Free Market Economy arguments

[unklejman]

Nay sayer:
But, his laissez-faire BS is just right-wing utopia. It serves nobody other than the already rich and powerful.

Supporter:
I'm not rich and powerful, but free market economy wouldn't affect me negatively in any way.

Nay sayer:
The minute someone forged a monopoly over a commodity that you absolutely needed, yes it would. This is the same type of crap that drove the country (and the world) into a depression 80 years ago. A "free market" is supposed to be a competitive market. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't stay that way for long when there is an opportunity for someone to become the sole dictator of wealth in a vital area. Just study up on Rockefeller a little. You're so far removed from the era that you think it's a great idea. It's not. It has been done and it doesn't work.


What say you?

[user]

So many of us are probably tired of having to correct these mainstream bs arguments. I guess we have to keep going though.

Freedom has led to increased prosperity for the world.

The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve, so it was the absence of a free market, not a free market, that led to it.

A monopoly can only exist and be maintained when the government is involved.

[kalami]

Are these your questions or no?

I'd tell that naysayer that he is question begging and that he should do a better job of supporting his position.

"It benefits only the rich and powerful" I'd ask him to explain that.

"just study up on Rockefeller" That's him citing his evidence, it's sloppy, and its his responsibility to establish his position. Not me.


If I remember correctly, despite Rockefeller having a monopoly he increased efficiency and brought down oil prices.
edit: here is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Monopoly
quality improved and prices were reduced

[AisA1787]

Nay sayer:
The minute someone forged a monopoly over a commodity that you absolutely needed, yes it would. This is the same type of crap that drove the country (and the world) into a depression 80 years ago. A "free market" is supposed to be a competitive market. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't stay that way for long when there is an opportunity for someone to become the sole dictator of wealth in a vital area. Just study up on Rockefeller.

The dirty little secret about monopolies in America is that they usually come into being with government assistance. Would there be "monopolies" in a free market? Perhaps, but at least they would be honest monopolies (assuming the government enforced private property rights, etc). We dont' reallly know, though, because we've never had a truly free market. What we have had is government interference in the market by force (the government calls it "rules and regulations") for the benefit of special interests. Rockefeller benefited greatly from this. If you're really looking for an education about the specifics of this, I would start here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&q=von+mises+institute&total=49&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[joshdvm]

Anyone correct me or add to this as needed.

The argument is bogus. The answer is very simple and can be found here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance90.html

The "greedy-robber-barons-cornering-the-market-on-(fill in the blank)-and-screwing-everyone-over" narrative is myth, a lie.

A 'monopoly' cannot exist in the environment of free market competition: superior market share is only achieved by providing the highest quality of goods at the most competitive prices.

The only true monopolies are those created by government at the behest of ineffiecient businesses in order to protect them from competition.

This brings us to what is referred to as a 'political entrepreneur.' The TRUE robber barons were political entrepreneurs who were successful at lobbying the government to protect them from free-market competition via legislation--AT THE EXPENSE OF THE VERY CONSUMERS it is erroneously believed the legislation ostensibly 'protected'.

Protection for inefficient businesses (at the expense of consumers) was THE TRUE MOTIVATION behind the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation.

The writer you quoted is the one who is ignorant of history. Rockefeller was an example of a 'market entrepreneur', i.e., one who succeeds only by pleasing consumers, not successfully lobbying the government.

We know the commonly-accepted anti-trust narrative is necessarily bogus because the prices of products of the industries targeted by Sherman (including oil) were FALLING at a HIGHER rate than the general rate of overall price deflation for at least a decade prior to Sherman.

[Wingman]

My suggestion on how Ron Paul would respond :-

Free markets are imprtant and yes deregulation would be effected.
Where corporations behave in a way to impact negatively on the benefits of free competition, they will be constrained. This includes stopping situations like rockefeller evolving. It's just modern trade practices law but we need to remove the government element (ie: Iraq, Blackwater, Enron, Fed rserve propping up banks and housing sector and so on).

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Nay sayer:
But, his laissez-faire BS is just right-wing utopia. It serves nobody other than the already rich and powerful.

Supporter:
I'm not rich and powerful, but free market economy wouldn't affect me negatively in any way.

Nay sayer:
The minute someone forged a monopoly over a commodity that you absolutely needed, yes it would. This is the same type of crap that drove the country (and the world) into a depression 80 years ago. A "free market" is supposed to be a competitive market. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't stay that way for long when there is an opportunity for someone to become the sole dictator of wealth in a vital area. Just study up on Rockefeller a little. You're so far removed from the era that you think it's a great idea. It's not. It has been done and it doesn't work.


What say you?

What makes it "right wing"? Libertarians are not "right wing." It is the correct economic policy. There is right and wrong in economics.

Free markets: right

Keynesian: wrong

There's no "right wing," or "left wing" paradox about it. People that call it "right wing" are just emotionally sore and can't come up with ways to attack it, so they try to associate elitism and fascism with it.

It all comes down to this:

Do you believe the government has the right to rob you?

Oh, I'm not rich by anyone's standards lol it's just common sense. Do you believe the government has the right to take what you have earned away from you, whenever they feel like it?

[dmspilot00]

The minute someone forged a monopoly over a commodity that you absolutely needed, yes it would. This is the same type of crap that drove the country (and the world) into a depression 80 years ago. Horse manure. The US government and Federal Reserve System were the DIRECT cause of the Great Depression! The Nay Sayer needs a history lesson.