Lee's 'Free Market' Claim

[Lee]

Well, I need some intp humour.

What does an idealist do when they realize no one else gives a rat's ass about bettering the world?You strive to promote individual liberty and the free market ideal. That way, nobody has to give a 'rat's ass' about bettering the world, because even those who are purely motivated by cheap thrills or personal fortune, will help better the world as an unintended byproduct of the selfish pursuit of their own happiness. As for those who already wanted to better the world, they can continue as they were.

[demagogic_schizoid]

You strive to promote individual liberty and the free market ideal. That way, nobody has to give a 'rat's ass' about bettering the world, because even those who are purely motivated by cheap thrills or personal fortune, will help better the world as an unintended byproduct of the selfish pursuit of their own happiness. As for those who already wanted to better the world, they can continue as they were.

How does this work exactly? What happens when people decide that the best way to further their own ends is in conjunction with others who are in the same business? How do you prevent cartelisation in a totally free market? What happens if those who have accumulated (and inherited) wealth seek to use this to exercise power over others, as this would seem to offer endless possibilities for expanding said wealth?

[Lee]

How does this work exactly? What happens when people decide that the best way to further their own ends is in conjunction with others who are in the same business?This is a common misunderstanding of how a free market works.

Monopolies and cartels are not a big problem in a free market. The idea that they are is a myth, based on a flawed understanding of how a free market works. In fact, government 'solutions' to the monopoly and cartel 'problem' are notoriously misguided and uneffective. Furthermore, the longest running and most damaging monopolies and cartels are almost always government sponsored. I don't expect you to just believe me, so I'll just explain it to you.

The term monopoly is used to describe a business which is the lone provider of a commodity or service within a market sector. It is important to recognise that a monopoly could be the sole convenience store in a small village, or a huge telephone company servicing a country or state. Also important to recognise is that a monopoly could be a company selling food, or a company selling hand crafted fairy figurines.

The difference is important. A monopoly can occur in particular market sectors where there is not enough demand to support any more than a single company. For example, the demand of small village may not be enough to support two convenience stores. Likewise, the demand for hand crafted fairy figurines may not be enough over the entire country to finance more than a single company providing that service.

There can be entirely innocent reasons for the existence of a monopoly, especially in dying industries, such as the production of typewriters or audio casettes. The stereotype of a monopoly is that of a big greedy company, charging prices which far exceed the costs of delivering the commodity or service. The fact is that monopolies come in all shapes and sizes, most servicing market sectors unable to support any more than a single company.

Even so, these monopolies are not free to arbitrarily set prices. The reason is the whole concept of a 'market sector,' because there is no such thing as a pure monopoly except in a communist state. A monopoly is competing with everything else the customer could have spent his money on, so while a monopoly may enjoy some slack to raise prices, the monopoliser cannot do so indefinitely. Furthermore, everytime the monopoliser raises his prices, the more incentive there is on other companies and entrepreneurs to establish their own business and undercut him.

This means that even where a monopoly exists, their freedom to arbitrarily set prices is constrained. Of course, it is always beneficial to have many companies competing to provide the customer with the same kind of service, because this tends to push prices toward that compromise between price and quality which customers desire. However, this is not always possible and innocent monopolies will exist, if only because of the simple logic that in any raising or falling industry, someone has to be first and someone has to be last.

The free market simply does not suffer from a monopoly problem. You see, a monopoly is only a problem if demand is high and profits are good, but because in a free market investors are always looking for such markets to flood with competition, the monopoly is usually a fleeting occurence, quickly undercut and usurped by entrepreneurs.

Part of the calamity of government enforced anti-cartel and anti-monopoly regulation, is that these bumbling bureaucracies often end up prosecuting 'monopolisers' long after they have lost their lead in the market. Not only that, but arbitrary distinctions between market sectors, has led to the prosecution of typewriter manufacturers, where they are the last remaining company in a falling industry because of competition from personal computers!

The fear of cartels is similarly misled. A cartel is functionally a lot like a monopoly, except a cartel is when a group of companies agree to fix prices. The same free market forces which undercut monopolies also undercut cartels, because there is no such thing as a pure monopoly, and every price hike introduced by the cartel encourages entrepreneurs to enter the market and undercut tem. Furthermore, cartels are faced with a greater pressure to disband in a free market, because each member of the cartel can make greater profits by undermining his accomplices.

All of the reasons above are why monopolies are practically nonexistent in a free market, and even where they do exist, that existence is usually fleeting or quite innocent. All this doesn't mean that monopolies and cartels are not a problem, only that they are a fleeting and minor problem, a problem which will fix itself, provided free market conditions prevail. To put it another way: everyone seeking to satisfy nothing but their own selfish desires will break monopolies and cartels.

If you actually care to look at the longest running and most powerful monopolies and cartels, you will find that far from being the consequence of a free market, they are the consequence of government regulation and subsidies. Today and in the past, businessmen have tried to lobby government to limit the freedom of the competition, using the police and courts of law as a private army to punish competitors and thus maintain a government enforced monopoly.

A government enforced monopoly or cartel is not undercut by competition, since competition is unlawful and also can force consumers to pay extortionate prices via taxes and subsidies. These monopolies are unethical and disruptive to the whole of society, stunting economic development and negatively impacting the quality of peoples lives.

Incidently, the most damaging and pervasive government enforced cartel, is not big business at all, but the minimum wage. A price control that effectively makes it illegal for a person to sell their services below a particular price, thus preventing the competition from undercutting your extortionate prices.


What happens if those who have accumulated (and inherited) wealth seek to use this to exercise power over others, as this would seem to offer endless possibilities for expanding said wealth?The whole point of a free market is that people are free, nobody is forced into any kind of transaction except those which they feel will bring mutual benefit. Any exception to this kind of transaction is a criminal offence. The fact that some people are wealthier than others simply means that they can invest that wealth in others, further providing choices to others that they would otherwise not have available.

Those who want to exercise arbitrary power over others prefer to get into politics anyway.

[Zero Angel]

EDIT: MODS, can you split Lee and I's post off into a new topic?

I disagree, at least partially. Cartels don't exist, because they aren't allowed to exist (at least in most markets), not because they cannot sustain themselves. Gas stations, for example, make a *much* higher ratio of profits from snacks than they do from actual gas. If we assume that after expenses (such as purchase, transport, and taxes) they make a 5% profit from all gas sold at competition prices, if they were to agree to raise that price by 4%, they would make a full 8-9% off of that. While that doesn't seem like an overly huge amount, they are far more net profit than they would competing. Now, if one member of the cartel were to break the terms of the deal and lower their prices even slightly to get more customers, all members of the cartel would be forced to do the same and and price wars would ensue until they had to offer prices at a level that are unsatisfactory for all companies. Now, the gas market is a very volatile one, and I really doubt that anyone would be willing to start a new gas station because they think they can compete with the high prices (again this would cause the cartels to kick back into competition mode) so perhaps this is not a very good example. But it is food for thought.

Now in regards to monopolies, the free-market, assuming that everyone is competing benignly will self-regulate; but the market does not compete benignly. Why do you think the RIAA is able to charge excessively inflated prices for CD's? Not everyone can start a record company that is able to distribute as effectively as UMG or Sony, it requires hundreds of millions of dollars in investments to do that, not to mention that one has to get around the entrenched system that the currrent cartel has set up. Back to individual monopolies, Microsoft, for example, binds certain dealers to contracts preventing them from selling competitors products (ie: Linux) in exchange for lower prices. No software vendor with a reasonable respect for profits will refuse such an offer because it would hurt their bottom line, thus the competition is unable to get a leg up in the already established market.

Incidently, the most damaging and pervasive government enforced cartel, is not big business at all, but the minimum wage. A price control that effectively makes it illegal for a person to sell their services below a particular price, thus preventing the competition from undercutting your extortionate prices.
You have got. to. be. kidding. me. If you want to see an unrestricted free market in action, take a look at the third-world countries that run sweatshops for Nike. A dramatic example, maybe, but some basic truths can be extracted out of that. One can argue that working in a sweatshop is better than starving to death, but such a thing would not be tolerated in a well-off country like Canada and the USA because minimum wage is far better for the quality of life of individuals than merely making enough to buy enough rice to survive. Such a system provides greater amount of happiness for the many than for the few.

Lets imagine a scenario where minimum wage was banned, the nature of competition would be such that each party would have to come to an unsatisfactory profit margin anyways. The only way any company would be able to succeed is to hire the most desperate people in society and work them as hard as possible. This is essentially the same thing that happens with minimum wage, but a normal person has a chance of having at least basic amenities and luxuries.

. I do like hearing arguments that government deregulate the economic system (despite the fact that I don't agree) because it can work both ways and also touches on the fact that the economic system should not interfere with the government! The DMCA for example was aided and abetted by congressmen who were sympathetic not to capitalism, but to corporations. And I am mostly satisfied with the current system at least in Canada, because the free market *does* regulate itself to a reasonable extent, and the government doesn't put its hand too deeply in corporate affairs or restrict individual freedom in favor of corporate freedom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Plan B:
http://www.rockthefreeworld.com/images/fukitol.jpg


You guys have it all wrong.

http://www.fullam.com/images/tools/526601.jpg

Lets just call that "Plan C"

[Carebear]

I'd like to see Lee's and Zero's posts split into a new thread as well, would be interesting to see it develop.

[Lee]

I disagree, at least partially. Cartels don't exist, because they aren't allowed to exist (at least in most markets), not because they cannot sustain themselves.I don't know where you get your information from. There are cartels in practically every market sector, in the US and even more so in Western Europe. The problem is that people do not recognise them as cartels, as they are shrouded behind well-intentioned rhetoric and are financed on the fallacy that they are good for society. The majority of cartels are actively supported by government legislation, which is why rhetoric about anti-trust laws is so insidiously misleading.

To understand economics, you have to stop thinking in terms of a Communist class war, as though employers and employees are fundamentally different, facing up to one another in a zero-sum game where each side can only benefit at the expense of the other. This is not only fallacious, but dangerous to the well-being of all of us.

To explain, I'll borrow an example from a lecture I once heard. The principles which it demonstrates are applicable across practically all market sectors, and show how cartels, far from being the enemy of government, are long time bedfellows. The proliferation of health and safty regulations, licensing laws and other red tape are the penicious tools used to cartelise the market.

For example, a case that occured on Washington DC. There was a small business, run by an Muslim couple from Africa. The couple had few skills to sell on the marketplace, though they both knew how to braid hair very well, skills passed down informally through generations. The demand for their hair braiding services was high, so they opened a small business offering these services. The business was doing very well. The couple were clearly offering a service that people wanted and doing so at acceptable prices, surely there could be nothing wrong with this, right?

Oneday, a policeman turned up at their door and gave an ultimatum, 'either close down your business immediately or face criminal prosecution and prison.' What was the terrible crime that the couple had commited? They were running a hair salon without a cosmotology lisence. Of course, the couple immediately applied for this lisence, only to discover that it would require 16,000 hours of training, an examination and official approval from a board of cosmotologists.

To clarify the absurdity of the situation. The training course and examination included demonstrating proficiency in hairstyling techniques not in fashion since the seventies, and never in fashion amongst the Black American community. The couple were to be forced to learn skills they had no intention of selling to the public, not only that, but among the multitude of irrelevent skills they were being asked to learn, absent was a proficiency in hair braiding, the only service they actually offered! On top of this, their application was dependent upon the approval of a panel of their competitors, who had the power to enforce arbitrary rules and regulations on any competition.

These licesning commities and regulatory legislation, are whether intended or not, the tools used to protect cartels from competition. These are methods by which the costs of doing business are increased for all except those already established, thus preventing any competition from undercutting the cartels prices. There is of course a limited degree of competition within the cartel, but these measures are corruptions of the free market, they are the means by which cartel members exercise arbitrary rule over others for their own ends.

These insidious enroachments upon economic freedom are ubiquitous, even in so-called capitalist countries like the USA and the UK. Practically every profession from hairdressing, practicing law, plumbing to nursing must satisfy a long list of requirements by law before they can even begin trading, irrespective of whether their customers want to trade with them.

These cartels are so common that most people do not even recognise that they're cartels, but instead give flimsy and poorly supported justifications for their existence, such as that without them a free market companies would not deliver a quality service or not provide adequate health and safety. These excuses are not only false, but also presume that people are incapable of deciding for themselves, what counts as quality service or adequate safety measures.


Now, the gas market is a very volatile one, and I really doubt that anyone would be willing to start a new gas station because they think they can compete with the high prices (again this would cause the cartels to kick back into competition mode) so perhaps this is not a very good example. But it is food for thought.Did you just make my point?

I understand that competition is never perfect, even that a cartel might be able to increase prices by a small amount. However, the net effect of competition over the entire economy would also be bring the cost in real terms down. My point is that every incremental price increase by a monopoly or cartel increases the incentives of competitors to enter the market, cartel members to undercut their collaboraters, or consumers to spend their money elsewhere.

I do not deny that free market competition is imperfect. There are some industries which it works more efficiently that others, and nobody can seriously expect that prices will reflect that abstract free market ideal at all times. However, there will never be a problem free and perfect solution to the problem of organising an economy. To paraphrase an economist I can't remember, 'the invisible hand may be limp, but the hand of government is crippled.' If I am trying to justify the free market as an efficient means of bettering society, whilst maintaing personal liberty, I do so not because it is perfect and free of problems, but because I have a critical preference for the free market when compared to all the other forms of government which have been suggested and tried.

The potentially damaging effects of a cartel or monopoly are corrected by a free market. The only way for a cartel or monopoly to sustain itself, long term, while raking in the profits is to use oppressive measures against the competition, use punative action against badly behaved cartel members, or force consumers to pay. The problem, is that in a free market, they cannot do this without breaking the law, so the solution is simple... change the law.

The lobbying of politicians to change the law to satisfy special interests groups is the leading cause of cartels and monopolies. In the past, the government used to actually sell monopoly rights to the highest bidder, today, politicians sell cartel and monopoly rights in exchange for votes.

The logic is very simple. In a population of 1,000,000 a piece of legislation which benefits 1000 individuals by £1000 a year at the expense of everyone else, will cost each individual 0.01p a year. The problem is that each individual has only 1 vote, now a loss of 0.01p a year is very little incentive to to vote for a particular candidate, but a gain of £1000 a year is quite a big incentive to vote for a particular candidate. By appealing to special interest groups, a politician can increase the chances that he gets into office.

The important thing to note is that nobody needs to intend these outcomes, in most cases people do not even recognise what they are doing until it is too late and massive reforms are required, as occured in New Zealand some years ago. There is a survival of the fittest occuring, where politicians who unknowingly adopt these tactics, are the most likely to succeed in getting to office.


Now in regards to monopolies, the free-market, assuming that everyone is competing benignly will self-regulate; but the market does not compete benignly. Why do you think the RIAA is able to charge excessively inflated prices for CD's? Not everyone can start a record company that is able to distribute as effectively as UMG or Sony, it requires hundreds of millions of dollars in investments to do that, not to mention that one has to get around the entrenched system that the currrent cartel has set up.I fail to see your point here. You can't criticise a free market for this, since the problems are caused by corruptions of the free market.

The second criticism, that barriers to investment act to lessen competition, while true, is a constraint imposed on us by the laws of the universe we live in. As I said previously, no system is perfect, but neither does any deviation from the ideal competitive prices mean that we should scrap the whole idea, especially when alternatives to setting prices and allocating resources have been so universally disasterous.


Back to individual monopolies, Microsoft, for example, binds certain dealers to contracts preventing them from selling competitors products (ie: Linux) in exchange for lower prices. No software vendor with a reasonable respect for profits will refuse such an offer because it would hurt their bottom line, thus the competition is unable to get a leg up in the already established market.Microsoft is not a monopoly, Microsoft is a market leader. I have no quarrel with Microsoft signing agreements with other companies which ensure that they sell Microsoft's product exclusively, it happens in many other sectors. This doesn't prevent competition at all, it's simply a way in which Microsoft can reduce the cost of delivering their product. To be sure, Microsoft is in a dominant position, one that will be difficult to usurp, but it is only naivete and historical ignorance to believe Microsoft is untouchable. Microsoft have freedom to wiggle, but not to run, they are still at the mercy of market forces and competition.


You have got. to. be. kidding. me. If you want to see an unrestricted free market in action, take a look at the third-world countries that run sweatshops for Nike. A dramatic example, maybe, but some basic truths can be extracted out of that. One can argue that working in a sweatshop is better than starving to death, but such a thing would not be tolerated in a well-off country like Canada and the USA because minimum wage is far better for the quality of life of individuals than merely making enough to buy enough rice to survive. Such a system provides greater amount of happiness for the many than for the few.Actually, third-world sweatshops are a fantastic example to demonstrate my point.

You see, minimum wages are a form of price controls, and price controls disrupt the allocation of resources. This is because prices are more than just hurdles to getting what we want, in a free market prices are how information about the relative scarcity and demand of goods and services is communicated, which is why we use the term, a price coordinated economy.

If you were to introduce a minimum wage law into China, you would immediately undermine those workers' competitive advantage. You have to understand that people queue for hours outside of these sweatshops for a chance to be employed there, because of the crushing poverty they would otherwise be subject to. The Chinese in this position need that competitive advantage, because the moment their cost-ouput ratio drops below that in more developed nations, is the moment when they are reintroduced to crushing poverty.

However, you might argue, that the Chinese can retain a competitive advantage to those in more developed nations whilst still introducing minimum wages, so long as those cost-output ratio tracks just below that of developed nations. However, this would simply be the mistake of thinking of economies in national terms, since even within China there are people competing for jobs. The most desperate for a job are also the most willing to accept the lowest wages, they have a competitive advantage. Removing that competitive advantage will only hurt those most in need, since they cannot sell their labour at a cheaper price, so no company has any reason to prefer them to anyone else.

Furthermore, by increasing the costs of providing the services, sales of thoe goods those sweatshops produce will drop worldwide, ultimately reducing the total number of jobs available, again reintroducing yet more people to crushing poverty.

Minimum wage laws act the same around the world. They keep those currently employed above the minimum wage safe, because they make it illegal for competitors to undercut the price of labour. Unfortunately, this pushes those whose output is less than the minimum wage into unemployment, even if they and the employer agree to enter into transaction, the state will not let them. There is hardly a more grotesque way in which the government restricts individual liberty.


Lets imagine a scenario where minimum wage was banned, the nature of competition would be such that each party would have to come to an unsatisfactory profit margin anyways. The only way any company would be able to succeed is to hire the most desperate people in society and work them as hard as possible. This is essentially the same thing that happens with minimum wage, but a normal person has a chance of having at least basic amenities and luxuries.That's not the nature of competition at all.

The nature of competition is such that companies must bid for employees, employers must compete for employees in the same way they compete for crates of bananas or barrels of oil. A logical consequence of your argument is that everyone should be getting paid minimum wage, this is because apparently it is only the minimum wage which prevents us from being paid a pittence for hours of hard graft in terrible working conditions. This Marxist economic analysis is simply false.

If you care to look, you'll find that wages rise in a free market and goods become cheaper, even when there is no minimum wage, because competition between employers for employees drives up wages, in exactly the same way that competition between businesses for crates of bananas drives up the price of bananas. Minimum wage laws are based upon a deeply flawed understanding of how economies work, increasing unemployment and increasing welfare budgets.

Not only are minimum wage laws immoral, on the principle they infringe upon two consenting adults ability to engage in a mutually beneficial transation, but they are also bad for the economy.


I do like hearing arguments that government deregulate the economic system (despite the fact that I don't agree) because it can work both ways and also touches on the fact that the economic system should not interfere with the government! The DMCA for example was aided and abetted by congressmen who were sympathetic not to capitalism, but to corporations. And I am mostly satisfied with the current system at least in Canada, because the free market *does* regulate itself to a reasonable extent, and the government doesn't put its hand too deeply in corporate affairs or restrict individual freedom in favor of corporate freedom.This isn't a zero-sum game between individual and corporate freedom. In a free market, everyone is equally free, they don't necessarily have the exact same set of choices before them, but they are all equally free from the coercion of others. The role of government is to enforce that freedom and punish infringements upon it, preserving freedom on the inside by the police and criminal justice system, and preserving from the outside with a military.

The big problem for a free market, is devising how to structure a political system so that government does not have any incentive to corrupt it.

[Dr. Haight]

The posts above have been moved here from the previous location:

when the idealist's bubble pops... (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=459187&posted=1#post459187)

[dubbeltop]

Lee's 'Flee Market' Claim

[omnirook]

Naturally, it was only a matter of time before I responded to this thread. I have 2 excuses:

1 - I was distracted by yesterday's mid-term election;

2 - it took me a long time to read Lee's posts.

Now, before I say what I have to say, let me say - Lee writes very well and very convincingly - and does so voluminously. He has a future as an academic writer! And that's what the whole argument is - academic ... moot.

What makes either him or any of his fellow free-market advocates believe that there will ever come a time when the market will be "free" quite escapes me. (Lee, of course, will attribute that to my stupidity.)

The "market" has never been "free" - and never will be. Why? Well, this will take a lot of time and space to explain. So, I'll break up my post into portions. Feel free to reply at any time - as long as it is understood that I have not finished and might have covered your objections in the notes that I have made but have not yet posted.

1 - A free market is even less in the interests of large corporations than it is in the interests of workers; WALMART, for instance, would be most unhappy if the market were "free" - the power to dictate not only to its suppliers but to governments and even to its buyers would be - diminished - and the Waltons would not like such a thing, not at all.

Now, of course, Lee has argued that monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing - and he has used a "village" w/one mom-and-pop as his example. Good try. Doesn't hold water, though. Why? Well - let's take a closer look at WALMART.

All across the US - maybe not the UK (yet), which might have led Lee to make this mistake - WALMART has actively and quite openly pounded the mom-and-pops into oblivion. How? Simple.
A) Send in the pitchman who lies to the local yokels and tells them how great a WALMART would be for their constituents - oh, the jobs, the taxes, the blah, blah, blah;

B) Pay off enough of the local yokels to guarantee that the zoning laws, etc change as required - no matter what sort of a fuss the public kicks up;

C) Get a huge piece of land for - free - and get it to come w/a several years' tax abatement;

D) Press to get the local yokels to pick up the costs of construction - after all, WALMART is doing them the favor by coming into such a - needy area!;

E) Get the land and the tax abatements and the construction done (and paid for by - the victims!), then come in and open shop;

F) Open shop! - 31 states are currently suing WALMART for savage employment practices - including discrimination against women and blacks (down to openly telling a black employee that she can rise only so far and no further because - she "has 2 knocks against her" - she's black and a woman!), including forcing people to work for no pay to keep their jobs, including failing to pay mandated overtime, including hiring thousands of illegal aliens to fill jobs that were promised to the locals who allowed WALMART to open shop - among other unsavory things, such as wrecklessly polluting rivers and wild-life refuges;

G) Operate at a loss for as long as it takes to undercut and kill off all competition w/in a several hours' drive of the "Super Center" - this has resulted in DEAD down-town districts all over the Mid-West and the South. You can go, you can ride through, you can see the empty shops - one after the other, gone, many of them having been there and prosperous for a century before the arrival of WALMART;

H) Open as many as 10 "Super Centers" in a small radius if the local businesses are stubbornly hanging on. Once the businesses have finally been - "convinced" to go under, close all but one "Super Center," laying off hundreds of employees and forcing the consumers to drive further to do their shopping now that there is no place else to shop;

I) Once the competition is gone - raise prices to a profitable level, even if that means that the consumers wind up paying more they were when WALMART arrived;

J) Wait until the tax abatements run out; if the town will not renew them - effectively making it so that WALMART is operating tax free forever! - close the "Super Center" in town and move it to a patch of land that is not in any town - leaving behind a vacant building that the town now owns and cannot get rented out;

K) Most important - hire media consultants to make the company "look good," no matter what it does - and have so much power in terms of sales and distribution that only the most intrepid media source will dare to point out the EVIL that is being done.

This is happening all over America. WALMART is now the 2nd largest employer in 31 US states - 2nd after the government itself. Yeah, sure - in some rarefied case, a monopoly might be a better thing - say in utilities - but, usually, it is a nightmare for the consumer.

Now, to give you all a chance to catch your breaths, I'll stop here - to resume later.

[MacGuffin]

Moved above post to correct thread.

[Jennywocky]

Now, before I say what I have to say, let me say - Lee writes very well and very convincingly - and does so voluminously. He has a future as an academic writer!

Yes, Lee, I would agree with Omni. I think you're an excellent writer (no sarcasm insinuated, it is a real compliment).

In fact, your articulate writing is what enabled me to continue past the sort of comments that irked me enough to stop reading, just based on the emotional kneejerk reactions I found myself having -- basically, all the times you take needless punches at the other guy's intelligence level or his discernment ability. Those things were not helpful to support your viewpoint and actually erode the reader's confidence in your ideas.

So just some advice -- This debate is not just about ideas but also about communication, and with communication you really need to be building bridges, not trying to drive away your audience.

I really enjoyed reading your POV, since I don't know as much about this topic as you and some others seemingly do; and the more you can drop the personal polemic, the more people will be able to focus on your content and not on the perceived hubris.

(Sorry if that comes across as judgmental. Maybe on some level it is, because I admittedly was irked by the attitude I was perceiving in spots, but I think it's still sound advice.)


And that's what the whole argument is - academic ... moot.

That's rather what I was wondering. I don't know enough to enter this discussion, but I'm still trying to discern how much of Lee's ideas are theoretical vs. what has actually played out in reality.

I do know there won't be a clear-cut delineation between which strategy is right vs. wrong. Economy is such a large, complex system, with so many variables, that everything is triggering reactions in everything else, and back again. The complexity is why arguments like these never seem to get resolved.


What makes either him or any of his fellow free-market advocates believe that there will ever come a time when the market will be "free" quite escapes me. (Lee, of course, will attribute that to my stupidity.)

Let's hope not. His ideas deserve better.

[omnirook]

continued ...

1 A - re: the potential good of monopolies ... Yes, one could call a mom-and-pop general store in a rural district a "monopoly" - sure, why not? In many ways, such a business sort of fits the description of a monopoly - but, then, a pony also sort of fits the description of a horse that an average-sized rider might ride. Give that a try in full armor at full tilt across a battle-field.

Clearly, a mom-and-pop that is the sole supplier of staple goods in a rural area is not a very convincing "monopoly." First of all, unlike the genuine article, it does not have clout outside of its own small community. It cannot demand tax abatements at even the county level, forget the state and federal levels. It might get a tax abatement from the town itself - big deal! Second, the mom-and-pop does charge more for the items that it sells. Why? Simple: it cannot spread out the impact of its overhead across many stores; it cannot claim "losses" on its other outlets that it deliberately opened in "non-performing" areas, just to create the "losses" to keep its balance sheets tidy; third, and - most importantly - it cannot buy in enough volume to squeeze cuts in price from its suppliers: it pays more, so it charges more.

So, what good is it? Well, that depends on how you feel about people - are people human beings who deserve to be treated w/respect, who deserve to be treated like - they are human beings - or are they things - there to be used and abused by those who have the means to use and abuse them? Oh, but what about the higher prices that the consumer is forced to pay? What about them? For the higher price, the consumer gets - much better service.

Example: my local hardware dealer - he stays in business because I and a few other loyal contractors will not go to Home Depot or Lowes. Why won't we go to those places? Because the service SUCKS. The stores are staffed by teenagers who (as is normal and healthy for teens) do not give a damn, by adults who have lost their real jobs and who are on the brink of suicide and, so, do not give a damn, and by handicapped people who are - retarded - and who do give a damn, but about the wrong things. The local guy costs more - but he's well worth the extra cost. His great-grandfather started the business, and every generation since has been in the business: they KNOW hardware!

Besides - read over 1 - when the competition is gone, the WALMARTs of the world raise their prices - and people pay the higher prices because - there's no where else to go.

... A lot more to come! ...

[omnirook]

continued ...

Hardly anyone in the West would argue that a monopoly of power is a good thing. Yesterday's mid-term elections show this clearly: the public were fed up w/the cronyism and the corruption and the blatant contempt that a single-party government creates. Surely, since both governments and businesses are constituted and staffed by PEOPLE, one cannot hope to argue seriously that a market monopoly would be any better than a government one: surely one is not going to be so stupid as to float the "opinion" that corruption decreases where large amounts of money are at stake. If one were to do such a thing, if one were to say something so patently stupid, the laughter from the world's historians would drown out even the noise of the New York Stock Exchange at full steam, say an hour before closing on a day of heavy trading. Money is to human beings what dog shit is to flies. Get over it: there is not, never has been, and never will be a way of doing business that is one bit better than 2 pirates sitting down to "parley" when each has perceived the other to be an equal match - or superior: if that perception changes, "blood" - and sometimes blood - will flow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of my posting should be restated, so that neither the readers nor I get lost: I am convinced that there never will be a "free market" - that a "free market" is less likely than the "Second Coming" - I'm an agnostic, so that tells you how likely I believe the return of Jesus to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
next post ...

2 - Why corporations would rather that Jesus came and ended the world than see a "free market" come into being!

[Lee]

Now, before I say what I have to say, let me say - Lee writes very well and very convincingly - and does so voluminously. He has a future as an academic writer! And that's what the whole argument is - academic ... moot.The argument is far from moot. This particular argument is of little importance, but the criticism and constant support of the ideal of freedom is extremely important for all of mankind. I consider it a moral duty to refute your fallicious arguments, which when spread have the potential to ruin the lives of millions of people.


What makes either him or any of his fellow free-market advocates believe that there will ever come a time when the market will be "free" quite escapes me. (Lee, of course, will attribute that to my stupidity.) The "market" has never been "free" - and never will be.Indeed, I will attribute this to your stupidity. I intended to stray away from such terms, but what you just wrote is a glaring example of exactly that stupidity.

I take it you are familiar with Kant's analytic-synthetic and apriori-aposteriori distinction for epistemology. That knowledge which is apriori can be known without recourse to further experience, such as the deduction 'all bachelors are unmarried men' or 'Queen Elizabeth is a member of the royal family.'

Turn your attention to the phrase 'free market,' then note carefully the word 'free.' Ponder for a moment on the fact that a bachelor cannot be a married female and that Queen Elizabeth cannot not be a member of the royal family, then ponder on whether a free market can be not free. The free market is free by definition, because a free market which is not free is a contradiction. The free market is an ideal, an ideal which has never and may well never be achieved. However, this is no reason for me to stop advocating that ideal, in the hope that we may strive toward it as much as possible.

The thrust of my advocation is not that the free market achieves economic wealth, but it is in fact an ethical argument. The free market is something which will spontaneously occur in a free society, when individual liberty is upheld. The position which I argue for is one in which people are more than simply the instruments of another's goals, but are free individuals left to pursue their own interests insofar as they do not enroach upon the freedom of others.

I acknowledge that the market -- will in all likelyhood -- never be free. However, this criticism is irrelevent precisely because I already acknowledge it, in fact, my last two posts contained a plethora of examples of how the market is not free, how lobbyists, special interests and a flawed political framework conspire to undermine the freedom of the market year on year. In fact, I have never known a free market advocate who did not already recognise and lament this sorry state of affairs.

In short, you do little more than erecting a straw man, then claiming that I and other free market advocates share this collective delusion. Unfortunately, you even fail to argue successfully against this straw man, since your argument rests on the rather naive assumption that if we cannot achieve our goals perfectly, then we should not try and achieve them at all. To clarify the absurdity of this argument, we can deduct a counterexample in which we should abandon all attempts to prevent rape, because -- in all likelyhood -- there will always be some rapes anyway.


1 - A free market is even less in the interests of large corporations than it is in the interests of workers; WALMART, for instance, would be most unhappy if the market were "free" - the power to dictate not only to its suppliers but to governments and even to its buyers would be - diminished - and the Waltons would not like such a thing, not at all.This is among the more irrelevent responses to my argument you have made. The market is not free, I already acknowledge that, even explained how special interest groups and businesses can lobby politicians for special treatment and regularly succeed.

The government actively sponsers cartelisation of the market, whether it be in the form of protectionism, minimum wage, trade unions, subsidisation, tax abatement etc. The mistake you seem to be making is in assuming that only big business is in on the plunder of freedom, because everyone from the environmental lobby to Walmart is taking their cut, reaching into the pockets of politicians and pulling out a share of everyone elses money.

None of this is good for society, none of this promotes individual liberty, wealth or happiness, except to the minority who accrue a short-term benefit at the expense of everyone else. These all represent a shift away from the free market ideal, a move toward totalitarianism, as power is shifted away from the individual into the hands of governmental authority, who motivated out of greed or ideology proceed to destroy the lives of those they rule over.

There are no doubt individuals within Walmart who would prefer this, who would see the competition illegalised, or unequally encumbered by taxes and regulation. I have never suggested that this was not the case, and in fact already suggested this was so in my previous post. Any such transgressions cannot be tolerated, and should rightly be taken to court and the perpetrators punished.

There is no system of social interactions that can prevent immoral behvaiour, whether it be fraud, rape, murder, theft or whatever. There will be people who will experience a short-term gain at the expense of others, who will strive to act immorally, whether they work for Unicef or Microsoft, are members of the UN or KKK. The important part is how our institutions respond to these transgressions upon the freedom of others, do we punish the perpetrators and deincentivise the behaviour for others, or do we ratify it in law, so that the perpetrators can carry on?

The advocate of the free market ideal is vehemently against all such enroachments on individual freedom, whether they benefit a particular big business or not. You seem to be interpreting any advocation of a free market, as a promotion of the interests of big business. There could hardly be a more skewed vision of the free market.


Now, of course, Lee has argued that monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing - and he has used a "village" w/one mom-and-pop as his example. Good try. Doesn't hold water, though. Why? Well - let's take a closer look at WALMART.Unfortunately, this 'closer look' is utterly irrelevent. The activity of Walmart, a huge company with stores from Florida to Shanghai, is not an appropriate example to refute my claim that most monopolies are harmless, even if Walmart was a monopoly.

I feel that I must restate my position, simply because you have been so selective in your interpretation: A monopoly can emerge in providing any commodity or service where there is not enough demand to support rival companies, or in any growing or failing industry. In these circumstances, providing free market conditions rule, the monopoly is very constrained and easily undercut the moment they attempt to abuse that position.

The existence of a market leader such as Microsoft or Walmart is not synonymous with the existence of a monopoly. Walmart owns many stores which are the only provider in many markets, giving those stores monopoly status. Where Walmart have not corrupted the political system to stifle competition, they are constrained in the same manner in which any other monopoly is constrained. The US may not be a free market, but it is close enough so that these same principles apply.


All across the US - maybe not the UK (yet), which might have led Lee to make this mistakeWalmart own Asda, the UK branch of their store. Here Walmart face stiff competition from Sainsbury's, Tesco, Safeway, Mark's & Spencer's and others. Walmart also own companies in other European nations, recently pulling out of Germany altogether, after failing misrably to impact the market.


A) Send in the pitchman who lies to the local yokels and tells them how great a WALMART would be for their constituents - oh, the jobs, the taxes, the blah, blah, blahWell sure, why not? Walmart does bring jobs and does bring down prices, the knock on effects make everyone wealtheir and create even more jobs throughout the community. More to the point, why should they need permission at all? Why can't they buy land from someone and build their store? I consider that alone a perverse infringement upon corporate freedom, another corruption of the free markert.

The same underhand tactics which you accuse Walmart of were probably used to create that arbitrary restriction upon freedom in the first place, only here Walmart are the victim of others who have used law to cartelise the market.


B) Pay off enough of the local yokels to guarantee that the zoning laws, etc change as required - no matter what sort of a fuss the public kicks upGood. The 'public' (presuming the lobbyists you refer to are at all representative of average member of the public), are not to make decisions about the private property of others. The owner of the land which is being sold is the only one in a position to decide if she wants to sell, not the 'public.'

Once Walmart have set up shop and open for business, the public, if truly outraged are under no compulsion to shop at Walmart. The public can shop where the hell it pleases them, but unfortunately for those who maintain that ordinary people do not like Walmart, those same ordinary people will shop at Walmart and put those Mom and Pop shops out of business.

Walmart typically offers a far wider range of goods at far lower prices than any one-man-band establishment could ever hope to. The public overwhelmingly choose to shop at Walmart because they save money, that money saved can in turn be spent on other goods and services, creating jobs in the community and enhancing the quality of peoples lives.

The price you pay at the counter reflects the amount of work involved in making that product available to you, the lower the price, the less work involved. This occurs because mass production and specialisation lower the output relative to the input of all economic activity, making a greater quantity and quality of goods available for less and less work. The division of labour and knowledge over the entire economy, coordinated by fluxuating prices increases the available useful order in the universe, supporting a larger population, increasing the quality of life for billions, funding the further dicovery of knowledge and development of new technology.

The network of knowledge and specialisation a company such as Walmart can bring greatly exceeds anything a Mom and Pop store could hope to achieve, which is why even despite valiant efforts, consumers pick Walmart. Ultimately, your tirade against Walmart is little more than a tirade against giving people the freedom to choose Walmart, as they do time and time again.


C) Get a huge piece of land for - free - and get it to come w/a several years' tax abatementPersonally, I'd like to see the evidence of this claim. I am not saying it is untrue, I know of many similar cases, which are all corruptions of the free market ideal. Though I find it very unlikely if this is indicative of Walmart's practices in all places.

The problem of eminent domain is a big one for any hope of moving toward the free market ideal, since many nations like the US have it explicitly written into law that the government may appropriate private property for public use when it is for the good of society. Of course, 'the good of society' could mean anything, and unscupulous politicians use these laws to further make a mockery of the concept of personal freedom. Why would I support any use of these tactics by Walmart? I don't.


F) Open shop! - 31 states are currently suing WALMART for savage employment practices - including discrimination against women and blacks (down to openly telling a black employee that she can rise only so far and no further because - she "has 2 knocks against her" - she's black and a woman!), including forcing people to work for no pay to keep their jobs, including failing to pay mandated overtime, including hiring thousands of illegal aliens to fill jobs that were promised to the locals who allowed WALMART to open shop - among other unsavory things, such as wrecklessly polluting rivers and wild-life refugesA big company will have many such similar lawsuits filed against it at any time. Many of which will be untrue or based on very little. Though I fail to see your point here, I expect companies, like individuals to sometimes act immorally. The problem is how we respond to these immoral acts, and whether our law enforcement institutions adequately deal with these crimes.

The very fact that such cases are going to court is heart warming. I believe Walmart, on balance, is extremely good for society, but we should not allow Walmart to get away with its wrongdoings.


G) Operate at a loss for as long as it takes to undercut and kill off all competition w/in a several hours' drive of the "Super Center" - this has resulted in DEAD down-town districts all over the Mid-West and the South. You can go, you can ride through, you can see the empty shops - one after the other, gone, many of them having been there and prosperous for a century before the arrival of WALMARTAgain, you're issue here is not with Walmart, it's with ordinary people who aren't making the choices you would prefer they make.


H) Open as many as 10 "Super Centers" in a small radius if the local businesses are stubbornly hanging on. Once the businesses have finally been - "convinced" to go under, close all but one "Super Center," laying off hundreds of employees and forcing the consumers to drive further to do their shopping now that there is no place else to shop;I am very suspicious of this claim, mostly because the moment they closed all those SuperCenters would be the moment when competitors would have an incentive to fill the void left in their wake. In other words, if one SuperCenter was not enough in the first place to defeat the competition, then how is one SuperCenter supposed to prevent the competition from rising again? This would be an incredibly naive and costly move for Walmart.

I suspect strongly that this "fact" is based upon a flawed analysis of the situation, or attributes intentions to Walmart's actions with after-the-fact reasoning.


I) Once the competition is gone - raise prices to a profitable level, even if that means that the consumers wind up paying more they were when WALMART arrived;Again, I suspect strongly that this "fact" is false. The moment Walmart raised prices like that, is the moment it would be profitable for competition to undercut the prices.


K) Most important - hire media consultants to make the company "look good," no matter what it does - and have so much power in terms of sales and distribution that only the most intrepid media source will dare to point out the EVIL that is being done.Oh, the evil is terrible. I am not going to defend Walmart where the company has acted disgracefully, nor the intentions of those who manage it, but nonetheless, on balance I predict that they have probably saved more lives than any charity in existence.


This is happening all over America. WALMART is now the 2nd largest employer in 31 US states - 2nd after the government itself. Yeah, sure - in some rarefied case, a monopoly might be a better thing - say in utilities - but, usually, it is a nightmare for the consumer.I'd prefer it if it were the leading employer. The government is the most dangerous organisation there is, efficient at few things except killing people. Thank God for that inefficiency, or we'd probably all be enslaved more than we are now.


1 A - re: the potential good of monopolies ... Yes, one could call a mom-and-pop general store in a rural district a "monopoly" - sure, why not? In many ways, such a business sort of fits the description of a monopoly - but, then, a pony also sort of fits the description of a horse that an average-sized rider might ride. Give that a try in full armor at full tilt across a battle-field.You're just arbitrarily redefing the concept of a monopoly to suit your own purposes. That's okay, we can use a whole different set of words if you like, we'd still be talking about the same things.


Clearly, a mom-and-pop that is the sole supplier of staple goods in a rural area is not a very convincing "monopoly." First of all, unlike the genuine article, it does not have clout outside of its own small community.You have presupposed the premise under contention. You just have a naive stereotype of a monopoly in your mind and are running with that, all very pointless and uninteresting.


Second, the mom-and-pop does charge more for the items that it sells. Why? Simple: it cannot spread out the impact of its overhead across many stores; it cannot claim "losses" on its other outlets that it deliberately opened in "non-performing" areas, just to create the "losses" to keep its balance sheets tidy; third, and - most importantly - it cannot buy in enough volume to squeeze cuts in price from its suppliers: it pays more, so it charges more.That's not a characteristic of a monopoly. Again, you are just trying to change the definition of a monopoly until you win the argument. That wouldn't be so bad, but you then act as though I think all monopolies are innocent, something I clearly do not believe, as I clearly identified those monopolistic practices which are genuinely harmful.


So, what good is it? Well, that depends on how you feel about people - are people human beings who deserve to be treated w/respect, who deserve to be treated like - they are human beings - or are they things - there to be used and abused by those who have the means to use and abuse them? Oh, but what about the higher prices that the consumer is forced to pay? What about them? For the higher price, the consumer gets - much better service.That's a trade off for consumers to decide for themselves. If the better service is worth the extra costs, they are not compelled to shop at Walmart. Again, we ge to the crux of your problem, that people don't make the choices you would prefer they make.


Example: my local hardware dealer - he stays in business because I and a few other loyal contractors will not go to Home Depot or Lowes. Why won't we go to those places? Because the service SUCKS. The stores are staffed by teenagers who (as is normal and healthy for teens) do not give a damn, by adults who have lost their real jobs and who are on the brink of suicide and, so, do not give a damn, and by handicapped people who are - retarded - and who do give a damn, but about the wrong things. The local guy costs more - but he's well worth the extra cost. His great-grandfather started the business, and every generation since has been in the business: they KNOW hardware!Good for him, why would I or anybody else object to customers preferring to shop there? You show an alarmingly poor knowledge of the concept you are trying to argue against.


Besides - read over 1 - when the competition is gone, the WALMARTs of the world raise their prices - and people pay the higher prices because - there's no where else to go.

... A lot more to come! ...I'd do yourself and everyone else a favour, go read a book about economics. At the moment, you are like a cartoon caricature of a self-righteous bleeding heart liberal, who lives and breaths the hypocrisy of talking about freedom and dignity, though can't stand to see people exercise that freedom.

[Lee]

continued ...

Hardly anyone in the West would argue that a monopoly of power is a good thing. Yesterday's mid-term elections show this clearly: the public were fed up w/the cronyism and the corruption and the blatant contempt that a single-party government creates. Surely, since both governments and businesses are constituted and staffed by PEOPLE, one cannot hope to argue seriously that a market monopoly would be any better than a government one: surely one is not going to be so stupid as to float the "opinion" that corruption decreases where large amounts of money are at stake. If one were to do such a thing, if one were to say something so patently stupid, the laughter from the world's historians would drown out even the noise of the New York Stock Exchange at full steam, say an hour before closing on a day of heavy trading. Money is to human beings what dog shit is to flies. Get over it: there is not, never has been, and never will be a way of doing business that is one bit better than 2 pirates sitting down to "parley" when each has perceived the other to be an equal match - or superior: if that perception changes, "blood" - and sometimes blood - will flow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of my posting should be restated, so that neither the readers nor I get lost: I am convinced that there never will be a "free market" - that a "free market" is less likely than the "Second Coming" - I'm an agnostic, so that tells you how likely I believe the return of Jesus to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
next post ...

2 - Why corporations would rather that Jesus came and ended the world than see a "free market" come into being!I am not even going to dignify this with a proper response.

You have proceeded to make the same flawed claims whilst failing to challenge any of my arguments, nor producing any convincing evidence. If anything, you have actually provided evidence which supported my initial claims. Then you proceed to make the rather laugable argument, that because a truly free market will probably never happen, that we should just can the whole idea.

First, this is an appalingly naive, since there is never a solution to these kind of problems, only trade offs. Second, what else have you got? There has to be some way of structuring an economy, and the free market is the only system which has both a proven track record of generating wealth, whilst being consistent with the ideal of personal liberty.

This isn't about having a perfect solution, this is about a critical preference.

[omnirook]

The argument is far from moot. This particular argument is of little importance, but the criticism and constant support of the ideal of freedom is extremely important for all of mankind. I consider it a moral duty to refute your fallicious arguments, which when spread have the potential to ruin the lives of millions of people.Oh, yes, freedom of mankind ... As an ideal - eh ...

Indeed, I will attribute this to your stupidity. I intended to stray away from such terms - no, pookie, your last attempts to "get me" in the other thread tell a different story: I am the one to whom you are replying - and you made it quite clear that you deem me an idiot: how dare you try to climb up on a high-horse now!

Now, Lee, as I have noted elsewhere - not that you have seen the postings; I'm not saying that you have - I'm just making it clear that this is on record prior to my attempting to respond to this post of yours: I am dyslexic. I have trouble reading and can do so only very slowly. And I cannot absorb a great deal in one reading. Therefore, I am going to take your big post in small doses. Please be patient.

[omnirook]

I take it you are familiar with Kant's analytic-synthetic and apriori-aposteriori distinction for epistemology. That knowledge which is apriori can be known without recourse to further experience, such as the deduction 'all bachelors are unmarried men' or 'Queen Elizabeth is a member of the royal family.'

Yes. I have 2 translations of his main works, the Critiques. My German brother-in-law insists that the translations are quite good - which, in Kant's case - means a hard and slow trek across very bleak terrain.

[Lee]

Oh, yes, freedom of mankind ... As an ideal - eh ...We can argue morality if you want. I am sure you enjoy your own freedom, would you like to give it up? There are three ways for you to govern your life:

1) You can make your own decisions, follow your own interests and bear responsibility for your own errors.
2) You can transfer those decisions to a collective, where the dominant view, however misguided and out of sync with your own interests is forced upon you.
3) You can transfer those decisions to an authority, such as a dictator, who will deem what you can and cannot do by his own whim.

Needless to say, the latter two are rarely pleasent to homo- or bi- sexuals, nor to very many people at all. There is no coincidence in the fact that the freest nations were the first in history to end slavery, treat races and sexes equally and promote animal rights.


- no, pookie, your last attempts to "get me" in the other thread tell a different story: I am the one to whom you are replying - and you made it quite clear that you deem me an idiot: how dare you try to climb up on a high-horse now!I am not trying to "get you." I genuinely think you are stupid and poorly informed.


Now, Lee, as I have noted elsewhere - not that you have seen the postings; I'm not saying that you have - I'm just making it clear that this is on record prior to my attempting to respond to this post of yours: I am dyslexic. I have trouble reading and can do so only very slowly. And I cannot absorb a great deal in one reading. Therefore, I am going to take your big post in small doses. Please be patient.That doesn't excuse the errors you keep making. If you're in a wheel chair, don't try and run a marathon.

[Lee]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/omnipoint.JPG

[omnirook]

Turn your attention to the phrase 'free market,' then note carefully the word 'free.' Ponder for a moment on the fact that a bachelor cannot be a married female and that Queen Elizabeth cannot not be a member of the royal family, then ponder on whether a free market can be not free. The free market is free by definition, because a free market which is not free is a contradiction. The free market is an ideal, an ideal which has never and may well never be achieved. However, this is no reason for me to stop advocating that ideal, in the hope that we may strive toward it as much as possible.
And here, most likely, is the crux of the trouble between us - and those who are like either of us. What do the divorce lawyers call it, "irreconcilable differences?"

I'm a pragmatist - wasn't always, had "nonsense" (no insult intended!) kicked out of me over a long trial by fire - and I've little use for ideals. I keep them to a minimum ... They are expensive; they get in the way - and I'm not religious - there is no one "out there" sitting in judgement. What we do as individuals matters (almost) not. Oh, but shouldn't that incline you to a free market? No. PRAGMATIST is the key word. And pessimist is another. Systematic pessimist, if you are, as I suspect, a student of philosophy. To have compassion is the one and only thing that we can do for others. All the rest is - bullshit. Is as was as will sums up my philosophy. NOTHING that you do - or that anyone does - will fundamentally change the way that the world operates; it operates fundamentally now as it has always operated - and always will - until it is no more. "Switching to a free market" - switching to anything - will - make no difference - why bother? ... Ah, yes, ideals ... All right, go on then, carry on ...


We can argue morality if you want. I am sure you enjoy your own freedom, would you like to give it up? There are three ways for you to govern your life:

1) You can make your own decisions, follow your own interests and bear responsibility for your own errors.
2) You can transfer those decisions to a collective, where the dominant view, however misguided and out of sync with your own interests is forced upon you.
3) You can transfer those decisions to an authority, such as a dictator, who will deem what you can and cannot do by his own whim.

Needless to say, the latter two are rarely pleasent to homo- or bi- sexuals, nor to very many people at all. There is no coincidence in the fact that the freest nations were the first in history to end slavery, treat races and sexes equally and promote animal rights.

I am not trying to "get you." I genuinely think you are stupid and poorly informed.

[color=red]That doesn't excuse the errors you keep making. If you're in a wheel chair, don't try and run a marathon.

Errors? Pig's eye! I believe that you are wrong. Oh, I believe that you are intelligent, yes, quite - but I would not be surprised to find that your experience of the world is - limited, mostly academic, w/very little "hands on experience" in your kit. Otherwise, you would hardly be such a rank idealist - who is smart enough to acknowledge that his dreams are futile but idealistic (and young - plenty of time yet to WASTE) enough to hold on to them stubbornly. If you can acknowledge that the world is corrupt - and that its corrupt state is most likely immutable - then how can you justify expending so much effort on your ideals?

The divide between Lee and me is - beyond reconciliation. And for reasons that are both objective and subjective.

Objectively, our positions are opposed: my truth is his falsehood; his truth is my falsehood. That is quite that.

Subjectively, we are each of us the sort of person whom the other despises in that visceral way that reason can rarely if ever touch. But even enemies can be polite - if they try.

Now, I am a lot older than Lee. It's a simple fact. While neither time nor (even) experience guarantees wisdom, time and experience almost always "mellow" a person to - if not a more reasonable state - then at least to a less confrontational state. Clearly, I have gone out of my way to remain polite. Equally clear is the fact that Lee has not - reposting MacGuffin's artwork at my expense is proof, if one does not wish to wade through miles of verbiage to find quotes that would also constitute proof. Why has Lee chosen this course? I can predict his answer: "Well, you are an idiot! Saying that you are an idiot is merely saying what is true!" And that might be so. But I do not believe it to be so - instead, I believe the following:

Lee is an intelligent young man who is quite well read and who has probably had the benefit of an excellent education.

He is gifted as a writer - and he knows that he is gifted as a writer.

And he is also (as would be perfectly natural for a young man) quite vain about his academic accomplishments and his expository talents.

BUT - he is young; he is inexperienced - especially as regards the real world (versus the academic world) - and he is insecure.

Proof?

KANT. Goodness gracious! To drag out that crabbed old German who was so careful in making his points that, to this day, what he said and what it meant are in hot dispute is - an attempt at what Ayn Rand (a moderately intelligent ideologue who gave herself the airs of genius! - inspiring 3 generations of mean-spirited and dismally stupid sychophants) called "the art of intimidation." (She must have perused a few of Mussolini's left over notebooks!)

Ah, well, every now and then you run across somebody who is not impressed.

If I had not read Kant, I would say so - and then get copies of his books and read them.

Having information that anyone w/$8.00 can get at any decent book store - or for free at any good library - does not make one special. Period.

And being educated does not make one intelligent. Period.

I would be willing to lay down a very large bet - if there were a means to test it - that the most intelligent person alive on the planet today is - illiterate, at least functionally so, if not completely so.

This presents Lee w/a terrible problem: I will not simply bow down and slither away after having been hit w/a long-winded if erudite post. Hence the insults. But, really, who is Lee to me that his insults could mean - anything?

Insult away, boy, I don't care. Now what?

[Zero Angel]

Actually, third-world sweatshops are a fantastic example to demonstrate my point.

You see, minimum wages are a form of price controls, and price controls disrupt the allocation of resources. This is because prices are more than just hurdles to getting what we want, in a free market prices are how information about the relative scarcity and demand of goods and services is communicated, which is why we use the term, a price coordinated economy.

If you were to introduce a minimum wage law into China, you would immediately undermine those workers' competitive advantage. You have to understand that people queue for hours outside of these sweatshops for a chance to be employed there, because of the crushing poverty they would otherwise be subject to. The Chinese in this position need that competitive advantage, because the moment their cost-ouput ratio drops below that in more developed nations, is the moment when they are reintroduced to crushing poverty.

However, you might argue, that the Chinese can retain a competitive advantage to those in more developed nations whilst still introducing minimum wages, so long as those cost-output ratio tracks just below that of developed nations. However, this would simply be the mistake of thinking of economies in national terms, since even within China there are people competing for jobs. The most desperate for a job are also the most willing to accept the lowest wages, they have a competitive advantage. Removing that competitive advantage will only hurt those most in need, since they cannot sell their labour at a cheaper price, so no company has any reason to prefer them to anyone else.

Furthermore, by increasing the costs of providing the services, sales of thoe goods those sweatshops produce will drop worldwide, ultimately reducing the total number of jobs available, again reintroducing yet more people to crushing poverty.

Minimum wage laws act the same around the world. They keep those currently employed above the minimum wage safe, because they make it illegal for competitors to undercut the price of labour. Unfortunately, this pushes those whose output is less than the minimum wage into unemployment, even if they and the employer agree to enter into transaction, the state will not let them. There is hardly a more grotesque way in which the government restricts individual liberty.

The way I see it is that low unemployment in developed countries already warrants the use of minimum wage controls. China is an exception because their population far outnumbers the resources necessary to support an economy, in contrast with social-capitalistic countries such as the US. For now I will talk about the situation in social-capitalistic countries such as the US and Canada and will (try to) refrain from introducing irrelevant variables.

You argue that minimum wage hurts competition by allowing less companies to form and thus compete with each other, hurting the economy. However I disagree, if this had done so than we would see such a thing in real factors such as the unemployment rate. However, given that the unemployment rate in most industrialized countries is already low, there is therefore no incentive to compete for workers. What really needs to be worked on is increasing the quality of life for the workers, despite the fact that it distributes wealth in what you might see as an unfair or artificial manner.

You might counterargue that since the unemployment is already low, then the competition for entry-level (minimum wage) workers will be high. I disagree with this argument preemptively, at least by my logic, eliminating minimum-wage in mostly employed countries such as the US would allow for a greater system efficiency by allowing managers to gain a higher profit for a lower price, but it would not improve 'quality of life' for the workers as the management staff need only cut wages as far as logically possible, eliminating unemployment perhaps, but crippling the ability of low-skilled workers to maintain a decent quality of life.

If the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to an economic collapse, for example, then it would be reasonable to cut or eliminate minimum wage as a method to rebalance the economy. However unless that happens then it makes no sense to fix a system that is already working.

[Meliora]

I'm reminded of a witty remark that would be perfect here.

"You take forever to say nothing."

[Masterofnone]

The invisible hand is a crock of Bullshit, that's all I have to say.
People will Lie, cheat, steal and KILL to make a buck, and that is NOT to the benefit of society today.

[Krill]

People will Lie, cheat, steal and KILL to make a buck

I suppose this urge magically dissapears when you start giving free handouts?

And I suppose they listen when you tell them how they can and cannot make a buck?

[Hustler]

People will Lie, cheat, steal and KILL to make a buck, and that is NOT to the benefit of society today.

Doesn't that depend on who gets lied to, who gets cheated and who gets killed?

[Zero Angel]

The invisible hand is a crock of Bullshit, that's all I have to say.
People will Lie, cheat, steal and KILL to make a buck, and that is NOT to the benefit of society today.
This is my stand as well. People are motivated by selfish interests which are not to the benefit of society as a whole. That is the very reason why laws against such things as assault and murder exist. If they didn't, people would be able to kill each other, but the point Lee makes is they would have freedom to do so. As if somehow self-interest would kick in to the point where the score would even out on its own as a result of the self-interest. It might, but we'd sure have a lot of dead people. ;)

[Masterofnone]

I suppose this urge magically dissapears when you start giving free handouts?

And I suppose they listen when you tell them how they can and cannot make a buck?

No, i'm merely saying the idea that "self interest will ultimatley serve society in a positive way" isn't truthful. I believe that ultimately Morality and cooperation are also needed for the benefit of society as a whole.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

These cartels are so common that most people do not even recognise that they're cartels, but instead give flimsy and poorly supported justifications for their existence, such as that without them a free market companies would not deliver a quality service or not provide adequate health and safety. These excuses are not only false, but also presume that people are incapable of deciding for themselves, what counts as quality service or adequate safety measures.
Yes, most people are incapable of deciding whether or not a particular electrician uses the right standards. That's the dark side of specialisation: dependency on others with better access to knowledge and hierarchisation.
A common solution for this is delegating the setting and enforcement of these standards to a government-like organisation. There is very little protest of people - who are rational individuals, according to market logic - against that kind of regulation. So, if people agree to delegate certain tasks to communal organisations, or treat certain resources as commons, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

[omnirook]

I'm reminded of a witty remark that would be perfect here.

"You take forever to say nothing."

Perhaps the spirit of Kant has taken up residence in the thread.

the Categorical Imperative

and 3 of the 4 volumes of his "masterwork," the Critques ... The first, the "Critique of Pure Reason," said it all - at least what was worth saying: there was no need to go on and on and on - about - not much more than what was said in the first volume.


The invisible hand is a crock of Bullshit, that's all I have to say.
People will Lie, cheat, steal and KILL to make a buck, and that is NOT to the benefit of society today.

Or any day!

Yes, the practical part of the course - growing up and getting real! - seems always to escape the advocates of the various academic (moot!) ideologies: left wing, right wing, it does not matter. There was as much good in what Marx said as there was in what Smith said - both had points and good points at that. Sadly, though, neither's work is fully translatable to the world of interactive - humans ...


I suppose this urge magically dissapears when you start giving free handouts?

And I suppose they listen when you tell them how they can and cannot make a buck?

I will agree that the poor should be given nothing when and only when the rich get the same - nothing. Corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy are at least as despicable as - free milk and free cheese for recent mothers who cannot afford to feed their babies - especially when so many of those who make the decisions as to who gets what are also anti-abortion.


Doesn't that depend on who gets lied to, who gets cheated and who gets killed?

Speaking of intelligent young men! Good, practical-minded point. Excellent.


Yes, most people are incapable of deciding whether or not a particular electrician uses the right standards. That's the dark side of specialisation: dependency on others with better access to knowledge and hierarchisation.
A common solution for this is delegating the setting and enforcement of these standards to a government-like organisation. There is very little protest of people - who are rational individuals, according to market logic - against that kind of regulation. So, if people agree to delegate certain tasks to communal organisations, or treat certain resources as commons, why shouldn't they be able to do that?

Thank you. Well put. Certainly the clear 8,000 year history (and probably longer, but 8,000 years is what can be proved w/archeology) of increasing specialization and increasing, resulting inter-dependency supports your point.

:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:

It's Thursday morning, and Nicki and I are going to host this month's partners' meeting. My loved one is busy making sure that there is plenty of food and plenty of the 4 types of coffee that will be served: American (mop water!), Italian (espresso), Russian (aka Turkish), and - decaf (American "mop water" w/o - meaning). I am blissfully - doing nothing - except "fooling around, wasting more time on the computer." "Russian"* coffee (Turkish! - but you cannot make that point w/a Russian), cigarettes, and - distraction!

Kant. I cannot let go of it. (Eh, I'm bored.) To drag Kant out and then use him to add shine to a simple example of first-term logic; hell, Deborah J Bennett's handy (ie, easily accessed) little survey book, "Logic Made Easy" would have sufficed for that. No, instead, we disturb one of philosophy's titans - to do a mop up job on a back staircase in an elementary school. It reminds me of what the trucker who taught me how to drive an 18-wheeler said about my first attempts to shift gears on a transmission that did not have "synchro-mesh:" "You're the kind of guy who would get out a shotgun to go picking flowers."

[A tractor-trailer's transmission is quite different from a car's, even if the car has a manual transmission. The reason? Synchro-mesh. Synchro-mesh allows "4 wheelers" - the trucker's term of disdain for car drivers - to pretend that they are driving w/a manual transmission - sort of the way that Windows allows "dummies" to pretend that they know something about computers.]

Pomposity has always gotten up my nose! - especially when it is used to cover over this or that - or stand in for coming out and saying "My shit does not stink! Your nose is broken!"

*"The Birdcage," Robin Williams' character after tasting a cup of Turkish coffee that the "house man" character has handed him: "What is this, sludge?" House man: "Yes, it's sludge. I thought that sludge would make a nice change from coffee."

:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :P :P :P

MacGuffin - you do care about me, don't you? All that trouble to tidy up for me. How sweet!

[Jennywocky]

Kant. I cannot let go of it. (Eh, I'm bored.) To drag Kant out and then use him to add shine to a simple example of first-term logic; hell, Deborah J Bennett's handy (ie, easily accessed) little survey book, "Logic Made Easy" would have sufficed for that. No, instead, we disturb one of philosophy's titans - to do a mop up job on a back staircase in an elementary school. It reminds me of what the trucker who taught me how to drive an 18-wheeler said about my first attempts to shift gears on a transmission that did not have "synchro-mesh:" "You're the kind of guy who would get out a shotgun to go picking flowers."

You're right, this conversation was probably more deserving of someone like Hegel.... or maybe our modern great philosophers like Madonna or Eminem or Jane Fonda.

[Krill]

I believe that ultimately Morality and cooperation are also needed for the benefit of society as a whole.

But I thought people would lie, cheat and kill for money? How would you achieve morality (Note: Whose morality?) and cooperation if people do things like that?

[C.J.Woolf]

But I thought people would lie, cheat and kill for money? How would you achieve morality (Note: Whose morality?) and cooperation if people do things like that?
The cooperative people form a critical mass and beat the shit out of the non-cooperative people, that's how.

[sbw]

What does an idealist do when they realize no one else gives a rat's ass about bettering the world?


You strive to promote individual liberty and the free market ideal. That way, nobody has to give a 'rat's ass' about bettering the world, because even those who are purely motivated by cheap thrills or personal fortune, will help better the world as an unintended byproduct of the selfish pursuit of their own happiness. As for those who already wanted to better the world, they can continue as they were.


How does this work exactly?

here is a real-world example.

several years ago, I was working in an office, and I had a few bucks in the bank, and I was living in a condo which I had bought (on credit, of course). shortly thereafter, it occurred to me that I knew several people that needed a place to rent. it seemed plausible that I could buy more condos on credit, use the rent payments to pay the mortgage, and, after the tenants decided to move away, sell the condos at a small profit. dealing with tenants is a lot of bullshit, but it was a means to an end...I have described it as "sign my name (i.e. purchase), wait a while, sign my name again (i.e. sell)...and walk with a year's wages!"

(quick side note so I can get to the point: I was less familiar with global economic events than I am now--the housing market spiked wildly for a number of reasons, driving prices up much faster than I had anticipated...and now its on the way down, likely foreshadowing a large recession; I have sold 3 units already and the final 2 are listed for sale. I'm trying to be the first rat off this sinking ship. I wanted to clarify in case anyone read the above story and thought I was still doing this and expecting further equity accrual, which I'm totally not.)

anyway, on to answering your question, DS...

part of my original plan was to rent to people that I know, rather than buy the condo units and then look for tenants. my primary motivation for this was the thought that if an acquaintance-tenant at some point stopped being able to pay they would at least vacate without a legal fight, allowing me to rent or sell. I have had a couple of tenants stiff me for back rent...but they have always left willingly, so I havent had to go through the extensive legal hassle of eviction proceedings. in hedging against this specific concern, I was successful.

what does this have to do with capitalism? well...the only reason someone would want to rent from me rather than just go to an apartment complex...is if they broke. if they don't have first/last/security deposit/pet deposit/utilities deposit/etc etc etc... specifically, these are employed people who don't know how to handle money, or else they woulda bought a place because interest rates were fucking negative and fraud is/was rampant (re. mortgage qualification, appraisals, etc), so everybody and their cousin were buying a house...there was a large group of people that should not have been able to qualify for a mortgage but did; the people of whom I speak were in further worse position with regards to debt and credit than this group.

in short, I provided totally decent housing to people who were faced with significant financial hurdles even to rent. why did I do this? not because I wanted to help them...but because I thought I could make a decent chunk of money selling the condos later, even if the tenant defaulted and moved after 6 months or something.

here is another closely-related example. some of these condos were decent inside...but some were really nasty. tenants tend to not mind filth, it would seem. so I had to spend money to refurbish these units to make them rent-able. I don't know how to install carpet, or tile, and I'm probably a worse painter than most, and I was working a full-time job. so somebody had to do this shit. that somebody ended up being some of the tenants and some of their friends and acquaintances--blue collar trade workers, largely. I had a tenant/roommate who was an electrician, one of his friends was a painter, etc etc. so naturally, I bought paint and carpet and stuff at lowes or home depot or wherever--maybe the only time I ever poured any capital back into the economy--and then paid these acquaintances cash to fix up the condos. (if you don't know any such people, they're always lookin for cash side jobs. just like I would be if I was good at, well, anything.) so this is another small group of people who were eager to benefit from nothing more than me tryin to get what I needed.

this is all of the sudden an incredibly long post; I hope my examples don't seem too shallow or microcosmic or anything.

Scott

[xavierd]

People amaze me sometimes. Some of the stupidest things said in this thread:

"You take forever to say nothing." Your idea of an argument against Lee's standpoint is that he took the time to articulate his view in a well thought out and clear manner and that you are to lazy to try and understand all his points? This is aimed at you to Omni. I do not understand how you planned to win this argument by pointing out that Lee has better control of language than you do and is obviously a very intelligent person. Attacking, no matter how poorly, a persons character is not the way to argue intelligently. And yes I agree that Lee is guilty of this to.

"Ideals get in the way/Ideals are useless." Ideals and pragmatisism both have their places. Being a pragmatist may help in the day to day operations of life but we did not come this far as a species because of pragmatisism. It is Ideals, seeing the big picture, that give us as a species a direction to strive for. Ideals and abstraction are what make us human and not just another animal cursed to just react to his environment.

"NOTHING that you do - or that anyone does - will fundamentally change the way that the world operates; it operates fundamentally now as it has always operated - and always will - until it is no more. "Switching to a free market" - switching to anything - will - make no difference - why bother?"
This by far takes the cake. So we should just stop all this thinking and imagining and striving for a better world? Why do anything if NOTHING we do will change anything? We should all just live with the status quo and just hope we die before life gets to difficult? This is what I got from this statement. Ideals put a target in front of us, giving us something to strive for. Of course we may fall short of these ideals but they still pull us forward.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Scott:

Interesting how your example of the free market hinges on the goodwill of friends and acquaintances. At a small scale this works well because of the inherent human check on ruthlessness, but on a larger scale we cannot grasp the causal relation between cheap clothing and sweatshop abuse.

There lies the main problem with the theory of free markets: excessive use of induction.

[omnirook]

here is a real-world example.

several years ago, I was working in an office, and I had a few bucks in the bank, and I was living in a condo which I had bought (on credit, of course). shortly thereafter, it occurred to me that I knew several people that needed a place to rent. it seemed plausible that I could buy more condos on credit, use the rent payments to pay the mortgage, and, after the tenants decided to move away, sell the condos at a small profit. dealing with tenants is a lot of bullshit, but it was a means to an end...I have described it as "sign my name (i.e. purchase), wait a while, sign my name again (i.e. sell)...and walk with a year's wages!"

(quick side note so I can get to the point: I was less familiar with global economic events than I am now--the housing market spiked wildly for a number of reasons, driving prices up much faster than I had anticipated...and now its on the way down, likely foreshadowing a large recession; I have sold 3 units already and the final 2 are listed for sale. I'm trying to be the first rat off this sinking ship. I wanted to clarify in case anyone read the above story and thought I was still doing this and expecting further equity accrual, which I'm totally not.)

anyway, on to answering your question, DS...

part of my original plan was to rent to people that I know, rather than buy the condo units and then look for tenants. my primary motivation for this was the thought that if an acquaintance-tenant at some point stopped being able to pay they would at least vacate without a legal fight, allowing me to rent or sell. I have had a couple of tenants stiff me for back rent...but they have always left willingly, so I havent had to go through the extensive legal hassle of eviction proceedings. in hedging against this specific concern, I was successful.

what does this have to do with capitalism? well...the only reason someone would want to rent from me rather than just go to an apartment complex...is if they broke. if they don't have first/last/security deposit/pet deposit/utilities deposit/etc etc etc... specifically, these are employed people who don't know how to handle money, or else they woulda bought a place because interest rates were fucking negative and fraud is/was rampant (re. mortgage qualification, appraisals, etc), so everybody and their cousin were buying a house...there was a large group of people that should not have been able to qualify for a mortgage but did; the people of whom I speak were in further worse position with regards to debt and credit than this group.

in short, I provided totally decent housing to people who were faced with significant financial hurdles even to rent. why did I do this? not because I wanted to help them...but because I thought I could make a decent chunk of money selling the condos later, even if the tenant defaulted and moved after 6 months or something.

here is another closely-related example. some of these condos were decent inside...but some were really nasty. tenants tend to not mind filth, it would seem. so I had to spend money to refurbish these units to make them rent-able. I don't know how to install carpet, or tile, and I'm probably a worse painter than most, and I was working a full-time job. so somebody had to do this shit. that somebody ended up being some of the tenants and some of their friends and acquaintances--blue collar trade workers, largely. I had a tenant/roommate who was an electrician, one of his friends was a painter, etc etc. so naturally, I bought paint and carpet and stuff at lowes or home depot or wherever--maybe the only time I ever poured any capital back into the economy--and then paid these acquaintances cash to fix up the condos. (if you don't know any such people, they're always lookin for cash side jobs. just like I would be if I was good at, well, anything.) so this is another small group of people who were eager to benefit from nothing more than me tryin to get what I needed.

this is all of the sudden an incredibly long post; I hope my examples don't seem too shallow or microcosmic or anything.

Scott

And there was absolutely nothing wrong w/what you did. Well done. And good luck unloading the remaining condo's.

As a businessman, I am no stranger to cutting mutually beneficial deals. And that's the point: there is a difference between getting more out of a deal when the other party gets at least something that is worth having and getting nearly all that there is to get out of a deal while the other party's destitution leaves him on the ground, at your mercy, and you rape him and humiliate him on top of that. I like this example: graze as cattle do, not as sheep do - cattle eat the tips of the leaves of grass, so that the grass grows back; sheep eat the grass down to the root, killing the grass, so that nothing grows back. One can do well w/o being greedy and cruel.


People amaze me sometimes. Some of the stupidest things said in this thread:

"You take forever to say nothing." Your idea of an argument against Lee's standpoint is that he took the time to articulate his view in a well thought out and clear manner and that you are too lazy to try and understand all his points? This is aimed at you to Omni. I do not understand how you planned to win this argument by pointing out that Lee has better control of language than you do and is obviously a very intelligent person. Attacking, no matter how poorly, a persons character is not the way to argue intelligently. And yes I agree that Lee is guilty of this too.I did not plan to have an argument: I was given one. Repeatedly I made it clear that I thought that Lee was not only a good writer but a gifted one: he does write beautifully. I am not the jealous sort - if someone does something well, I am always quick to show my appreciation - even if that someone is not my dear friend. If, as you imply, my writing is inferior in the sense of its being understandable to a reader, then that reader - including Lee - has the option of asking for clarification - in addition to the option of calling me names and trying to dismiss me as beneath contempt. Eloquence is a gift; not having that gift does not make someone a cockroach. As for your charge of "laziness," please note that I started to respond to Lee carefully, step by step, point by point, quite systematically - that would hardly indicate laziness. No, laziness would have been to post this :P .


"Ideals get in the way/Ideals are useless." Ideals and pragmatisism both have their places. Being a pragmatist may help in the day to day operations of life but we did not come this far as a species because of pragmatisism. It is Ideals, seeing the big picture, that give us as a species a direction to strive for. Ideals and abstraction are what make us human and not just another animal cursed to just react to his environment.You do realize that we could debate your point endlessly - that philosophers have been debating it endlessly for more than 2000 years. If you would care to have such a debate, I am willing. Either of us would have a mountain of readily avaiable "proof" to rally, and neither of us would be able to win the debate on the merits of our points alone - but it could be fun!


"NOTHING that you do - or that anyone does - will fundamentally change the way that the world operates; it operates fundamentally now as it has always operated - and always will - until it is no more. "Switching to a free market" - switching to anything - will - make no difference - why bother?"
This by far takes the cake. So we should just stop all this thinking and imagining and striving for a better world? Why do anything if NOTHING we do will change anything? We should all just live with the status quo and just hope we die before life gets to difficult? This is what I got from this statement. Ideals put a target in front of us, giving us something to strive for. Of course we may fall short of these ideals but they still pull us forward.See above. You are an optimist; I am a pessimist. We each have available to us a full "arsenal" of well-established philosophical "authorities" to use. And we can "split" Kant! Both sides have been using the dear old "professor" for centuries.


Scott:

Interesting how your example of the free market hinges on the goodwill of friends and acquaintances. At a small scale this works well because of the inherent human check on ruthlessness, but on a larger scale we cannot grasp the causal relation between cheap clothing and sweatshop abuse.

There lies the main problem with the theory of free markets: excessive use of induction.

Well, his is hardly an example of a free market. It's really an example of what I maintain is the schema of human interaction: using connections to one's advantage, as best as one can. A free marketer would claim that doing so is a part of the free market program. And, yes, it would be - what the free marketer always "forgets" (they can't really be that stupid!) is exactly what you have pointed out - that the human tendency is to concentrate power and resources (mostly the same thing) in fewer and fewer hands over time. (That is why I advocate punishing "death taxes.")

Controversy coming: the free marketers and the religious right and quite a few other clubs are, in the end, nothing more than dupes for the ruling elite, who allow negativity and bad feelings and dashed hopes and all that kind of stuff to play out impotently in the arena of public "discourse." The apparent "challenges" to the hierarchy are just that - apparent. In the end, they wind up serving as the sturdiest of supports for the status quo.

I am aware that it would seem that I contradict myself regularly. Ah, well, as Oscar Wilde pointed out: "Consistency is the refuge of the small minded."

I am not really contradicting myself: no, I adhere to the pessimist "cause" and fly pessimism's flag quite visibly on my mast. What makes people get the impression that I am contradicting myself is that they do not understand that pessimism is a subtle and nuanced philosophical system that does indeed allow for "hope" - for the here and now, for the moment, in most matters temporary, and especially in the life of an individual - though never for the species as a whole, not even for the Universe as a whole.

Where's MacGuffin? I expect to have these posts smushed together before too long.

[Zero Angel]

And there was absolutely nothing wrong w/what you did. Well done. And good luck unloading the remaining condo's.

As a businessman, I am no stranger to cutting mutually beneficial deals. And that's the point: there is a difference between getting more out of a deal when the other party gets at least something that is worth having and getting nearly all that there is to get out of a deal while the other party's destitution leaves him on the ground, at your mercy, and you rape him and humiliate him on top of that. I like this example: graze as cattle do, not as sheep do - cattle eat the tips of the leaves of grass, so that the grass grows back; sheep eat the grass down to the root, killing the grass, so that nothing grows back. One can do well w/o being greedy and cruel.
I like this line of thought. I will relate to an experience when I was playing 'Runescape'.

Runescape is an MMORPG. Each player has the responsibility to make their way in the world and what you do during most of the game (probably about 80% of the time) is a job, you can be a lumberjack, a blacksmith, a fisherman/chef, etc. And there is so much tedium involved at becoming good at a job (you can play for 100 hours just to become a master woodcutter) that a person tends to specialize at one thing. Due to this specialization, the player driven economy (trading system) is a central part of the game.

As players become specialized in one thing, they can sell that thing based on the mutual needs of the other players. If the economy has too many lumberjacks, then they compete against each other for lower prices and less lumberjacks enter the market because it becomes less profitable to do so.

At one point during the game, I was looking for a piece of equipment that practically nobody had. After spending over an hour raising the funds to buy that equipment for price that was worth it to me, I finally did. It came to the point of offering more than double the typical trading cost of that equipment (an expensive weapon which requires hours of tedious work to raise profits for). Which is somewhat of a rip off, but it wasnt because it was worth it to me. The other player got a huge bonus from selling the equipment, and got a really sweet deal because during peak trading he wouldve had to take less than half of what I gave him. But I saved myself a lot of trouble anyways, so it worked out for both of us. There have been a lot of examples where I have forced others, or have been forced, to compromise the 'fair' asking price in return for something that one of us needed more than the illusion of 'fairness'. So I can see where Lee is coming from in that respect (although I still disagree).

Runescape is a poor example of the complexity of the modern-day economy, but since it tends to simulate a primitive natural economy (in that every resource must be 'worked for' and each player has the self-interest to try one up the other player), there is a really human aspect of it that shows how the 'tao' of human self interest affects any market.

[sbw]

Scott:

Interesting how your example of the free market hinges on the goodwill of friends and acquaintances. At a small scale this works well because of the inherent human check on ruthlessness, but on a larger scale we cannot grasp the causal relation between cheap clothing and sweatshop abuse.

I'm perfectly aware of the relationship between cheap clothes and sweatshops; which countries allow the sweatshops--which countries do not have child labor laws, OSHA, and other things which DO exist here? how does the quality of life for the rank-and-file in those countries compare with those in relatively more-free countries like the united states?


And there was absolutely nothing wrong w/what you did. Well done. And good luck unloading the remaining condo's.

As a businessman, I am no stranger to cutting mutually beneficial deals. And that's the point: there is a difference between getting more out of a deal when the other party gets at least something that is worth having and getting nearly all that there is to get out of a deal while the other party's destitution leaves him on the ground, at your mercy, and you rape him and humiliate him on top of that. I like this example: graze as cattle do, not as sheep do - cattle eat the tips of the leaves of grass, so that the grass grows back; sheep eat the grass down to the root, killing the grass, so that nothing grows back. One can do well w/o being greedy and cruel.

thank you; you are generally civil (to me at least) when you disagree, and I appreciate that.

of course contemporary america is not a purely capitalistic entity; during my one and only semester of college, in macro 101, I asked the professor if there had ever been a purely capitalistic society on a large scale, since we obviously had neglected to ever try such a thing to my knowledge. he agreed that we hadnt recently, eventually telling me that the closest he could think of was the colonies under the articles of confederation. from what little I know that era was fraught with intra-state currency and trade problems.

I was not trying to present myself as exemplary on free market capitalism; I was born a couple hundred years late for that, apparently. rather, I was illustrating the specific principle that DS asked in response to Lee's (bold above) quote.

Scott

[omnirook]

thank you; you are generally civil (to me at least) when you disagree, and I appreciate that.

You are welcome.

-- Mark.

[omnirook]

I like this line of thought. I will relate to an experience when I was playing 'Runescape'.

Runescape is an MMORPG. Each player has the responsibility to make their way in the world and what you do during most of the game (probably about 80% of the time) is a job, you can be a lumberjack, a blacksmith, a fisherman/chef, etc. And there is so much tedium involved at becoming good at a job (you can play for 100 hours just to become a master woodcutter) that a person tends to specialize at one thing. Due to this specialization, the player driven economy (trading system) is a central part of the game.

As players become specialized in one thing, they can sell that thing based on the mutual needs of the other players. If the economy has too many lumberjacks, then they compete against each other for lower prices and less lumberjacks enter the market because it becomes less profitable to do so.

At one point during the game, I was looking for a piece of equipment that practically nobody had. After spending over an hour raising the funds to buy that equipment for price that was worth it to me, I finally did. It came to the point of offering more than double the typical trading cost of that equipment. Which is somewhat of a rip off, but it wasnt because it was worth it to me. The other player got a huge bonus from selling the equipment, and got a really sweet deal because during peak trading he wouldve had to take less than half of what I gave him. But I saved myself a lot of trouble anyways, so it worked out for both of us.

Runescape is a poor example of the complexity of the modern-day economy, but a lot of its principles are really applicable to how human self-interest plays into it.

I have not played the game, but it does sound interesting. I rather like computer games. They can be helpful - if nothing more, they can teach one to concentrate on meeting a particular challenge - as you say, becoming a "woodcutter" - or whatever a particular game requires, it does not matter.

I am fond of the "Ages of Empires" games from Microsoft, particularly, "The Age of Kings" games. There "civilizations" compete to gather resources, improve technology, and defeat each other in battle. It's quite ruthless, as the Dark and Middle Ages were. Nicki laughs at me because I will "waste" time and effort and resources to save the "lives" of some of my peasants - "They are cheap to make at the Village Center - they're not real people!," to which I reply, "While I am playing the game, they are real people, and I am their feudal lord, and you know how I feel about the duties of the rich towards the poor." "But you lost 5 knights!" "And I saved 30 woodcutters." That I usually win the game nonetheless irks Nicki. It irks him almost as much as my usual way of doing business irks him. I move at my own pace, no matter what is going on; I am not cheap when it comes to bribes; I am quick to forgive (I never forget!); and I am "soft" when I have an obscene advantage. "He would not be so kind to you." "He and I are different people."

[omnirook]

Now, to put the thread back on track ...

It was not my intention to disrupt this thread as it has been disrupted - by what I consider to be (mostly) personal animosity. No.

I had wanted to debate the merits - and demerits - of the free market philosophy.

There are those who do not believe that creating a "free market" would be beneficial to mankind. There are those who believe that creating a "free market" would amount to undoing all that has been accomplished in the way of civilizing humanity and making the world a safer place for all humans, not just those who are "fit" in the Darwinian sense. Yes, yes, free market advocates are all "kinder, gentler" people - of course! All utopians are - in theory.

Now, the absence of the creator of this thread, Lee, is unfortunate, regretable. It was not my desire to run him off. Whether he has left because he cannot stand the "heat" of a nasty argument or because he genuinely believes that "wallowing in the mud" is beneath his dignity is - immaterial. I would like to invite him back. I would like him to come back and pick up his side of the debate - his writing talent will lend shine to his side of the "argument" - and I would like this to happen w/o hard feelings: therefore, Lee, if I have offended you, I appologize. I ask you to accept my appology; I ask you to return to the thread; I ask you to debate your beliefs versus mine w/o further resorts to personal attacks. Let us "forgive and forget."

Also, of course, my invitation extends to all who would be interested in debating the free market philosophy, whether "yay" or "nay" sayers. There are members of this Forum who are libertarians, and there are members who are socialists - and there are members whose thinking lies in between. Let everyone have his/her say.

I will start - Lee, you have indicated that you believe that a free market would be the best way to maximize the potential for the individual to achieve the greatest possible degree of personal liberty and self-realization. Let's for the moment say that that were true. With "truth" as its given, in what way is it to the benefit of mankind as a whole to optimize the well-being of individual men (and women)?

[Purple-Silver Fox]

I'm perfectly aware of the relationship between cheap clothes and sweatshops; which countries allow the sweatshops--which countries do not have child labor laws, OSHA, and other things which DO exist here? how does the quality of life for the rank-and-file in those countries compare with those in relatively more-free countries like the united states?
The countries that large companies prefer to delocalize to, because their profit margins are larger, because people don't link the cheapness of the clothes in the store over here with the bad quality of life over there. It's too large to take into account in the daily life.

Countries are the wrong unit of analysis. The discussion is about the economy, and there is but one economy left (besides a handful of tribes in the Amazon and the Kalahari).

[omnirook]

The countries that large companies prefer to delocalize to, because their profit margins are larger, because people don't link the cheapness of the clothes in the store over here with the bad quality of life over there. It's too large to take into account in the daily life.
I do not agree entirely - entirely. Not long ago, effective boycots of certain product lines forced the companies that were importing those product lines to intervene on behalf of the workers when it was "found out" (ie, became common knowledge) that the workers were not only being paid next to nothing but were often young children. At the least, a good deal of cosmetic change was made - before pressure on the media from corporate masters forced the media to drop the stories from the headlines. I do not say that there is all that much that can be done to force corporations to comply w/fair labor practice - but I do say that the boycots do show that the public is capable of feeling compassion and acting based on that compassion, even while understanding that that compassion will result in price increases for themselves. Despite being a pessimist, I am not a misanthrope: people in general are good natured and inclined to compassion - if they can be made aware that compassion is called for.


Countries are the wrong unit of analysis. The discussion is about the economy, and there is but one economy left (besides a handful of tribes in the Amazon and the Kalahari).

Again, I do not agree entirely - entirely. You are correct: the nation-state as a truly functioning, stand-on-its-own entity is extinct - and has been for some time. But nationalism is still rife and must be taken into account. It does affect the global economy. To ignore its effect is to jump ahead - to assume that the "nation-state" will not be used for centuries to come as it is virtually being used now - as a diversion, as a barrier to keep the poor in place (serfdom!), as an excuse to fight "wars" that generate a need for weapons (profit!) and as a means both to employ and to destroy "excess population."

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Again, I do not agree entirely - entirely. You are correct: the nation-state as a truly functioning, stand-on-its-own entity is extinct - and has been for some time. But nationalism is still rife and must be taken into account. It does affect the global economy. To ignore its effect is to jump ahead - to assume that the "nation-state" will not be used for centuries to come as it is virtually being used now - as a diversion, as a barrier to keep the poor in place (serfdom!), as an excuse to fight "wars" that generate a need for weapons (profit!) and as a means both to employ and to destroy "excess population."

Of course, international competition is the bread and butter of capitalism, but capitalism is a given, and whether to participate in it as a international organisation/ country, individual or whatever kind of group in between is less important. My point was that you can't compare two existing economies of national level and pick the better one, because they are merely two runners in the same contest - they are not playing a different game with different rules.

[omnirook]

Of course, international competition is the bread and butter of capitalism, but capitalism is a given, and whether to participate in it as a international organisation/ country, individual or whatever kind of group in between is less important. My point was that you can't compare two existing economies of national level and pick the better one, because they are merely two runners in the same contest - they are not playing a different game with different rules.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I agree w/you.

[Lee]

Look, omnirook, the reason I can't be bothered to debate with you is that you are an idiot. I can't be bothered to waste time responding to you when I could be doing something far more interesting and productive, like reading a book or chatting to friends.

Your understanding of even basic economics is appaling and your life philosophy laughable. No matter what I write, you seem only capable of misunderstading. Then there is your alarming degree of ignorance regarding history and bizarre arguing skills, from which I can only conclude that you have practically no idea of what you are so self-righteously arguing against.

Unfortunately, your errors run so deep that I neither have the time nor patience to argue them, nor the confidence that you will even understand what I am saying, no matter how clearly I try to write. So, you'll just have to forgive my absence from this thread, as I really don't find you interesting, smart or likable enough to converse with.

[Dr. Haight]

Someone needs a pint of ale.

[Geoff]

Someone needs a pint of ale.

Oh, cheers. Mine's a pint of old peculiar.

-Geoff

[omnirook]

Someone needs a pint of ale.

Why? He's got at least a quart of sour grapes!

Ah, well, I tried. Let's move on, shall we?

Perhaps as an Administrator, you could re-title this thread: "Lee's Free Market Claim - in the absence of Lee" - or some such.

-- Mark

[Melody]

iono, omnirook. your posts come across as dishonest, like how u keep mentioning how Lee is such a great writer. it's like ur intention isn't to give him props, but to show how "humble" u are

and how u keep stressing certain things in a "i have learned how this truly works, so listen to my insight!!" kind of way. especially things about the "cruel reality" of the world, as if it's satiating for u to impart a tragic epiphany on ur correspondents

ur posts reek of medication, so i dont blame lee

[edit]note, im saying this pretty stoically, so dont take it as meaning i have feelings one way or another

[omnirook]

iono, omnirook. your posts come across as dishonest, like how u keep mentioning how Lee is such a great writer. it's like ur intention isn't to give him props, but to show how "humble" u are

and how u keep stressing certain things in a "i have learned how this truly works, so listen to my insight!!" kind of way. especially things about the "cruel reality" of the world, as if it's satiating for u to impart a tragic epiphany on ur correspondents

ur posts reek of medication, so i dont blame lee

[edit]note, im saying this pretty stoically, so dont take it as meaning i have feelings one way or another

I am not humble. I have never been humble.

In fact, I am quite vain.

Part of my vanity is to be "better" than others - and one aspect of that, adopted when I was in highschool, so more than a quarter of a century ago, has been never to fail to appreciate openly the talents of even those whom I despise ... Of course, doing so is not really to my credit; I have realized that (so, you see, experience does have some merit, after all) - but, now, it serves other purposes, not the least of which is to diffuse bad tempers - both mine and that of the person whom I am complimenting. Sometimes, not always, it leads to "cooler heads prevailing." No matter how much a person hates you, a compliment given is a compliment received. And, no, I was quite sincere when I said that I thought that Lee had talent and wrote beautifully - and I do not like Lee ...

The avuncular mode to which you refer is, sadly, common to older people: at nearly 43, I am old compared to most of those who frequent this Forum. Like hair growing in unwanted places, the avuncular mode comes with - age, whether any real wisdom comes w/it. Consider the mode my - accent - and forget it - or at least forgive it.

As for the tragedy - well, I have made it clear that I am a pessimist - a devout one - so, what can I say? That's the point on which I stand, and that point dictates my view - neh?

[xavierd]

I did not plan to have an argument: I was given one. Repeatedly I made it clear that I thought that Lee was not only a good writer but a gifted one: he does write beautifully. I am not the jealous sort - if someone does something well, I am always quick to show my appreciation - even if that someone is not my dear friend. If, as you imply, my writing is inferior in the sense of its being understandable to a reader, then that reader - including Lee - has the option of asking for clarification - in addition to the option of calling me names and trying to dismiss me as beneath contempt. Eloquence is a gift; not having that gift does not make someone a cockroach. As for your charge of "laziness," please note that I started to respond to Lee carefully, step by step, point by point, quite systematically - that would hardly indicate laziness. No, laziness would have been to post this :P .

The laziness was more directed toward another poster, Meliora, as the quote was taken from his post. I did not make that clear and I apologize. I also did not mean to come off as saying your writting is inferior to Lee's. What I was trying to get across is that, by your comments, it seemed to me that you were trying to insinuate that Lee's writing lacked substance and was mearly fluff. I agree with Melody and that this is how you came off.


You do realize that we could debate your point endlessly - that philosophers have been debating it endlessly for more than 2000 years. If you would care to have such a debate, I am willing. Either of us would have a mountain of readily avaiable "proof" to rally, and neither of us would be able to win the debate on the merits of our points alone - but it could be fun!

As far as Idealism vs. Pragmatisism goes I do not believe in one over the other. They both are valuable and necessary. I believe extremism in either direction to be naive which was the point I was trying to make. Pragmatisism is good because it allows things to get done. It focuses on the real world, the here and now. How things really work. Idealism looks at the over all picture and allows us to view a more perfect situation for whatever subject we are examining. With it we can provide a blue print on how things should be done. They feed each other in an endless loop. An Idealist comes up with a philosophy on how we should construct our economy and provides the necessary steps to full fill that design. The Pragmatist points out the problems and difficulties of trying to live such a life. The next Idealists takes these ideas and modifies or comes up with a different view, and so on.

[macr0]

Just reading through this thread, and especially noting some of Lees posts, I am often reminded of simple platitudes that, when taken in the right context, are not trite or domineering but useful and insightful.

The problem is that, with any written medium, it is increasingly difficult to be succinct and not condescending at the same time. Therefore, it becomes necessary to build complex logical structures just to prove small points.

Some points are valid, but ultimately the entire setup usually leads to dark, meaningless ends.

In the process, simple common sense and personal experience are washed as nievity or small world syndrome. The next logical step is to push the angle that life isn't defined by the reality that you live in, but instead by some abstract system which exposes a perception of reality to you. Since you take what is given to you by life, then you are a fool and are ignorant.

Of course, you can logically go full circle with anything and end up with nothing. This is the main reason why I find that many of Lee's posts are unfulfilling as a casual reader.

The journey of steps in exploration are enjoyable, and the bindings that create the view are novel, but the REAL conclusion is usually something that isn't worth arguing about in the first place.

Along the way, there is plenty to argue about and great opportunities that turns into mush and "you're not smart enough to understand me" deals. It becomes impossible to separate the cream.

Free markets are created when people have individual freedom.
Individual freedom is good.
Free markets are good.
Individual freedom has its costs and problems.
Free markets have their costs and problems.

Still, we should push for both individual freedom and free markets because the good outweighs the bad.

As is the way with everything I have ever encountered in life.

I can say the same thing about eating cheeseburgers, masturbation, showering regularly and brushing my teeth.

Well hell, just label me a nieve, over-simplifying relatavist I suppose.

I don't need a 2 hour movie about "The Doors." I can sum it up in 5 seconds: I'm drunk. I'm nobody. I'm drunk. I'm famous. I'm drunk. I'm fucking dead.

[Geoff]

I can say the same thing about eating cheeseburgers, masturbation, showering regularly and brushing my teeth.




What are you, an octopus? :D

[macr0]

What are you, an octopus? :D

Damn, I just realized...that would rock!

[Zero Angel]

I have edited the last part of my 'Runescape' post (on the previous page) to include this:

------------------------------
There have been a lot of examples where I have forced others, or have been forced, to compromise the 'fair' asking price in return for something that one of us needed more than the illusion of 'fairness'. So I can see where Lee is coming from in that respect (although I still disagree, because a modern market is much more prone to sneaky manipulation).

Runescape is a poor example of the complexity of the modern-day economy, but since it tends to simulate a primitive natural economy (in that every resource must be 'worked for' and each player has the self-interest to try one up the other player), there is a really human aspect of it that shows how the 'tao' of human self interest affects any market.
-----------------------------

I will elaborate further when I have my thoughts a little more together.

[omnirook]

The laziness was more directed toward another poster, Meliora, as the quote was taken from his post. I did not make that clear and I apologize. I also did not mean to come off as saying your writting is inferior to Lee's. What I was trying to get across is that, by your comments, it seemed to me that you were trying to insinuate that Lee's writing lacked substance and was mearly fluff. I agree with Melody and that this is how you came off.

As far as Idealism vs. Pragmatisism goes I do not believe in one over the other. They both are valuable and necessary. I believe extremism in either direction to be naive which was the point I was trying to make. Pragmatisism is good because it allows things to get done. It focuses on the real world, the here and now. How things really work. Idealism looks at the over all picture and allows us to view a more perfect situation for whatever subject we are examining. With it we can provide a blue print on how things should be done. They feed each other in an endless loop. An Idealist comes up with a philosophy on how we should construct our economy and provides the necessary steps to full fill that design. The Pragmatist points out the problems and difficulties of trying to live such a life. The next Idealists takes these ideas and modifies or comes up with a different view, and so on.

Thank you for your appology - and, no, I don't believe that it was meant just for me; I'm vain - but not that vain!

I see that you are a person who sees that the world is neither black nor white but grey - and that is good. It is good now and then to come across somebody who appreciates the world as it is - or at least tries to appreciate it as it is. In a way, that's Taoism - I like the Tao; I study it often. Are you familiar w/it? My favorite part is its beginning: "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao, the eternal Tao ..." Oh, "Tao" (sort of) means "way" - in all the ways that "way" can mean "way" - :) ... Anyway, I get your point - and, um, I find it quite - practical! =))