markets mean freedom for monopolies to form,


Do not forget freedom for monopolies to fail.



to suffocate competition


See above.



and to endanger the people's freedom (of choice, for example)?


See above.



In a true free market, A big co-orporation with a monopoly does not have responsibility to anyone but their share holders;


You are implying causation which you haven't proved.



this will not necessarily include protecting the enviroment, avoiding price fixing, 'helping the people',


See above.



etc (I.e, in a monopoly on fast food, a company has no fear from competition or regulation if they add toxic growth hormones to their food. Only consumer backlash, but they're a monopoly, so consumers would have nowhere else to go).

Just a couple of thoughts. :)

-Curious Onlooker

In a monopoly on fast food, were a company to add toxic growth hormones to their food, they may be subject to law suits for any ill health their products have caused in their customers, unless of course they provided disclaimers, in which case the consumers are to blame for being reckless. In addition, any one who wanted to chime in with a healthy alternative would make a buck or two.

Perhaps you are implying a monopoly on the back of government force (friendly regulation to beneficiary, prohibitive regulation to opposition), which is not a possible outcome of true free market. Without government force, no company can compel consumers to buy their products and no company can stop competition legally.

Make no mistake, government is force, nothing more, nothing less. Given the tendency of government to grow over time (due to legislation causing problems which then require more legislation and as a consequence regulating an ever-increasing chunk of human activities) it is little wonder that business lobbying is alive and kicking, with moneyed lobbyists walking away with the largest chunk of the pie in terms of friendly legislation and tax breaks.

In other words, the bigger the corporation, the more likely it is to get their way.

Money rules Politics, but only because politicians allow it to.

[soapmistress]

Sorry to sidetrack on the Nestle thing.

Nestle would send "food aid" to the babies of poor African and third world countries. They would dress up employees like nurses who then would go out and provide just enough infant formula to last the mother about a month and then that was it. Just long enough for her breastmilk to dry up and then she would be completely dependent on artificial baby milk for the rest of the baby's 1st year. The cost of formula on average consumed about a third of those familie's incomes (more like what we would pay for rent) and as a result, the babies who most needed good nutrition would then have to be fed diluted formula, or formula made with disease-ridden dirty water supplies. The babies also would lose protection against bacteria, viruses and parasites that their mother's milk would have afforded them. It's really sad. Even a fairly malnourished mother can produce breastmilk that is nearly equivalent in composition as a mother who is well nourished. So yeah, Nestle was complicit in a lot of crappy dealings and marketing maneuvers. That's why there's a huge boycott on Nestle.

Here's the Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

[soapmistress]

In a telecommunications market where a barriers to entry include wiring up houses and building huge infrastructure.

Wouldn't some enterprising person come along and invent ethernet communications or something?

[Tdcci]

Wouldn't some enterprising person come along and invent ethernet communications or something?

Even if you created something better (unlikely, the existing companies can pump billions more into R&D), you would need to deal with a company that could provide the appropriate hardware and wire everyone up AND convince the public to switch. Having a superior technology is not enough (see: VHS and Betamax)

[clouds]

right, sometimes it needs to be affordable, or easy to install, etc. hence why mcdonalds can survive when there are better burgers to be found.

[Carole]

We have Managed trade now-not free trade.

The People would have the courts to resolve the issues you mention. These would be real courts, not like the pretend Supreme Court.

There would still be laws and if laws are broken, then penalties must be paid or time served.

[Carole]

Lobbyists must be outlawed. :D After all, they really are criminal sbribing our legislators. And we must get rid of aobut 80 per cent of our laws. :)

[Nanerbeet]

Federal regulation helps to support monopolies by putting up barriers that only rich corporations can afford to overcome, or by eliminating the need for competition by forcing existing corporations to give the people what they demand.

[CuriousOnlooker]

Hi there,

It was my first post - I have actually just turned 18, I am from the UK and still in full-time education. I am not a troll and it's pretty harsh to accuse someone who comes to you with honest questions of being a troll. What if I was a Neo-Conservative or a Socialist or a Democrat or an Enviromentalist, curious by Libertarian (Ron Paul's) ideas? The rude welcoming will have not helped you collectively in the slightest. Everyone on the forums was a newcomer to RP's ideas, once ;)

Back on topic;

I wrote my original post when I was rather tired, so please excuse the poor examples / etc. Please allow me to go through the logic of why free markets can be a bad thing more clearly.

In the 19th Century, Macaulay wrote;

"Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its own most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the government do this: the people will assurdely do the rest."

This statement I believe is not an unfair description of many of Ron Paul's economic and ideas of government (from the Constitution) - please correct me if I am mistaken;

-Governmental non-intervention in the economy, allowing the economy to work freely.
-Maintaining peace (Strong national defense)
-Defending property (Property rights)
-Observing strict economy in every dept of the state (Being fiscally responsible, limited spending, avoiding govt waste spending.)


The problems here are numerous;

-It assumes a society of free and equal individuals harmoniously competing against one another for the common good , where the state has no need to intervene (Controlling production, trade, prices, wages, to guide of influence). The ultimate responsibility for big buisness, however, is their share holders (in the same way the ultimate responsibility for Government is to their people.) To take this comparison further, while both are concerned with their membership and media appearence (among other factors) ultimately they are responsible to the electorate / share holders. If the share holders are benevolent, then in theory there shouldn't be a problem - but much like the electorate, the share holders will often be more concerned with their own pockets than humanitarian or moral issues. Without intervention (from the state), a company will not act in the interest of the common good of ALL people in society, only their shareholders. To put this in a libertarian context; Surely it is better for the state to regulate polluting emissions from a factory so that I am able to enjoy decent air quality? (Air flow doesn't care about property rights)

-The "natural reward / natural punishment of industry and intelligence / idleness and folly" is clear cut, logical and coherent on one hypothesis; the equality of opportunity (all individuals start off free and equal). However, competitors do not start off free an equal - in a humanitarian context or economic context. One individual may have rich parents who can send them to the finest University in the nation, whereas another may be as able; yet born to poor parents. A small Butcher does not have the equal resources available to him as, say, Walmart. The only way equality of opportunity could therefore be achieved is to limit the scope to which parents can help their children; which would be an intrusion from the state into family life. Inherited advantages quickly set in motion the process of building up a ruling class over another. Looking at US Politics itself at the moment this can be seen from Bush Jnr taking the Presidency, something he would never have done had he not been born to Bush Snr. The state has not intervened and there is not a system of automatic industry and intellgience being automatically rewarded (some might say that Bush, despite his folly and idleness, has been rewarded with the highest seat of power in the world.)

To summarise;

The result of free competition has been to destroy competition; competing individuals have replaced themselves by monopolistic groups as the economic units. The further this process advances, the more untenable becomes the conception of non-interference by the state.


What I have written here are various ideas of my own. I have a couple of books on Paul I've yet to read in serious depth, so please treat what's written here as various ideas and thoughts. I'd appreciate your thoughts and critique.

-CuriousOnlooker

[CuriousOnlooker]

/bump

[CuriousOnlooker]

Anybody? :)

[clouds]

What's all this about competing for the common good? I think you are confusing a byproduct with the goal, in terms of business. The common good is a vague term, anyway.

[brandon]

To summarise;

The result of free competition has been to destroy competition; competing individuals have replaced themselves by monopolistic groups as the economic units. The further this process advances, the more untenable becomes the conception of non-interference by the state.


What I have written here are various ideas of my own. I have a couple of books on Paul I've yet to read in serious depth, so please treat what's written here as various ideas and thoughts. I'd appreciate your thoughts and critique.

-CuriousOnlooker

Hello. First of all, let me apologize for those other guys who called you a troll.

When I was in my naive teenage years, my thoughts on these issues were very similar to your own. As I grew up I continued to learn about everything as much as I could, and eventually realized I was wrong. My heart was always in the right place, I was just misguided on what the problem was.

When I was your age I looked around at my country and saw huge differences in wealth. I saw certain companies having far to much political sway. I saw companies growing without control, and being impossible to compete with. I figured (with help from some communist propoganda I was reading at the time) that these things must have resulted from capitalism. Capitalism was the easy scapegoat.

Where I went terribly wrong was with assuming America had a capitalist economy. Our economy is not capitalist. We have a an economy called a mixed market, or better described as "corporatism." All the problems I saw, and the ones you're describing, are actually the result of government intervention into the economy.

The government subsidizes certain compaines and installs very high costs and prohibitive regulations for new companies attempting to enter the market and compete. This is what causes monopolies. When one company is annually recieving 500 million dollars in government funding for research, there is no way in hell another company can compete with them.

In the absence of government subsidies and regulations, anti-trust issues become a non issue.

You are correct when you say a companies only liability is to it's share holders. This does not have to be a problem though. The share holders demand that the company grows and profits. In a free market, the company is forced to compete honestly to profit. This means they must provide a quality service or product at a reasonable price. Failure to do so will result in other companies stealing it's market share.

A true monoply in a free market is almost impossible. If one does exist, it is only because they are providing the best product at the best price. If they try to take advantage of people, then other companies will easily be able to enter the market and provide alternatives.

Remember that government is the largest monopoly of all, and the only one that is allowed to use coercion.

[clouds]

And polluting is a property rights issue... I don't see why you don't think so. I just woke up from a long nap, so maybe that's why your argument seems nonsensical, so I'm going to leave it like that until I'm a little more clearminded.

[CuriousOnlooker]

Thank you for your replies.

Firstly, to reply to Clouds - I suppose it is a property rights issue in a way. One might say there is a great crime being perpetuated by our planet; the implicit ignorance of negative externalities by big buisness and government at the expense of our environment. Something that begins to irk me in regards to property rights; if I try and build a huge wall on my land, that would be an infringement upon your property rights as my neighbour (sunlight for example). However, such an example does not affect an individual on the other side of the world. When property rights were first conceived, the collective good was not taken into consideration.

If I set up, say, a gas BBQ in my garden - I am perfectly within my property rights to do so - the emissions will negatively affect the atmosphere around me. Driving a car for example will affect the property rights of everyone around the city (if not globally), from pollution in the air of their land (Affecting their natural environment). An individual's contribution to Global Warming (if one accepts the theory) also affects other's property rights. This is ofcourse not as substantial as, say, a plastics factory's pollution, however my contribution (And my use of the goods produced by the plastics factory) makes me as responsible as the CEO of Plastics Inc. for the damage to the planet.

My concerns here lie with a simple question; If Plastics Inc is not regulated, and the individual with their gas burner or car, are not restricted in their use of such items, then the environment and property of others is being damaged by their actions. One cannot ignore the imperative for the survival of the human species found in the protection of the environment. Is such an imperative more important than the imperative found in individual freedom and liberty?

I am not suggesting Global Warming will be the end of us all, however I do believe that a huge amount of damage is being dealt to the environment. Such damage will, in the long term, lead to enviromental disaster for humanity. Put it this way; I don't think our home will burn down over night, but if we don't stop and clean it, we'll live in such a disease infested hole that we will fall ill.

Sorry if that rambled somewhat - I hope you understood the point I was trying to get at; that environmental concerns today transcend property rights. (That said, property rights are still ofcourse important in the traditional context; I am by no means suggesting property should be given up for ecowariors to set up camp; but a certain amount of regulation of what is done on property is required to avoid negative exteranilities linked to the environment.)

To BrandonYates;

Please excuse me for quoting and replying to your post in parts (Often the tool of flamers :) ).



When I was your age I looked around at my country and saw huge differences in wealth. I saw certain companies having far to much political sway. I saw companies growing without control, and being impossible to compete with. I figured (with help from some communist propoganda I was reading at the time) that these things must have resulted from capitalism. Capitalism was the easy scapegoat.

Where I went terribly wrong was with assuming America had a capitalist economy. Our economy is not capitalist. We have a an economy called a mixed market, or better described as "corporatism." All the problems I saw, and the ones you're describing, are actually the result of government intervention into the economy.


Please excuse my shabby knowledge of very early US History; Originally, was not the US (after we gave it back~ (:p) ) a Capitalist society? Government was very small and relatively non-interventionalist until the death of laissez-faire economic beliefs with Hoover and his replacement with FDR at the WSC?

Another thought; doesn't a Capitalist society assume equality of opportunity at the outset? Some individuals nowadays are born with natural resources available to them others do not (Rich Family's child vs Poor Family's child). Ofcourse, with a certain degree of tenacity, the Poor Child can rise to the top, but equality of opportunity is not present (The Rich Family's Child can have tutors, private school education, etc).

In Britain, since the late 1800s / early 1900s we've consistentally had governments (especially post 1945 in the 'Welfare Consensus') who had seen a moral imperative to intervene in the economy to protect or provide for individuals - i.e, State Pension, State Healthcare, State Education, etc. Why in the US shouldn't the Government intervene in the economy to look after individuals in society who can't look after themselves?



The government subsidizes certain compaines and installs very high costs and prohibitive regulations for new companies attempting to enter the market and compete. This is what causes monopolies. When one company is annually recieving 500 million dollars in government funding for research, there is no way in hell another company can compete with them.

In the absence of government subsidies and regulations, anti-trust issues become a non issue.

You are correct when you say a companies only liability is to it's share holders. This does not have to be a problem though. The share holders demand that the company grows and profits. In a free market, the company is forced to compete honestly to profit. This means they must provide a quality service or product at a reasonable price. Failure to do so will result in other companies stealing it's market share.

A true monoply in a free market is almost impossible. If one does exist, it is only because they are providing the best product at the best price. If they try to take advantage of people, then other companies will easily be able to enter the market and provide alternatives.

Remember that government is the largest monopoly of all, and the only one that is allowed to use coercion.

The problem is with a free market that it assumes perfect freedom of information. Even in the age of the internet, this is very difficult to be the case. We are still discovering the impacts of ciggarettes today, let alone dodgy chemicals added to drinks / etc (Taurine for example). Also there are the difficulties still of advertising, which in itself is a waste of resources (i.e why should I use resources on advertising my healthy drinks when I could use those resources to make more healthy drinks to benefit more people in society.)

These again are just a few assorted thoughts. :)

Many thanks!

-CuriousOnlooker

[Kraig]

Hi there,

This is my first post, please forgive me if I am posting in the wrong place :)

I may well be mistaken, but I think RP believes in free markets? Surely, free markets mean freedom for monopolies to form, to suffocate competition and to endanger the people's freedom (of choice, for example)? In a true free market, A big co-orporation with a monopoly does not have responsibility to anyone but their share holders; this will not necessarily include protecting the enviroment, avoiding price fixing, 'helping the people', etc (I.e, in a monopoly on fast food, a company has no fear from competition or regulation if they add toxic growth hormones to their food. Only consumer backlash, but they're a monopoly, so consumers would have nowhere else to go).

Just a couple of thoughts. :)

-Curious Onlooker

This line of thinking is what killed our industrial revolution, and ultimately why we import so much today.

We have plenty of controls on the market today, what good have they done?

Well Bradon said it much better than me..

[Kraig]

Another thought; doesn't a Capitalist society assume equality of opportunity at the outset? Some individuals nowadays are born with natural resources available to them others do not (Rich Family's child vs Poor Family's child). Ofcourse, with a certain degree of tenacity, the Poor Child can rise to the top, but equality of opportunity is not present (The Rich Family's Child can have tutors, private school education, etc).

In Britain, since the late 1800s / early 1900s we've consistentally had governments (especially post 1945 in the 'Welfare Consensus') who had seen a moral imperative to intervene in the economy to protect or provide for individuals - i.e, State Pension, State Healthcare, State Education, etc. Why in the US shouldn't the Government intervene in the economy to look after individuals in society who can't look after themselves?

The problem is with a free market that it assumes perfect freedom of information. Even in the age of the internet, this is very difficult to be the case. We are still discovering the impacts of ciggarettes today, let alone dodgy chemicals added to drinks / etc (Taurine for example). Also there are the difficulties still of advertising, which in itself is a waste of resources (i.e why should I use resources on advertising my healthy drinks when I could use those resources to make more healthy drinks to benefit more people in society.)

These again are just a few assorted thoughts. :)

Many thanks!

-CuriousOnlooker

Capitalism does not assume equal opportunity in terms of any form of private property. If your father chooses to give you his land and his wealth, that is his choice. Freedom in a capitalistic society does not come from any form of handout or by giving people some advantageous starting point - freedom comes from the knowledge that the product's of your mind and your effort will be yours and yours alone, no one can ever take them away from you. It is then up to individual, however big or small their starting place is, to live and grow with what they have. It is freedom to sustain your life without fear of intervention from others.

If you ask the question "why shouldn't the government look after individuals or can't make it on their own?" I think you have to take a very close look at what you are really asking for. If someone in our society cannot succeed, and the government chooses to help them out, know this: The government is not choosing to help them out of their own means, they are choosing to steal the product of an honest man's efforts and give it to another man who has not earned it. They are choosing to reward one man for his failures while punishing another for his virtues - you cannot expect men to remain honest in this type of society. To me those reasons alone are enough, but some will try to argue that the good of "society" is greater than the good of the individual. This type of thinking only leads to death, when you reward failures and punish success, men are left with no reason to succeed. The society will fall apart because everyone will be trying to get a little bit more than they worked for, always hoping their will be someone else doing the work for them, at the same time they will not develop any skills or talents because they know they will only be punished for them. The honest men who actually do work become more and more frustrated and eventually all but extinct. This is what happened to the USSR, this is why their economy collapsed. I also think that this is happening in the USA right now, especially in the lower and middle class which I am part of. It isn't 100% widespread, we still have a strong mix of people who are willing to work and others who are just trying mooch off the system. Any type of wellfare program will always lead to this, which is why all forms of charity should be left to the private sector and never become a part of government.

Thanks for you're comments!

[micahnelson]

Interesting you should mention cigarettes. The government makes more on cigarettes than any tobacco company. Do they have an interest in allowing the tobacco companies to be shut down?

Also, about energy, if we did not have such stringent regulations there would be nuclear power and electric cars in this country. The continuance of fossil fuels is directed by oil lobbyists, auto manufacturers, and the petrodollar. Oil has many uses, the primary use is to sop up extra dollars.

They shut down many of the rail lines and replaced them with energy inefficient trucks. Teamsters, the auto industry, and the oil industry insure that there will never be serious rail development in this country for a long time to come.

The economic unit is the culprit in this scheme. International Importing is the only business in town, and it can only be done by large corporations. This is why small business can only compete in the service field, and they do well. Ask yourself this, which industry are the barriers to entry highest? A general merchandise store, a general menu restaurant, a general service auto shop, or a general service handyman?

Its pretty plain to see, you can make as much money in your town as Chili's or Applebee's, you can probably make more than jiffy lube in your town, and I don't even know of a nation wide handyman chain. The one thing you won't be able to succeed at is general merchandise because you can't negotiate importing like the Walmarts of the world.

The only people making money these days are either the money lenders and bankers(aka scum of the earth), importers, and those on the take from the government. The rest of the economy is "service based" which means we are serving them.

The free market did not create this mess, and if you were to correct the economic unit and get rid of government subsidies, those companies who did not have sound business practices would disintegrate into the nether from whence they came.

[jason43]

The problem that you rin into is that you reduce competition more when you have corporate interests writing the regulating rules themselves through 'elected' officials using lobbying money. Basically a mixed market economy is a rule shared by corporations and government. The regulations that are created crush the individuals while the corporation has their team of lawyers find ways to work around the problem or they just ship their jobs overseas to a place where such regulation doesn't exist and where they can increase their profit margins, making domestic competition impossible.

Things like the XM/Sirius merger, where the government only grants 2 permits, and then they want to merge and they talk about a monopoly... well, maybe if you let the free market decide how many satellite radio providers there should be, we wouldnt even have to have the discussion...

Any adverse effects of having a free market are offset by the adverse effects of having government/corporate managed economy. Central economic planning has never worked long term, neither has fiat money, both of which are anti-free markets.

[torchbearer]

A government telling you what you can do with your own business and your own money is not freedom.

[Kade]

How can a monopoly exsist in a truly free market economy, that is the question you must first answer.

I think you don't know the difference between a monopoly and a government-granted-monopoly. (They are not the same thing)

Closed entry leads to no substitutes, which can quickly lead to a total conglomeration of products into one entity...

Fixed costs that are too high and poorly informed consumers are uniquely American, and ultimately, a completely and utterly free market could be problematic.

[Kade]

A government telling you what you can do with your own business and your own money is not freedom.

Corporate personhood is also not individual freedom.

[mediahasyou]

Monopolys don't work in a free market.

If prices are too high. Another company will come along and offer lower prices. Because there is a demand for lower prices.

If a product is low quality. Another company will come along and offer higher quality items. Because there is a demand for higher quality items.

If a company does not have a good enough reputation (helping the community, costumer satisfaction, customer service). Then another company will come along with a better reputation. Because there is a demand for companys with better reputations.

In a true free market, monopolys have the risk of failing. Because the consumers have the right to buy from a different, new company that comes along. Consumers ultimately hold the life of that monopoly in their hands.

If there is no demand for higher quality, better reputation, and lower priced companys. That is the fault of the consumers for supporting that company. If you don't like the monopoly, demand something different.



PS..Dont confuse "free market monopolys" with "facistic monopolys". In a facistic monopoly, consumers cannont demand something better because they are forced to only purchase from that facistic monopoly(by the state). In a true free market society, facism never happens(because the state does not intervene in the markets). There is nothing "free" about facism.

[torchbearer]

Corporate personhood is also not individual freedom.

OK. and? Markets are controlled by the purchaser. don't buy corporate. corporations die. free markets. consumer has ultimate control in a free market.
government has ultimate control in a controlled market. sorta like the one we have right now ran by the Fed. gotta loved those crazy controlled economies. that grant so much freedom. i feel so liberated by this pure white snow socialist environment. <takes in deep breathe>
yep, smells like dung.

[mediahasyou]

My concerns here lie with a simple question; If Plastics Inc is not regulated, and the individual with their gas burner or car, are not restricted in their use of such items, then the environment and property of others is being damaged by their actions. One cannot ignore the imperative for the survival of the human species found in the protection of the environment. Is such an imperative more important than the imperative found in individual freedom and liberty?

Theorys should not be inforced onto society. Society should be able to freely choose. Here's an example:

I say god is going to kill us all if you don't pay me a million dollars. Hopefully, you don't accept that theory. And that is why theories should not be inforced.

Because I feel there is significant evidence to deny that humans created global warming. (maybe a topic for another thread?:p) So it should not be inforced. Just like you have significant evidence that god will no smite us all.



The problem is with a free market that it assumes perfect freedom of information. Even in the age of the internet, this is very difficult to be the case. We are still discovering the impacts of ciggarettes today, let alone dodgy chemicals added to drinks / etc (Taurine for example). Also there are the difficulties still of advertising, which in itself is a waste of resources (i.e why should I use resources on advertising my healthy drinks when I could use those resources to make more healthy drinks to benefit more people in society.)

Ive tried to keep this conversation serious but...Why should I campaign to be dictator of the United States when everyone can just vote for me in November?

It's the same thing: communication. It's is how society works. Every idea has a chance. Eventually, the better ones thrive through the survival of the natural selection of ideas. Just like the idea of democracy has.

People are getting smarter. Democracy is obviously better than a dictatorship. And thus we have a democracy in the USA.

[Sandra]

I think you don't know the difference between a monopoly and a government-granted-monopoly. (They are not the same thing)

Closed entry leads to no substitutes, which can quickly lead to a total conglomeration of products into one entity...

Fixed costs that are too high and poorly informed consumers are uniquely American, and ultimately, a completely and utterly free market could be problematic.

Aren't both of these monopolies? You yourself labeled them both monopolies ...which can't occur in a free market.

[mediahasyou]

Where I went terribly wrong was with assuming America had a capitalist economy. Our economy is not capitalist. We have a an economy called a mixed market, or better described as "corporatism." All the problems I saw, and the ones you're describing, are actually the result of government intervention into the economy.

I disagree. We do have a mixed economy but I would not call it corperatism. Corperatism was called facism years ago. And although we do have facistic companys (federal reserve, some utilities, some energy companys). We are not entirely facistic. I would call it a partially-regulated economy.





A true monoply in a free market is almost impossible. If one does exist, it is only because they are providing the best product at the best price. If they try to take advantage of people, then other companies will easily be able to enter the market and provide alternatives.

Remember that government is the largest monopoly of all, and the only one that is allowed to use coercion.

Amen

[mediahasyou]

Aren't both of these monopolies? You yourself labeled them both monopolies ...which can't occur in a free market.

Only "good" monopolys can exist. If you read brandon yates post earlier on this thread you'll learn how. ((I dont want to double post))

[Kraig]

Corporate personhood is also not individual freedom.

Which is why you are always free to not work for a corporation. I don't see how this is an issue...

[mediahasyou]

Corporate personhood is also not individual freedom.

Corperations don't have personhood! :) A corporation is a collective term. It's like a forest. Can you touch a forest? No. But you can touch the trees within a forest. Can you touch a corperation? No. But you can touch the people working within the coperation.

Therefore, the persons within the corperation have the same individual liberty you and I have. (in a free market society):)

[Sandra]

Only "good" monopolys can exist. If you read brandon yates post earlier on this thread you'll learn how. ((I dont want to double post))


Learn how? I disagree intensely with brandoyates opinion. And it's all it is. All the crap about being young and naive to think differently is to prevent a challenge of his opinions.

[Kade]

OK. and? Markets are controlled by the purchaser. don't buy corporate. corporations die. free markets. consumer has ultimate control in a free market.
government has ultimate control in a controlled market. sorta like the one we have right now ran by the Fed. gotta loved those crazy controlled economies. that grant so much freedom. i feel so liberated by this pure white snow socialist environment. <takes in deep breathe>
yep, smells like dung.

You are an ignorant tool. The consumers are idiots in America... how do you get around that?

You're smelling your own dung.

[Kade]

Corperations don't have personhood! :) A corporation is a collective term. It's like a forest. Can you touch a forest? No. But you can touch the trees within a forest. Can you touch a corperation? No. But you can touch the people working within the coperation.

Therefore, the persons within the corperation have the same individual liberty you and I have. (in a free market society):)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Why? Why are some of you so thick?

[Kade]

...which can't occur in a free market.

Failed assumption #1. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

[Kade]

I can already tell I'm about to be lambasted here... so I need to resort to some preemptive maneuvering.

Federal subsidies have helped created monopolies... there is no argument from me there.

In fact, your support of the republican party has allowed most of these subsidies. Thus eliminating a roadmap to a free market.

You advocate something that is simply not possible. We cannot completely deregulate without a plethora of changes on the local, state, and federal government levels.

The total abrogation of laissez-faire is required theoretically for a free market monopoly to exist... this notion is fed consistently, almost as much as other Orwellian mouthpieces are... people just take on fact that a Free Market automatically assumes no monopolies.

I don't entirely disagree.. but this is so theoretical. We live a real world, with real economies... one cannot just sit back and imagine what the end result might look like.

A totally free market allows first for Foreign control of native property. This negates the effect of a real price war, since other economies could in essence be wealthier, and allows for a competition amongst themselves and other stronger economies.

Boston for instance, in almost entirely owned by the Deutsch.


Second is the concept of non-coercive monopoly. A VERY complex notion, one that exists today even... non-coercive in this sense only means the potential to stimulate consumer and price movement on a large scale. Microsoft is an example, even though it helps itself become a monopoly through strong policies, in essence it is the poorly informed consumer that ends in total destruction.

Your economic rights will be stomped by the mobocracy. That is all there is too it.. by the time there is a turn around of products, especially in an extremely modern technology field such as our current one, by the time you offer a product that is more reasonable, the damage could be profound... very profound.

I am not against the free market. Let me make that clear. I'm against corporate subsidies, I'm against corporate personhood, and I am for business responsibility and anti-discrimination. If you want to lump me in socialism, that is your right, but I'll say that you are a flawed thinker.

I am against anarcho-capitalism and absolutely unregulated markets.

One-liners might convince idiots, but you are not going to budge me with insults and conservative talking points and the claim that corporations deserve individual rights.

[Kraig]

You are an ignorant tool. The consumers are idiots in America... how do you get around that?

You're smelling your own dung.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why everyone in America seems to be so god damn stupid? Do honestly think that we just happened to birth one the stupidest generation in history by random chance?

Any zoo animal will become docile and weak, unable to survive in the real world, not from being caged but from having every need taken care of - from having the responsibility to act that is required for him live removed from him. If you treat man the same way, the results will be the same. Man's mind is his primary source of survival and all power he has comes from the mind. Taking away his required effort to live will destroy his mind.

[Sandra]

Kade, chill! You are over reaching any arguement on this thread. Some of your spew doesn't even apply to what we are discussing. Take a time out, then come back.


In fact, your support of the republican party has allowed most of these subsidies. Thus eliminating a roadmap to a free market.

WTH?

[Kade]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why everyone in America seems to be so god damn stupid? Do honestly think that we just happened to birth one the stupidest generation in history by random chance?

Any zoo animal will become docile and weak, unable to survive in the real world, not from being caged but from having every need taken care of - from having the responsibility to act that is required for him live removed from him. If you treat man the same way, the results will be the same. Man's mind is his primary source of survival and all power he has comes from the mind. Taking away his required effort to live will destroy his mind.

Perhaps, I don't mind the cold cruelty of the free market, by any means. No one has a right to a position to which others can do do better than him/her.

However, I am a critic of inefficiency. Our country is seeped in it. We have consumers that WILL pay more for a product of lower quality and poorer efficiency. I don't know how to fix that... I don't know how to stop completely rewarding piss poor performance.

[Kade]

Kade, chill! You are over reaching any arguement on this thread. Some of your spew doesn't even apply to what we are discussing. Take a time out, then come back.



WTH?

Yea WTH.

Anyway, Torchbearer believes that corporations are not given individual freedoms.

I believe strongly that each owner of a corporation should be held responsible for the product.

[Kade]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why everyone in America seems to be so god damn stupid? Do honestly think that we just happened to birth one the stupidest generation in history by random chance?

Any zoo animal will become docile and weak, unable to survive in the real world, not from being caged but from having every need taken care of - from having the responsibility to act that is required for him live removed from him. If you treat man the same way, the results will be the same. Man's mind is his primary source of survival and all power he has comes from the mind. Taking away his required effort to live will destroy his mind.

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I must agree.
I actually have a one word answer for this, but you won't want to hear it.

[acptulsa]

However, I am a critic of inefficiency. Our country is seeped in it. We have consumers that WILL pay more for a product of lower quality and poorer efficiency...

Make a status symbol of it and they'll insist on it, in fact.

[Kade]

Make a status symbol of it and they'll insist on it, in fact.

Even Ayn Rand believed that non-coercive monopolies were a danger. I'm surprised she gave much credit to people. Norm Chomsky was right... none of these grand philosophies considered the effect of manufactured consent. The media, the culture is completely controlled by those that have achieved ultimate efficiency, and in this, one cannot correctly argue that this is a case where the fittest should be... control the minds, control the functions, and the free market can't, nor won't exist. The free market is destroyed by collective psyche of the population. Things that are not status symbols become simply recognizable... we have created an ability to provide complete access to poor products with fiat.

This is the reality. I don't have the answer, but it will take more than one liner philosophy to fix it... I'm more open to discussion then pronouncements.

[brandon]

Learn how? I disagree intensely with brandoyates opinion. And it's all it is. All the crap about being young and naive to think differently is to prevent a challenge of his opinions.

?? What do you disagree with? Are you sure you meant me? I think you were reffering to the original poster. (I hope)

[Kraig]

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I must agree.
I actually have a one word answer for this, but you won't want to hear it.

I actually would like to hear it.

If you would like a discussion, as I would, then you could start by giving examples of monopolies that could destroy the free market, or by by giving examples of consumers who willingly choose an inferior product for no reason. I think you will find that all monopolies become a problem only when the government is heavily involved with that industry, but I will wait to hear your examples.

and when did Ayn Rand say that any monopoly in the free market would be dangerous?

[CuriousOnlooker]

I actually would like to hear it.

If you would like a discussion, as I would, then you could start by giving examples of monopolies that could destroy the free market, or by by giving examples of consumers who willingly choose an inferior product for no reason. I think you will find that all monopolies become a problem only when the government is heavily involved with that industry, but I will wait to hear your examples.

and when did Ayn Rand say that any monopoly in the free market would be dangerous?


Not a full post but just a couple of thoughts;

-In response to consumers buying an inferior product for no reason; Opportunity Cost (the difference between two choices.) So for example, I could travel a mile to my local Supermarket to buy a Chicken that's of average quality for £2. Or, I can travel to a specialist Chicken farm five miles away to buy a fantastic chicken for £5. The reason I might buy the cheap chicken is because I can't be bothered to travel the extra distance (The opportunity cost here is four miles against the quality of the chicken.) Some people may also be ignorant in variations of quality / price. The internet in due course will work to try and expose this however, as the internet is a free market of information (unless you're behind filters).



Resources are limited (i.e, there is only X amount of land, or X amount of wood, or X amount of oil.)

It is more EFFICIENT for only one company to provide a service than another (I.e, if only ONE company provided telephones, they could spend their time creating more telephones, rather than advertising their own brand of telephone. Ofcourse there are problems with this, but bare with me :) )

To give a practical world example here of why a monopoly would be a problem when Govt IS NOT involved in the market;

In the UK, there isn't a huge amount of land spare. Most land is taken up where I live (South East of London) by buildings or 'green belt' - land that can't be built on to avoid urban sprawl. So the land for train tracks is very limited. A private company (South Eastern Rail) 'owns' the rail tracks in the area around my town and to London in the South East. They have a monopoly here; I couldn't lay down new train tracks and create a new rail empire because I don't have the room or access to resources (i.e links to other rail stations). The Government regulates the rail companies - to avoid overcharging the consumer for example. If I wanted to travel to work in London, SE Rail can charge whatever they want because they know that I 'have' to pay to go to London. At any rate, they would seek the highest profit margins they can before they drive customers away. The Government in theory tries to regulate this, because the rail company has a 'natural' monopoly. (That said, our Govt is rubbish and the trains are really expensive =p but in theory anyway.. w/o the limited Govt intervention they'd be a lot more expensive.)

The underlying point I am trying to make is that it might be more dangerous to the consumer in some cases if the state does not intervene, where other competitors do not have equal access to resources.

[torchbearer]

Yea WTH.

Anyway, Torchbearer believes that corporations are not given individual freedoms.

I believe strongly that each owner of a corporation should be held responsible for the product.

I love how others profess what i believe as if they speak for me. tool.