A Free Market Flaw?

[osan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
First, money is nothing more than a tool...


Take a 1000 USD cash into a poor part of say Africa, and let's see how long it takes for you to be robbed/killed.
Seriously though, money will always (in a capitalist system) be a very direct and easy way of gaining power, and that was all I was saying with that.

Very poor reasoning here. That someone would kill me for $1000 demonstrates not the power of money per sé, but only of the nature of the choices of the person warring against me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
Second, your assumption about corporate purpose is demonstrably flawed. The root purposes underlying the existence of corporations can vary quite broadly. Profit is often one of the reasons they exist, but often it is not the only one, nor it is always the primary one. Here I will recommend a VERY good book that IMO everyone here and everyone in the nation should read: "Built To Last" by Collins and Porras. They do a superlative job of destroying several of the myths about corporations. I cannot recommend this work highly enough. Get it, read it, then read it again. Repeat until you have gotten the ideas clear in your thoughts.

I might consider that book if you can counter this logic:
Can a business thrive without creating a profit? If no, then the first priority must always be to create a profit.

I see you're not in the business world. First, yes, corporations can and indeed do exist and thrive without profit. These are called <drum roll>.... NON-PROFIT corporations! But even where profit is a goal, it is not necessarily the primary one. There are many corporations that have very explicitly articulated that return on investment is NOT the primary goal of the corporation's existence. Moreover, some have gone even further in stating that a "reasonable" return will be a goal, but that it takes a secondary position to other goals. This is a commonly occurring truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
This is nonsense. They are entitled to express themselves just as we are. The responsibility lies with each of us to determine whether what they advocate is meritorious.


...however, you have to admit that people aren't taking responsibility, so how will you force them? (and if you decide not to force them then you will inevitably end up with poor government).

Reality will provide the motivation. You don't ever force them. You let them make ignorant choices until the cost outweighs the benefit. Then you will see change. If some people continue on to their own destruction, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[ILUVRP]

Free market is a joke. No such thing.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/news..._bell.html?sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

 

[ShadoD]

Help me understand, how is this possible?

As soon as someone offers a service well enough, with an expertise that no one else has, they will become a de facto monopoly. Of course this monopoly will most likely not last nearly as long as a de jure monopoly, but it still proves my point.
Alternatively you could imagine someone finding a large cache of a very rare resource, if there are no other known (readily available) deposits of this resource the person would have a monopoly on it.

......Thank you for educating all of us free market idiots.

You're welcome?

You can't. It cannot be done. It's impossible. It's a law of human nature.

That's why so many argue for keeping a government as small, as focused, and as powerless as possible. Otherwise it becomes an instrument of oppression in the hands of the highest bidder.

If FedGov were restricted to its enumerated powers, nobody would much care who got elected President, and damned few would be willing to spend a fortune to buy it.

You might just be right, but hopefully you aren't .

Tell me then. Since you are a business in the eyes of the government; Where do you need government regulations and how do they actually benefit you or the people you work for?

Remember when answering this question that fraud is a crime, so is theft or destruction of someone else's property.

Government regulations rarely ever benefit me directly, but the rules do prevent me from hurting society and the safety regulations do prevent my workers from being harmed (not that they are in any risk, but I've been in other jobs where safety regulations have been essential).

There are better ways to answer his questions.

For instance Market share =! Monopoly.

The damn liberals have been pushing forever that a monopoly is market share and it is a ridiculous notion an d definition. Hopefully the Austrian definition will take hold over time.

Monopoly is best described as an exclusive privilege granted by government..

Of course, this type of monopoly can't exist without government, the definition itself makes that clear.

Very poor reasoning here. That someone would kill me for $1000 demonstrates not the power of money per sé, but only of the nature of the choices of the person warring against me.

You are free to think of it as you will, but it does demonstrate the power of money, and you would hunt it just as ruthlessly if those pieces of paper meant the difference between dying from starvation and disease, and survival.

I see you're not in the business world. First, yes, corporations can and indeed do exist and thrive without profit. These are called <drum roll>.... NON-PROFIT corporations! But even where profit is a goal, it is not necessarily the primary one. There are many corporations that have very explicitly articulated that return on investment is NOT the primary goal of the corporation's existence. Moreover, some have gone even further in stating that a "reasonable" return will be a goal, but that it takes a secondary position to other goals. This is a commonly occurring truth.

Please, stop stating obvious things, everyone knows about non-profit organisations/corporations, but clearly that was not related to the topic.
About your second statement, you should ask yourself, "if two companies are competing, and one is making a profit while the other isn't, which one is most likely to succeed in the long term?" the answer to this question makes it very clear that the business that makes a profit will always be more attractive to investors (unless if we are talking strictly about non-profit).
As an added note, I've done a lot of work with the Red Cross here and I can tell you that even though they don't want a profit per se, they still very much welcome activities that generate a good income because that will allow them to invest the money in other projects, so even in the non-profit area, people are looking for profit generating activities.
(now please jump off of your high horse and stop making baseless assumptions about me)

Reality will provide the motivation. You don't ever force them. You let them make ignorant choices until the cost outweighs the benefit. Then you will see change. If some people continue on to their own destruction, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

That is a very cynical way of looking at things, and I've been known to say similar things, but we should strive to educate people rather than let them repeat past mistakes over and over again.

 

[pcosmar]

Free market is a joke. No such thing.

The free market is not a joke. It is a dream. Perhaps a goal.
It has not existed on a large scale for quite some time.

Still,,,It is a nice dream.

 

[Sola_Fide]

As soon as someone offers a service well enough, with an expertise that no one else has, they will become a de facto monopoly. Of course this monopoly will most likely not last nearly as long as a de jure monopoly, but it still proves my point.
Alternatively you could imagine someone finding a large cache of a very rare resource, if there are no other known (readily available) deposits of this resource the person would have a monopoly on it.

*facepalm*

If a resource were that vitally needed, then it is impossible that it could be so scarce that one person could control it.


I don't mean to take down your dignity or make light of how econmically illiterate you are but seriously man...take my advice...please stop posting until you understand the basics. You are unfortunately at the beginning stages so might I suggest reading Economics In One Lesson by Hazelitt? You can read it online for free.


Judging by the silly fundamental errors you have made in your 6 posts so far, I think this is where you need to start. Sorry.

 

[Madly_Sane]

Isn't the free market flawed by design, when the wealth and power will eventually end up with corporations and not the people?

There are two major types of economies - market and command - there are very few pure command economies and I don't believe there are any pure market economies. Most countries have a mixed economy. Which eliminates the flaw you are talking about. The command economy side, in a way, patches the holes in the market economy.
The U.S. is not a pure market economy as many of you probably know, we are a mixed economy, but we lean more towards the market economy side. The U.S. government puts regulations on companies/corporations to prevent ALL power being given to corporations, although most power in our economy lies with the corporations.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There are two major types of economies - market and command - there are very few pure command economies and I don't believe there are any pure market economies. Most countries have a mixed economy. Which eliminates the flaw you are talking about. The command economy side, in a way, patches the holes in the market economy.
The U.S. is not a pure market economy as many of you probably know, we are a mixed economy, but we lean more towards the market economy side. The U.S. government puts regulations on companies/corporations to prevent ALL power being given to corporations, although most power in our economy lies with the corporations.

Wrong.

 

[Rancher]

Free market is a joke. No such thing.

How about the free market of information - The Internet.

 

[ShadoD]

*facepalm*

If a resource were that vitally needed, then it is impossible that it could be so scarce that one person could control it.


I don't mean to take down your dignity or make light of how econmically illiterate you are but seriously man...take my advice...please stop posting until you understand the basics. You are unfortunately at the beginning stages so might I suggest reading Economics In One Lesson by Hazelitt? You can read it online for free.


Judging by the silly fundamental errors you have made in your 6 posts so far, I think this is where you need to start. Sorry.

I wish that "facepalm" was a face punch because that is really what you are in dire need of. I don't care how much you think you know. If you can't even try to put forth an argument for your case, then why are you even here?
The first example I gave is taken straight out of reality, (that's everything outside your head) if you deny that, well, there isn't much point in discussing anything with you.
The second example is a theoretical one, but there is nothing at all wrong with the principle.
I'm not expecting a response worth reading, so I'm gonna ignore you from now on because you have shown, that you really have no wish to talk constructively to anyone.

There are two major types of economies - market and command - there are very few pure command economies and I don't believe there are any pure market economies. Most countries have a mixed economy. Which eliminates the flaw you are talking about. The command economy side, in a way, patches the holes in the market economy.
The U.S. is not a pure market economy as many of you probably know, we are a mixed economy, but we lean more towards the market economy side. The U.S. government puts regulations on companies/corporations to prevent ALL power being given to corporations, although most power in our economy lies with the corporations.

I don't really see how it eliminates the flaw. I guess if the two were separated completely it could work, but that in itself is (close to) impossible.
And I think you need to look at the US economy more before you call it a market economy, the use of subsidies is one major thing that shows you that the US is far from a market economy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

ShadowD

Here is Economics In One Lesson free: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

 

[ShadoD]

ShadowD

Here is Economics In One Lesson free: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

Since you went so far as to post a link, I'll be respectful and read it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Since you went so far as to post a link, I'll be respectful and read it.

Cool man. Tell me what you think.

 

[Bman]

Of course, this type of monopoly can't exist without government, the definition itself makes that clear.

You're not getting the fact that it is a crap definition. Such a weak definition can be construed to mean nearly anything you want it to.

 

[Bman]

Government regulations rarely ever benefit me directly, but the rules do prevent me from hurting society and the safety regulations do prevent my workers from being harmed (not that they are in any risk, but I've been in other jobs where safety regulations have been essential).

Destruction of personal property applies to everything you have just said there. You're just creating a pile of nonsense with those remarks.

 

[ILUVRP]

How about the free market of information - The Internet.

It's great , but i guess the saying " money talks , BS walks " is true.

 

[ShadoD]

You're not getting the fact that it is a crap definition. Such a weak definition can be construed to mean nearly anything you want it to.

Well, there are only two definitions and they both legitimately exist, so if you want to get mad at the dictionary or something, that is up to you, otherwise just accept the fact that there are two types of monopolies.
Also, the definition is not as loose as you make it seems, it's only if you are the sole supplier (or at least the only one used) that you have a de facto monopoly.

Destruction of personal property applies to everything you have just said there. You're just creating a pile of nonsense with those remarks.

I see your point, but you too should realize that without the regulations, he would have to wage an arduous legal battle against me, and if I was rich, he probably would have to do that for years and most likely would go bankrupt before the case ever finished.

 

[Madly_Sane]

I didn't call it a market economy... I said it leans more towards one

 

[Rancher]

Free market is a joke. No such thing.

How about the free market of information - The Internet.

It's great , but i guess the saying " money talks , BS walks " is true.

The Internet - The Truth Machine - The Freedom Machine - The Free Market in Action
To say that the free market doesn't exist is to ignore reality. The Internet is an impressive empirical study in free markets.

"Cavet Emptor" at its finest!

 

[ShadoD]

I didn't call it a market economy... I said it leans more towards one

I guess it does, at least in theory.

 

[Disconsolate]

Please, stop being stupid. Read what I said then compare it to what you are saying.
Monopolies can exist without government, it's not a matter of books it's a matter of logical thinking. Also, I don't even care about monopolies, they are not the problem.



I agree. I don't think having a state necessarily makes them more powerful (it only does so if the state is corrupt) but it definitely makes it easier.
My main question still stands though; how can we ensure that money doesn't mix with politics and our minds (through media propaganda)?

By not having a government?

Let's say there's a big rapist perusing the countryside raping people. You then had people who would spend part of their earnings on coercing the rapist into raping in their favor. How can we prevent those two from mixing?

By getting rid of the rapist.