A Free Market Flaw?

[Sola_Fide]

Ughhhh....


Grow some balls dude.

 

[Travlyr]

Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
You describe the problem we currently have with central planning controlled markets. Monopolies are protected by being granted favored status through regulations.

Laissez-faire free markets solve these problems.

A monopoly in laissez-faire free markets would have to be an exceptionally good company because the only way the company could maintain its monopoly status would be to provide high quality products at exceptional value.

You're not saying how it would solve the problem though. I absolutely agree that the system we have today only makes it much much worse, but I don't see how Laissez-faire free market mechanisms will eliminate the problem of powerful entities abusing their money/influence.

Through competition. Competition would keep anyone from gaining too much power/influence. I will work hard to make the product better and less expensive. You, or someone else, will do the same. Without the skirts of government regulations to hide behind, monopolies fail. Governments should secure restitution for abuse of someone's property rights... i.e. theft should not be tolerated in a civil society, but it is government regulations that create powerful money influences.

 

[Carl Corey]

So by nature, successful corporations will (over time) accumulate great power. How can we then - as a people - feel safe, knowing that the corporations are the ones with the power?

Freedom will always be in danger, one obvious solution is to level the playing field whenever things get too unbalanced, if this is common knowledge the powerful corporations might not dare to meddle with politics. Large populations have a sheep mentality however, especially in periods of great wealth, so the right to bear arms and freedom of speech, are all fundamental constitutional rights required to keep checks and balances.

How can we secure ourselves from their propaganda and even direct interference with politics (lobbyism for example)?

By keeping the government and media small. Big media is as big a problem as big government, but the internet has fortunately put a dent in the power of the media.

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

No, the wealth and power should be with those who best know how to use it, which isn't Joe the plumber. The general idea is that libertarianism creates wealth in abundance, so even if 10% of the population has 95% of the wealth, the remaining 5% is more than enough to go around. And as I mentioned earlier, if the rich take too much, they're unlikely to keep an armed and informed population from redistributing the wealth. Still, a tax on excessive wealth might be a better long term solution than the occasional revolution.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The level of Statism in this thread is reaching record levels.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

The level of Statism in this thread is reaching record levels.

everyone knows what is best for "individual rights"

 

[Bman]

You're not saying how it would solve the problem though. I absolutely agree that the system we have today only makes it much much worse, but I don't see how Laissez-faire free market mechanisms will eliminate the problem of powerful entities abusing their money/influence.

There is no such thing as a perfect solution. On some level everything will have a flaw, and where there is money and property there is abuse. The question than becomes this do we make a cookie cutter society where as everything has to be the same for everyone or do we make a system where people have choices and depending on those choices have an opportunity to succeed or fail.

What a free market person will be quick to point out is that in such a system no good can happen from Government regulation because it leads to a power far greater to get rid of than any business. It will have all the same problems you think of when you think of your arguments against a Laissez-faire free market, but this beast will be nearly impossible to take down once it decides to eat you.

It's a choice. Do you want to live where you actually have a choice or do you want to live where you don't have a choice?

A question I would direct your way is if you have ever been self-employed or have run a business?

 

[StilesBC]

Failure is the most redeeming aspect of free-markets.

A corporation that abuses its customers will go bankrupt without the coercive assistance of the state. The kind of enormous corporations we have today probably wouldn't survive without the implicit and explicit state guarantees we have endowed upon them.

The "tendency" toward monopoly (let's call it corruption) is only possible with the use of unlawful action (corporate/political arrangements). It is not the job of the market to answer for this tendency. It is the job of our legal institutions to apply the law evenly and effectively. And it is the job of the electorate to replace them should they fail to do so.

The apparent lack of ability to do this is the justification for anarcho-capitalism where there is no state to assist in this corruption.

 

[ShadoD]

Through competition. Competition would keep anyone from gaining too much power/influence. I will work hard to make the product better and less expensive. You, or someone else, will do the same. Without the skirts of government regulations to hide behind, monopolies fail. Governments should secure restitution for abuse of someone's property rights... i.e. theft should not be tolerated in a civil society, but it is government regulations that create powerful money influences.

Competition won't always do that though, there will be cases where one company will do something so well, that almost no one will be able to compete.
A good example here is Google search.
I think it's undeniable that from time to time, you'll have a business that will rise above the rest and will come into a position of power (and I think that is okay), we just need to find a way where their money can't influence our politicians.

Freedom will always be in danger, one obvious solution is to level the playing field whenever things get too unbalanced, if this is common knowledge the powerful corporations might not dare to meddle with politics. Large populations have a sheep mentality however, especially in periods of great wealth, so the right to bear arms and freedom of speech, are all fundamental constitutional rights required to keep checks and balances.

Very true, however I don't think limiting corporations size is really possible in any way (or should be possible).

By keeping the government and media small. Big media is as big a problem as big government, but the internet has fortunately put a dent in the power of the media.

Big media is probably one of the biggest problems today, but once again, we can't start limiting people's free speech, if we start doing that then who knows where it will all end.

There is no such thing as a perfect solution. On some level everything will have a flaw, and where there is money and property there is abuse. The question than becomes this do we make a cookie cutter society where as everything has to be the same for everyone or do we make a system where people have choices and depending on those choices have an opportunity to succeed or fail.

What a free market person will be quick to point out is that in such a system no good can happen from Government regulation because it leads to a power far greater to get rid of than any business. It will have all the same problems you think of when you think of your arguments against a Laissez-faire free market, but this beast will be nearly impossible to take down once it decides to eat you.

It's a choice. Do you want to live where you actually have a choice or do you want to live where you don't have a choice?

A question I would direct your way is if you have ever been self-employed or have run a business?

There probably isn't a perfect solution, but I think there are solutions. Of course educating the public is the most important thing, because if every citizen is vigilant and watching the government, then they probably will be more careful with their actions, and then even socialism might work out just fine. But that is a whole other issue.
Structurally I think we need to figure out a way to completely detach politicians from money, that is probably the number one concern, because every problem arises when people in power decide they want a larger slice of the cake and then sell out their voters. We need a system where the is nothing to gain from being a politician except the honor of serving the people alone.
And yes, I am at the moment self-employed actually. I've tried a very wide variety of jobs (lastly a job at a pharmaceutical company), but me being me, I'm never satisfied with being someones employee. I'd rather make less if it means that I am my own master.

Failure is the most redeeming aspect of free-markets.

A corporation that abuses its customers will go bankrupt without the coercive assistance of the state. The kind of enormous corporations we have today probably wouldn't survive without the implicit and explicit state guarantees we have endowed upon them.

Abuse isn't always apparent to the customers though, an example is the RAM cartel that was discovered a few years ago (only because one of them ratted the others out), where the leading RAM producers in the world had a secret agreement to keep the prices artificially high. People kept paying the higher prices while the manufacturers kept ripping their customers off.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Today's monopoly is tomorrow's has-been. Technology advances, and the larger a company is, the harder it is for it to adapt. There's someone right now writing code in their mother's basement that will make Google Search a history lesson one of these days.

Name one long-term monopoly that wasn't placed into that position and protected in that position by the coercive power of government monopoly.

Bzzzzz... time's up.

 

[ShadoD]

Today's monopoly is tomorrow's has-been. Technology advances, and the larger a company is, the harder it is for it to adapt. There's someone right now writing code in their mother's basement that will make Google Search a history lesson one of these days.

Name one long-term monopoly that wasn't placed into that position and protected in that position by the coercive power of government monopoly.

Bzzzzz... time's up.

I'm not saying that monopolies last forever (nothing lasts forever), I'm just saying that immense power does accumulate (often in monopoly type businesses).

 

[Disconsolate]

I'm not saying that monopolies last forever (nothing lasts forever), I'm just saying that immense power does accumulate (often in monopoly type businesses).

Having government only insulates them and allows them to grow more powerful. I can understand being wary of people amassing power and having potential to use force, but having a state only makes this problem worse.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not saying that monopolies last forever (nothing lasts forever), I'm just saying that immense power does accumulate (often in monopoly type businesses).

Who cares? Please read some Murray Rothbard. Man, Economy, and State has an excellent chapter about how monopolies can only exist with government protections.

You are coming to a forum where there are very well-read people and asking silly questions.

 

[forsmant]

Agreed. Except many corporations co-opt the government use of force. Then they become just as dangerous. Much of what government does to you (and to innocents in other lands) is done on behalf of corporations.

THe way it is in America is a handful of companies co-opt the government regulators to prevent small start ups from taking their profits. After all, competition is bad for business.

 

[ShadoD]

Who cares? Please read some Murray Rothbard. Man, Economy, and State has an excellent chapter about how monopolies can only exist with government protections.

You are coming to a forum where there are very well-read people and asking silly questions.

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.

Having government only insulates them and allows them to grow more powerful. I can understand being wary of people amassing power and having potential to use force, but having a state only makes this problem worse.

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)?

 

[Travlyr]

Monopolies can exist without government, it's not a matter of books it's a matter of logical thinking.

Help me understand, how is this possible?

 

[Sola_Fide]

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)?

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

 

[FreeTraveler]

My main question still stands though; how can we ensure that money doesn't mix with politics and our minds (through media propaganda)?

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.

 

[Bman]

And yes, I am at the moment self-employed actually. I've tried a very wide variety of jobs (lastly a job at a pharmaceutical company), but me being me, I'm never satisfied with being someones employee. I'd rather make less if it means that I am my own master.

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.

 

[Bman]

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

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..

 

[osan]

But this is the entire reason corporations exist - to allow people to invest their money and make a profit but avoid responsibility if things don't go well.

But not for criminal acts of which they are aware. If you are committing a felony on my behalf, such as killing my wife, I am equally responsible.

It is rather like a milder form of the "privatize the profits and socialize the losses" philosophy of American fascism. If you want to get rid of the corporate shield (as it is known in the law) then why not just get rid of corporations entirely?

Well, one doesn't have to have corporations. They are a convenience - conceptual vehicles by which certain categories of issues/problems are streamlined. I can take them or leave them, honestly. But if we keep them, I maintain that they must be held to the proper standards and that the corporate veil protects no manager from criminal responsibility. Protection from certain sorts of fiscal responsibility, however, is actually a pretty good idea, though once again this could be made manifest via private contract rather than through other legal mechanisms.