odds and ends by 1kiki

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
why market competition doesn't work for medical treatment

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/27/opinion/etzioni-health-care-competition/
index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Oh, this is why I find CNN so annoying.

Quote:

But research shows that competition in health care cannot be made to work effectively

This is tapping into an abomination called expert culture, this belief that if we are told something with the airs of respectability we will take it in subconsciously as fact.

Research shows the sky is not blue. I actually ran into that once. Literally.

Research shows is meaningless when the research is included, and absurd without it.

Okay, now to the topic. I thought the article was pedestrian as it holds to a look at healthcare in an extremely narrow perspective of our insurance model.

Medicine, of course, can work on the free market and does so every day. More americans get their medical care from alternative sources than so called modern medicine. It's really very difficult in the free market to compete if you don't have the same product. I find I don't always by the cheapest product, but I usually do if a number of reputable companies have the seemingly identical antioxidant, say. However, I don't buy one herbal anti-depressant over another because of price.

If healthcare were a free market, there would be a number of SSRI anti-depressants put into instant rather direct competition. Worse yet, they would be placed into competition with their alternatives, which sell for around $7 a bottle. There are so many rivals in both modern and traditional medicine that almost every medicine would find itself in a similar situation.

Without this competition, companies can charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars a bottle for medicine, and the collusion of interests in the financial products and govt. services industries will pay for it because the cash flow is circular, and so it is to their advantage to pay more for the product even if it is not in the interests of the consumer.

This makes it fairly obvious that the consumer would long term benefit by the removal of all middlemen, as the price would be forced into a free market.

If you implemented something like John Kerry's catastrophic care program idea, I can't think of anything that would create a serious problem for the free market in the rest of healthcare.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 30, 2011 8:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

A lot of people try various things to keep or improve their overall health - supplements, meditation, yoga etc. And people will try alternative treatments for things like back pain, colds and flus etc. But when you have been in a serious accident, or have a fast-moving or serious medical condition like acute heart failure, acute kidney failure, acute liver failure or breast or other cancer, MOST people rely on modern medicine. That's where the market-forces model fails.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 30, 2011 8:44 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

more odds and ends

Solar power is much cheaper to produce than people have been told

http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/solar-power-much-cheaper-produce-m
ost-analysts-realize-study-finds

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
why market competition doesn't work for medical treatment

If people don't change their current information consumption patterns, I would agree.

Quote:
A recent University of Michigan survey found that less than 50% of patients were able to answer basic questions about their condition, let alone its treatment. A 2004 Institute of Medicine report summarizes the finding of over 300 studies demonstrating that most people do not understand health information that is intended for them.

Bingo. Most people are not well educated enough. What is the solution?

1. The current model. Educate a few people, give them MD's after their names, and have MD's make their decisions for them.

2. The educational model. Educate everybody instead of just the salesmen. THEN open up a free market on health care.

The educational model doesn't need to teach everybody EVERYTHING. Just enough to a)overcome their health technical information phobia, and b)learn the basic language of health care (health literacy, if you will).

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:01 AM

Kiki,

That's not the point, the point is that the alternative care market is a free market. Also, it doesn't logically follow: Many people leave modern medical care in search of solutions in alternative care, and I can assure you they find solutions.

The reason that the free market does not compete in the forms of care you mentioned is not that it's not competitive, but that it is banned from competing by law. That's not a very free system, and it's not a "failure of the free market."

CTS is right as usual.

Re: solar cells, start a separate thread. I get that's what you had in mind when you posted this, but if multiple threads are being discussed in one thread it's just going to get awfully confusing. Don't be afraid of starting too many threads. PN and Niki used to mint them like the federal reserve, posting like 6-8 in a day. Somehow the forum survived, so I think it can endure a couple of concurrent 1kiki threads.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 6:10 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There are other factors as well. I'll put numbers in front of them and break them out so you can see how many you missed.

To highlight the issue at hand, it is best to start with the circumstances in which competition does work. It requires that

1) the consumers purchase items that are relatively small in cost and consequences (a can of beans, a tube of toothpaste, a pizza),

2) that they repeat the purchase often, and

3) that the consumers are able to readily receive and absorb relevant information.

This has been brought up in discussions before. Unless you either have lots of personal relevant experience on which to base your decision (this kidney transplant didn't go so well, I think I'll try the kidney transplant from the other doctor over at the other hospital) OR have an unbiased source of information; AND have the time to do your research and implement your decision (let me put this heart attack on hold and go home and study angioplasty figures for the doctors and hospitals); AND you are able to set aside stress enough to reach an unbiased decision, it still doesn't work, no matter how well educated you may be.

Since these were discussed at length in the article you sure went out of your way to avoid a big chunk of the discussion.

So, care to discuss all the OTHER relevant factors you avoided? Or are you just going to whinge about how everybody is picking on you are you're just this poor sad misunderstood victim of AALLLLllll those mean people, then disappear when you have no good argument. Oh, what the heck, go ahead and do it anyway. You know you want to.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 7:16 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:

So, care to discuss all the OTHER relevant factors you avoided? Or are you just going to whinge about how everybody is picking on you are you're just this poor sad misunderstood victim of AALLLLllll those mean people, then disappear when you have no good argument. Oh, what the heck, go ahead and do it anyway. You know you want to.

WTF? What is this, high school?

Knock off the mean girl clique stuff, if you haven't succeeded in running DT off the board despite his considering it almost every week you're probably not going to. Same goes for CTS.

Ad hominems will win you allies from people who don't like DT, but it won't win you arguments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
To highlight the issue at hand, it is best to start with the circumstances in which competition does work. It requires that

So this author says. What if I believe education is the only requirement for free market to work? What if I believe these "requirements" were invented to justify the author's biased position that the free market is ok for little things like toothpaste, but not for *really important* things like heart surgery?

Quote:
1) the consumers purchase items that are relatively small in cost and consequences (a can of beans, a tube of toothpaste, a pizza),

What this author really means, in my view, is he is ok with people making stupid, uneducated mistakes with beans and toothpaste. You don't lose much except a little money. Freedom in things that cost lots of money and/or lives doesn't work. What I hear him saying is, "You can't give people the freedom to make mistakes that big."

Quote:
2) that they repeat the purchase often,

This goes back to education. Personal frequent purchases gives the consumer lots of first-hand data about how well a product works. But in larger items, word of mouth and research data can stand in for first-hand data just as easily. You may only buy a house a couple of times in a lifetime, but infrequency of purchase alone doesn't justify abolishing competition for the housing market.

Quote:
3) that the consumers are able to readily receive and absorb relevant information.

This is also an education issue. If consumers are educated early on in health literacy, the information doesn't have to be overwhelmingly stressful or difficult to absorb.

Thanks, Byte, for speaking up against the ad hominems. It would be nice to have a flame-free forum for a change. One can dream.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 7:33 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

Go fuck yourself. And I mean that in the nicest way.

If ALL I did was post my opinion (and according to you I'm not supposed to have one, or state it... Gee, how white of you) you'd have a minor point. But I argued the relevant points at length.

Do YOU not want to discuss the article? It sure looks like it.

ETA: Oh, btw this is an example of how I hounded DT and why I will be responsible for RUNNING HIM OFF THE BOARD "A lot of people try various things to keep or improve their overall health - supplements, meditation, yoga etc. And people will try alternative treatments for things like back pain, colds and flus etc. But when you have been in a serious accident, or have a fast-moving or serious medical condition like acute heart failure, acute kidney failure, acute liver failure or breast or other cancer, MOST people rely on modern medicine. That's where the market-forces model fails."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 7:51 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"What if I believe education is the only requirement for free market to work? "

Then it's a belief. And so what?

BTW, I didn't get that this guy wanted to take away choice. What he was saying was that there are circumstances where free-market mechanisms don't work. THIS btw is what he WAS advocating for: "Congress has a role to play by ensuring that the incentives created by Medicare and Medicaid foster good care, and that fraud and abuse are curbed by increasing the number and authority of federal accountants and by ensuring there are stiff penalties for those caught cheating."

"...word of mouth and research data can stand in for first-hand data just as easily ..."

OK - let's look at back surgery. You have a back problem and a doctor recommends back surgery. Do you know a lot of his patients, enough to have a good statistical look at how good he is? Do you know the ins and outs of their problems and have enough medical knowledge to judge whether or not they got the best possible result? Do you know many of his patients? Any of them at all? How is this scenario working for you?

And what about that intangible called bedside manner? MOST doctors who are sued are sued b/c they irked the patient, not b/c they did any worse than any other doctor - in fact, they often do better. In other words, poor doctors get a pass if their patients LIKE them. So, in your effort to get first-hand accounts you will get BIASED first hand accounts.

So let's say you decide you really can't get enough information about back surgery and educate yourself. You decide to be conservative. If you are like most your problem will disappear at least for a while. If otoh you are the unfortunate minority, you will end up with permanent nerve damage that no amount of alternative care will fix. Has being conservative helped you, or hurt you?

Now, wouldn't it be better to have real information?

But for the most part you won't get it either from doctors or alternative quacks. Because they are BOTH BUSINESSES. They are in the BUSINESS of getting money from people for whatever it is they CLAIM to do. So you can either believe their ads, or you can TRY and find one, or if you're lucky two, patients to get first-hand accounts for yourself, and entrust your health and maybe your life to that.

Yep, that's the beauty of an unregulated fee market.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Has being conservative helped you, or hurt you?

Or let's say, you go conservative and opt for standard, conventional treatment and get that back surgery. You end up with more pain than you ever had before, because the diagnosis was off, and you now have the stress of the medical loan you took out for the surgery on top of post-operative rehabilitation problems.

Mistakes can be made in all healing modalities.

The arguments you are making focus on the first point: Freedom is ok for little things. But when something as important as your health is at stake, expertise (which cannot be trusted to the common man) trumps freedom.

Here are the underlying values in my argument for free market health care.

1. It's your body. It's your choice. Period.
2. It's your body. You CAN be the expert on your own body.
3. It's your body. You are the one suffering the consequences of mistakes.
4. It's your body. No one is more motivated to make the right choice than you.
5. It's your body. Preventing your mistakes on your own body is not the purview of government.

I believe you can have expertise on your own health AND freedom at the same time. But even if one can never achieve the level of expertise as a professional clinician or researcher, people still must be free to make their own mistakes with their own bodies.

What society can do to help people make less mistakes is educate them. Teach them health literacy. Teach them science literacy. Teach them fraud literacy.

You don't help people make less mistakes by taking their choices away.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 10:16 AM

Uh oh. someone broke the 1kiki.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Byte

Go fuck yourself. And I mean that in the nicest way.

Lots of people on the board have mental issues and some of them are downright bonkers, not to mention any names, but I think you probably wouldn't put yourself in that category, but you've been sliding off the deep end. I hope you trust the folk here on the board to help you. I'd certainly trust them over doctors.

Frem? Phoenix Rose? Someone want to help put her back together?

I'm not trying to be funny here. It's happened before. Y'all know what I'm talking about. I know y'all also know who was responsible.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 2:24 PM

BYTEMITE

Hell, I'm irrelevant and I admit it. I never read articles and I'm generally posting off topic anyway.

But that was another nice straw man and ad hominem, accusing me of not wanting you to have an opinion and telling me to fuck myself. *I* don't even have an opinion. If I do, someone else will say it before me anyway. Most of the time I'm too stupid to know what you all are talking about. My means of contribution are severely limited by my immense incompetence.

Excuse me I suppose, for trying to keep this gravy train from degenerating into a flame war. Mission failed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

More like Fission Mailed, ya ask me.
And no, not interested whatever in helping someone who's only reach outside the tiny box of their own worldview is lobbing grenades.

I for one find the information offered by the conventional healthcare establishment downright untrustworthy, with a full legion of hard evidence backing that assessment - although for a fact unconventional medicine is just as full of the same problem, only it's somehow okay when someone with the perceived legitimacy of "the system" lies, is incompetent, or has an agenda ?

I reject that, categorically, and if anyone has a right to it'd be me, given that all too often it's been unconventional or downright mad-science solutions which actually helped me when conventional medicine was ready to cast me to the curb, leave me swinging, or hang me out to dry - yanno like sending me home with a bad diagnosis and a bottle full of useless antivirals cause they couldn't even figure out what was wrong and their goddamn egos got in the way of proper testing...

Yanno I'd likely be dead, or at least in very very bad shape had it not been for one less-respected doc who broke ranks with them (and earned their ire for this) and discarded that diagnosis because he actually read the patients files and did his freakin job.

But anyhows, go on handing unquestioned credibility to folks known to be untrustworthy, see what it gets ya.

For mine own, I use what works, and if that means stepping outside of the approved boundries of folks more interested in protecting their intellectual turf than helping people, what do I care for their sympathies ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 4:14 PM

BYTEMITE

In retrospect, my response to you was probably an empathy failure 1kiki. I can't always predict or assess what my moods and attitudes are when I post. I was perhaps too blunt, and potentially unfair.

I don't exist to encourage people to be happy and fuzzy and friendly on this board, and sometimes things will get a little heated.

You may be attacking people, I may not understand why, but perhaps that's no call for me to attack you as well.

Frem, I appreciate that you were willing to look through the too blunt and the being unkind to the intentions underneath, and recognize it was a mental glitch.

I will try harder to reign in the dark side in the future.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 4:28 PM

It was all getting a little....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 5:38 PM

Magon,

Lol.

What was freaking me out was I was being nice to kiki and she went kind Taz on me and so I was actually worried. Still am. I think of you as one of her rwed:buddies, maybe you can help her out.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 5:57 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

So per the article, people are just too stupid to be allowed to make choices about their healthcare?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon,

Lol.

What was freaking me out was I was being nice to kiki and she went kind Taz on me and so I was actually worried. Still am. I think of you as one of her rwed:buddies, maybe you can help her out.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Here's my help.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 31, 2011 9:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't exist to encourage people to be happy and fuzzy and friendly on this board, and sometimes things will get a little heated.

You may be attacking people, I may not understand why, but perhaps that's no call for me to attack you as well.

Frem, I appreciate that you were willing to look through the too blunt and the being unkind to the intentions underneath, and recognize it was a mental glitch.

I will try harder to reign in the dark side in the future.

Feh, mental glitch my arse, people are human, with human responses...

Everytime we lose sight of that, try to pretend otherwise, things go badly.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2012 11:35 AM

Since we're posting videos:

I know this is religiously motivated, but the main idea still holds. People have real life problems of their own. I was actually thinking of kiki and Sig and everybody who hates me on RWED and wishing them well in their real lives this new year. We all have real life pain. I hope whatever real life pain ails them is palliated at least.

Of course, I wish all the rest of you (those who don't hate me) an excellent new year as well.

:)

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2012 2:50 PM

CTS,

two things

1) replace the ending "&feature=related" with "&player=embeded"

2) on html nothing can embedded if it's secure, the two concepts are antithetical, so delete the s after http if you're linking or embedding.

so it should be http:....com/watch?v=X0..X0&player=embeded

you'd posted https:....com/watch?v=X0..X0&action=related which is undoubtedly what you copied over from youtube. That only allows youtube to access youtube. The internet is full of security measures to prevent people from using other people's content for obvious bandwidth reasons.

Oh and happy new year.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, since this is an odds and ends thread, I hope you all don't mind an odds and ends response

Quote:
I'm not trying to be funny here. It's happened before. Y'all know what I'm talking about. I know y'all also know who was responsible.

Uh, if I ever knew, I forgot. Care to fill me in? Inquiring minds want to know!

----------------
And now to CTS's and DT's solution

Quote:

1. The current model. Educate a few people, give them MD's after their names, and have MD's make their decisions for them.
2. The educational model. Educate everybody instead of just the salesmen. THEN open up a free market on health care.
The educational model doesn't need to teach everybody EVERYTHING. Just enough to a)overcome their health technical information phobia, and b)learn the basic language of health care (health literacy, if you will).

Quote:
This is tapping into an abomination called expert culture

I think the same could be said for democracy. More on that later.*
CTS, DT- you have just hit the nail on the head as to why Americans are encouraged to be profoundly and utterly stupid. There are a few things the so-called free market cannot abide. One of them is competition. Think about it: The LAST thing any business owner wants is competition. Over time, as businesses consolidate, competition decreases. The who so-called free market model is an abysmal representation of the real world.

But I digress. The OTHER thing that a free market cannot abide is informed consumption. Does any business really want you to know what you're buying, and why you're buying it? Naaaahhhh... because if you really knew, you might not even buy at all. You might put half of your purchases into the "useless waste of money" category.

Like Kiki pointed out, alternative health care is a BUSINESS, just like traditional medicine is a BUSINESS. Each one of them wants you to buy THEIR product, whether the product is good, bad or indifferent, because that is the only way they will MAKE MONEY. BTW- That IS the free-market model that you propose, so please don't go back on your model and start telling me that they're in the business to do good works. The free-market model simply means that you get to "vote with your dollar".

Like any business, alternative medicine has no interest in educating you about ALL of the options... especially those of their competitors!

So, WHO is going to educate the consumer? Business??? Heh!

Not seeing the so-called "free market" as much of a solution here. Looks like more of a problem than anything.

* Back to democracy. AFA the "expert" model of health care, we also have the "expert" model of democracy, just substitute "politicians" for "doctors".... which the FF set up, by the way. And it only took 100 years for the expert model of democracy to be almost corrupted by money, just as medicine has been corrupted by money.

-------------
Finally, on the success and viability of alternative medicine... I have seen all kinds of ridiculous claims for alternative medicine. Yanno, the kind that says that over years you develop so many pounds of goop stuck to your intestinal walls like sludge in plumbing, and that it is toxifying your body and you need to use this special cleanse. Ignoring the facts that 1) the lining of your intestines sloughs off completely every few days, so you're not likely to build up "years" of sludge and 2) it is important to have a friendly group of bacteria in your gut.

My experience with 80% of alternative medicine is that it is as successful as 80% of modern medicine... which is the same DOING NOTHING in 80% of the cases. There is a lot of superstitious
behavior built up when someone achieves coincidental success after performing an activity that is entirely irrelevant... that is the problem of the random reward.

As far as I can tell, there is only one way to make sense of the multiplicity of experiments that people perform on themselves every day - whether that experiment consists of traditional medicine, alternative medicine, or doing nothing - and that is the collation of experience by entities which have no financial interest in the outcome. The Germans have something called Commission E which attempts to collate all of that shared experience of alternative medicine.

But as far as big pharma is concerned, the source of their evil is the same as the source of evil with Microsoft and the source of evil with Monsanto, and that is the whole idea of "intellectual property". As my hubby said: I cannot design, build and give away a product without violating some kind of patent somewhere.

So, here is another area where the "free market" doesn't work- intellectual property. The idea that one can turn ideas into property is an abomination.

Anyway, like I said: An odds and ends response.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Over time, as businesses consolidate, competition decreases.

Competition decreases only when govt discourages competition through regulation like licensing, for example. Without govt interference, a true free market works just fine.

Take Peru, for instance. Peru is filled with mom-and-pop, owner-operated booths, stands, and shops. Sure, there are the mega-consolidated corporate retail chains. But most people PREFER to buy from owner-operated stores, keeping them in business. There is healthy competition, DESPITE consolidation, because there is no govt interference forcing small businesses to abide by expensive rules like zoning and licensing etc.

Quote:
So, WHO is going to educate the consumer? Business??? Heh!

Certainly. It is a matter of educating the public to recognize conflicts of interest. Consumers are more likely to trust educational experts with no conflicts of interest than glorified salesmen masquerading as educational experts (which is what MDs and medical journals are now).

ETA: I think the debate on intellectual property and patent abuses deserves its own thread. For now, I like some of the proposals of the Pirate Party. Here is one from PP Australia:

https://www.pirateparty.org.au/innovation-patent-system-submission

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Competition decreases only when govt discourages competition through regulation like licensing, for example. Without govt interference, a true free market works just fine.

You see, this is why people flip out with you... you are head-bangingly religious about the nature of business and the so-called "free market" to the point where you ignore entire continents of evidence.

Big business gets to be big business because it screws over the competition, which allows it to become even bigger. All you have to look at is Walmart. Tell me, which regulations and licenses, exactly, did Walmart benefit from which allowed it to drive under all the mom-and-pop shops? Please, be specific. Because Walmart lived by the same regulations and licenses as all the other businesses they drove down.

Because Walmart will tell you that what THEY did to get a near-monopoly was (1) take advantage of free trade, which allowed them to contract with Chinese manufacturers overseas (2) streamline and computerize their inventory and distribution system and (3) sell at below-market prices in new areas to drive smaller businesses down and (4) pay really really cheap wages. And people did what people do, using YOUR so-called free market model... they voted with their dollars for cheaper goods.

Similar story with Microsoft. No special license or regulation required. Just business doing what business does best: create monopolies.

And AFA your example of Peru...? What you are saying is that the free-market depends on small businesses getting special breaks. That while big business has to abide by licensing and regulations, small business should be given a free pass.

Also, you claim that people PREFER to shop at smaller shops because of non-monetary, non-free-market considerations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
All you have to look at is Walmart. Tell me, which regulations and licenses, exactly, did Walmart benefit from which allowed it to drive under all the mom-and-pop shops? Please, be specific.

Off the top of my head:

Zoning laws, licensing laws, food inspection laws, environmental regulation laws, intellectual property laws, employment and labor laws, uniform commercial code, workplace laws, immigration laws.....

Every single one is an additional hoop for the small business owner to jump through and a financial burden to carry to run a business in the USA. Throw predatory pricing on top of that, and it becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Here in Peru, I can go to the market, buy $30 worth of chocolate candy, and resell them out of my living room without paying any significant taxes. Or I can sell ice out of my freezer. Or jello out of my fridge. I can rent out my DVD collection. All I need is a sign on my window for passers-by. No zoning, no licensing, food inspection, environmental regs, etc. It's convenient for both me and the consumers, I can sell where people live, and there is no overhead. It would be extremely difficult for Walmart, despite its consolidating power, to undersell my business with no overhead.

That is a true FREE market.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Every single one is an additional hoop for the small business owner to jump through and a financial burden to carry to run a business in the USA. Throw predatory pricing on top of that, and it becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back.... I can go to the market, buy $30 worth of chocolate candy, and resell them out of my living room without paying any significant taxes. Or I can sell ice out of my freezer. Or jello out of my fridge. I can rent out my DVD collection. All I need is a sign on my window for passers-by. No zoning, no licensing, food inspection, environmental regs, etc. It's convenient for both me and the consumers, I can sell where people live, and there is no overhead. It would be extremely difficult for Walmart, despite its consolidating power, to undersell my business with no overhead.

But at one time, Walmart WAS a small business. it didn't start out big. It had the follow the same laws and restrictions as any other small business.

What YOU are arguing for is a non-level playing field, where big business like Walmart has to encounter significant overhead ("zoning laws, licensing laws, food inspection laws, environmental regulation laws, intellectual property laws, employment and labor laws, uniform commercial code, workplace laws, immigration laws", fees and taxes) and you don't. But given a level playing field, whether that playing field is highly regulated, lightly regulated, or unregulated, big business will ALWAYS have an advantage.

If you want to encourage small businesses and discourage large ones with preferential regulation that is a different story, but that is not a "free market". It's a nice idea, but let me repeat- not a free market.

Also, there are some areas... like auto manufacturing or pharmaceutical research or skyscraper construction... which are necessarily big business, because the investment is so large it makes it impossible for the individual to compete. So how does your so-called free market model work in that environment?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What YOU are arguing for is a non-level playing field,

No. I don't mind if Walmart has none of those regulations either.

Quote:
...big business will ALWAYS have an advantage.

I disagree with this assumption. There are other variables besides "big" in the success of business. Personal relationships in the community, quality of service, quality of products, type of marketing, etc.

Quote:
Also, there are some areas... like auto manufacturing or pharmaceutical research or skyscraper construction... which are necessarily big business, because the investment is so large it makes it impossible for the individual to compete. So how does your so-called free market model work in that environment?

Same way as every other business in a free market. With no regulation.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I disagree with this assumption. There are other variables besides "big" in the success of business. Personal relationships in the community, quality of service, quality of products, type of marketing, etc.

So, in other words, the consumer has to play using some non-market rules (personal relationships; Frem would also bring in ethics) in order for your free-market model to work? That's not free-market thinking. The free market model assumes that consumers bring rational self-interest to their purchases, and decide only on the basis of price and quality. Every economics graph - price and availability- supply and demand- depends on that basis.

Quote:
No. I don't mind if Walmart has none of those regulations either.

So, what you NOW seem to be saying it that it doesn't matter whether there are regulations on small businesses which create an unequal burden? Because that seemed to be the heart of your argument before: That it was hard for small business to abide by all those regulations which big business could more easily afford. So, what are you saying, really?

The problem CTS, is that I can bring in all kinds of examples in which big business developed such overwhelming advantage over small business, in all kinds of regulatory milieus, that the free market rather quickly turned into a near-monopoly... from the robber barons and weaving looms of old to Microsoft. I've had this argument before with Geezer... every single example he brought up of a small business that "made it" ... Burt's Bees, Ben & Jerry's, etc... turned out to be a business that was bought up by Proctor and Gamble, or General Mills, etc. And that's assuming that the big businesses stick with the LEGAL practice of acquisition. Microsoft has strayed into illegal territory many times, used their overwhelming market share to "cut of their [competitor's] air supply", restrict which OS was loaded onto PCs thru illegal pricing deals, bring frivolous but expensive lawsuits against competitors etc.

In fact, Microsoft is a special example of the power of big business, because it is one of those businesses in which an individual really CAN compete effectively. And even so, here we are- in monopoly-land.

Do you really think in a knock-down drag-out environment, the small guy would win? Yeesh. I don't think so.

The problem, as I see it, is that you and DT both want your cake and to eat it too. You would LIKE to believe that in an environment where there are no rules, the small and powerless would win. But that would require that consumers and workers behave in very non-market ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:42 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think education and choice is a good thing. I think insurance doesn't allow enough choice, it needs to allow more so people can find what works for their body and still have it covered under their plan. I wish my plan would cover the medicines from the earth I've been trying, no notable success so far but still working on it and for some people they work quite well, so insurance should be willing to cover them.

I believe in free market to a point but I believe that their need to be at least some regulations or else everything gets made in China and companies can get away with that because its cheaper and people here get the shaft. So we need more regulations that discourage companies from looking overseas for stuff.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:45 AM

Quote:
Sig
There are a few things the so-called free market cannot abide. One of them is competition. Think about it: The LAST thing any business owner wants is competition. Over time, as businesses consolidate, competition decreases. The who so-called free market model is an abysmal representation of the real world.

Sig,

The reason we use the term "free market" is that we mean a free market. If a system allows monopolies, it's not a free market, is it?

What you're really attacking here is capitalism

Think about it.

How do takeovers happen? Someone buys a majority of shares. If the new majority shareholder already holds shares in a competitor, then it's a takeover.

Okay, but wtf are shareholders and where did they come from? Robber baron banking in the 18th c. Why? Industry. The bankers had noticed a lot of financial growth in industry, (industrial revolution) so sure. They wanted a piece of it, but investing in industry was tricky. You give a loan to a guy who says he'll build a factory, and he doesn't succeed, he can't pay you back. You could go broke.

So, what they came up with as a solution was shares. They give him money, he gives them shares. Then, they get rich if he does, if not, they can still go broke, but this way, if they don't like the way things are headed, they can get out, which they couldn't do before.

Now once this new capital floods into industry, business booms, because those that can get the money can hire many more people, and grow much faster than their competitors. This means that anyone selling shares had an automatic advantage.

But it isn't by itself a free market concept, except that you can by shares on the open market, which is probably better than backroom deals, but has some hitches. People buy shares in bank owner retirement accounts, mutual funds etc, which in turn own stock, and though the money goes to the individual investor, the voting power stays with the bank

If it were mine, I'd just replace the whole wall street system, but short of that, it can be reformed. I don't think it should be reformed by the govt, though, it should be reformed by industry, because these stock markets are run by corporations. You'd just have to design a better mousetrap to get industry away from the current one.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, people often use "free market", "capitalism" and "corporatism" interchangeably.

Quite frankly, I do not see much difference between them. As long as a person or group of people is/are allowed to own a business and derive profit by reducing their costs by any means necessary *, and then taking that profit and re-investing in their business, you have set up a positive feedback system in which the most ruthless will thrive, prosper, and expand. Sorry, but as often as I have turned that over in my mind, there is simply no other result of that process.

*cutting wages, automation, greater efficiencies, reducing quality/ doctoring products, polluting the environment etc.

As far as designing an economic system? I started a whole thread on that- talking to myself mostly, as there was not much input from others. I considered pretty much everything from getting rid of the stock market to creating an economy of cooperatives, but that fundamental problem of profit= expansion=profit=expansion just kept rearing its ugly head. If you have some other fundamental process by which an economy can run, I would welcome your input.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, in other words, the consumer has to play using some non-market rules (personal relationships; Frem would also bring in ethics) in order for your free-market model to work?

They don't HAVE to. But reality is that they DO.

Mrs. Smith has been running her shop in Shireville for 50 years. She donates to bake sales and school projects, she gives credit to neighbors down on their luck, and she always has time to chat with her customers. Now Walmart has moved in. Residents choose to pay a little extra than to go to Walmart, for no other reason than that THEY LIKE HER better. No one is forcing them to like her better. But they DO.

Quote:
The free market model assumes that consumers bring rational self-interest to their purchases, and decide only on the basis of price and quality. Every economics graph - price and availability- supply and demand- depends on that basis.

It isn't "free market's" fault economists choose to ignore psychological and sociological variables when they make their "models." Actual, real-life free market is not the same thing as the economics "free market model."

Quote:
So, what you NOW seem to be saying it that it doesn't matter whether there are regulations on small businesses which create an unequal burden? Because that seemed to be the heart of your argument before: That it was hard for small business to abide by all those regulations which big business could more easily afford. So, what are you saying, really?

Huh? What? Damn, woman.

I don't support regulations on either small business or large business.

Quote:
...the free market rather quickly turned into a near-monopoly... from the robber barons and weaving looms of old to Microsoft.

The problem, I think, is you don't really know true free market, in real life. You know what passes off as "free market" in the USA. And then you criticize the hell out of THAT strawman.

Quote:
Do you really think in a knock-down drag-out environment, the small guy would win?

A small, ethical, smart guy could win. Could. Success is not guaranteed for anyone. But could win, absolutely.

Quote:
You would LIKE to believe that in an environment where there are no rules, the small and powerless would win.

Not would. Could. I want to see the small and powerless get a fair shot at winning. I believe without govt oversight (purchased by the big guy) to keep the small man down, a fair shot is possible.

Quote:
But that would require that consumers and workers behave in very non-market ways.

Put down your economics textbooks and go traveling. You'll find that consumers and workers all over the world DO behave in "non-market" ways in real life. In other words, if economics doesn't factor in irrational psychological behavior, economics is wrong.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 11:17 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

If left to their own devices alone, the big corporation will nearly always try and screw the little small business, people are cheap and mean.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 11:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS, if what you require is no-market behavior, then please don't call your system the "free market". There is a fairly well-established definition of what market forces are and aren't.

Also, AFA the little guy winning... yeah, right. A local business can only be successful in a local setting, where people are able to evaluate the business on a basis other than product cost, quality, and service. That is its only advantage. As such, a local business will lose advantage in any non-local market, and not be able to grow much. As soon as a big business penetrates the local market... phffffttt! There have been cities which refused Walmart and other "big box" stores, but that has nothing to do with the market. In fact, in my very own city, a large family home improvement store which had been in business for over 50 years just folded, thanks to Home Depot. Borders went bust thanks to Amazon. The list is rather long of bigger business triumphing over littler ones. Regulation seemed to have little to do with it.

Oh, BTW-- people who are barely scraping by- as many in the USA are- are not going to buy from someplace more expensive if they have access to a cheaper store. Also, I suspect that many of your local stores in Peru have captive audiences.. people who can mostly walk to a store, and can't drive to the bigger stores farther away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 1:36 PM

Quote:

DT, people often use "free market", "capitalism" and "corporatism" interchangeably.

Yes, you.

But on what planet is corporatism a free market? I mean it's a lot closer to socialism.

Quote:

Quite frankly, I do not see much difference between them.

Can't help you then.

Quote:

*cutting wages, automation, greater efficiencies

Sound like good ideas.

Quote:
If you have some other fundamental process by which an economy can run, I would welcome your input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

There's a group in the UK trying to get this started right now, I think it's in scotland.

We're going to see a lot of free market variations away from capitalism, which I'm very much looking forward to.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, I suspect that many of your local stores in Peru have captive audiences.. people who can mostly walk to a store, and can't drive to the bigger stores farther away.

It is a different consumer culture. They LIKE being able to talk to the people they buy stuff from and not just run things by a scanner.

But yes, transportation and location are very big variables that economics SHOULD factor in, if it doesn't already.

As I said, there are a lot more factors than "big" that contribute to the success of a business.

-----
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS, if what you require is no-market behavior, then please don't call your system the "free market". There is a fairly well-established definition of what market forces are and aren't.

Yes, quite rightly pointed out. In a completely non regulated market, people may behave in well or they may not. Thing is there is nothing to prevent anything from happening, except for a bottom line of profit, which may produce the Mum and Dad business model you think is so great or it may result in huge monopolising corporations which you don't think is great. Chances are, given economies of scale, that deregulation will lead to larger businesses, not smaller ones so the mums and dad won't stand a great chance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Sig

The reason we use the term "free market" is that we mean a free market. If a system allows monopolies, it's not a free market, is it?

Of course it is, if there is nothing to prevent monopolies from existing.

Quote:
How do takeovers happen? Someone buys a majority of shares. If the new majority shareholder already holds shares in a competitor, then it's a takeover.

Okay, but wtf are shareholders and where did they come from? Robber baron banking in the 18th c. Why? Industry. The bankers had noticed a lot of financial growth in industry, (industrial revolution) so sure. They wanted a piece of it, but investing in industry was tricky. You give a loan to a guy who says he'll build a factory, and he doesn't succeed, he can't pay you back. You could go broke.

So, what they came up with as a solution was shares. They give him money, he gives them shares. Then, they get rich if he does, if not, they can still go broke, but this way, if they don't like the way things are headed, they can get out, which they couldn't do before.

Now once this new capital floods into industry, business booms, because those that can get the money can hire many more people, and grow much faster than their competitors. This means that anyone selling shares had an automatic advantage.

so what? How would you prevent this? In a free market businesses can behave as they wish, which include dividing up a business into shares. At a basic level this can happen. If I open a 'mum and dad' business but I want more money to start it up, I can invite my friends and family to contribute and be part owners. Would you stop this? This is basic business stuff and the only way you can prevent it is by creating a law or regulation to prevent it, which because you are a pure ideologue, would not allow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, I suspect that many of your local stores in Peru have captive audiences.. people who can mostly walk to a store, and can't drive to the bigger stores farther away.
It is a different consumer culture. They LIKE being able to talk to the people they buy stuff from and not just run things by a scanner.

or they might prefer the cheapest available goods and stuff the personal quality. All evidence is that people, buy and large, choose cheap over local and or personal in the long run. Hence the popularity of internet shopping. You wish it were not that way, but wishes aint fishes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:12 PM

Magon

I think this is a common misconception about the free market.

Nothing is innate to an economic system because an economic system is an artificial construct, not a natural development. There is no reason why you should be able to buy shares of a company, or for a company to be able to sell shares, much less derivatives, but much more to the point, there's no reason that a bank holding one dollar can then lend out ten.

Really fractional reserve lending and mark to market are constructs of a regulation that clinton called "deregulation" but it's not deregulation, it's just a regulation away from economic normalcy towards absurdity on the side of big business rather than against it. Another way to look at this would be to call Clinton an 'ultra-republican' by inverting the concept of regulation, but that said, it is possible to have the result of regulation be corporatism, in fact, I think the development is impossible without regulation.

Quote:
mums and dad won't stand a great chance.

Then you might think it ironic that Obama has just killed the concept of mom and pop shop as we called them. You can't file sole proprietary or partnership anymore, you have to file corporation or contractor, and contractor taxes are absurd, far more than a mom and pop shop can afford, because you're taxed around 50% of sales, and sales is much more than twice revenue. I'm actually faced with the prospect of becoming a corporation or folding.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Put down your economics textbooks and go traveling. You'll find that consumers and workers all over the world DO behave in "non-market" ways in real life. In other words, if economics doesn't factor in irrational psychological behavior, economics is wrong.

Yeah, also a lot of terrible exploitation that goes on in the world, shocking and dangerous work practices, child labour, lack of basic human rights for many, many people in non regulated economies.

You're an extremist, and extremists are dangerous people. Regulations can protect both workers and consumers, AND they can be overly stifling and used for predominant revenue raising purposes. If you weren't such an extremist, you may be able to see that they can be both good and bad, and that a solution lies between a completely unregulated economy and a highly regulated one, that may actually work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Magon

I think this is a common misconception about the free market.

Nothing is innate to an economic system because an economic system is an artificial construct, not a natural development. There is no reason why you should be able to buy shares of a company, or for a company to be able to sell shares, much less derivatives, but much more to the point, there's no reason that a bank holding one dollar can then lend out ten.

Really fractional reserve lending and mark to market are constructs of a regulation that clinton called "deregulation" but it's not deregulation, it's just a regulation away from economic normalcy towards absurdity on the side of big business rather than against it. Another way to look at this would be to call Clinton an 'ultra-republican' by inverting the concept of regulation, but that said, it is possible to have the result of regulation be corporatism, in fact, I think the development is impossible without regulation.

This is just gobbledegook, DT. You cannot prevent shareholding if you want a deregulated market. I agree an economic system is a construct, but free marketeers do not. They see it as a perfect organic structure. You cannot say that you disapprove of regulations and yet outlaw any kind of business.

Quote:

Then you might think it ironic that Obama has just killed the concept of mom and pop shop as we called them. You can't file sole proprietary or partnership anymore, you have to file corporation or contractor, and contractor taxes are absurd, far more than a mom and pop shop can afford, because you're taxed around 50% of sales, and sales is much more than twice revenue. I'm actually faced with the prospect of becoming a corporation or folding.

Actually, I don't give a rats arse either way. I used the term 'mums and dads' because that is the business model that CTS seems to espouse. I don't mind small businesses, but I use big businesses all the time, because Mum and Dad aint gonna own the electricity company, or mine, or offer me the cheapest deal on my internet, or build roads. Personally, I preferred it when governments ran a whole lot of that stuff and left the grocers to grocer, but that world doesn't exist anymore, so I go for the cheapest in a whole load of stuff and that means biggest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:49 PM

Magon,

I was a financial analyst for a wall street firm for ten years. If they weren't free marketeers, I'm not sure who is. The world of underwriters and derivatives is truly surreal. No one I met in the business saw it as a "perfect organic structure"

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:53 PM

CHRISISALL

Magon, you okay? Sounds like you're hurting some- usually you're more even-handed with stuff...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 6:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, I agree with Magons... that really was gobbledy-gook.

Quote:
[Nothing is innate to an economic system because an economic system is an artificial construct, not a natural development. There is no reason why you should be able to buy shares of a company, or for a company to be able to sell shares, much less derivatives, but much more to the point, there's no reason that a bank holding one dollar can then lend out ten.

So, what you seem to be saying is that "free markets" are not the same as "unregulated markets" because "free markets" in fact depend on a series of rather artificial constructs anyway... even "ownership" is an artificial construct, without which the notion of any sort of "market" ceases to exist.

If that's what you're saying, then CTS probably disagrees with you. You both might want to straighten out your definitions of what a "free market" is, because I'm not getting a clear view from either one of you.

BTW, CTS, just to go back and clear something up. I was very much under the impression that your view of government regulations is that they put an unfair burden on small businesses, which can ill-afford the zoning, insurance, inspection and other overhead that larger business might be able to tolerate better. You said that was not the case, that you weren't aiming for differential regulation, but no regulation at all for ANY business.

I was wondering how I got such a mis-impression, so I went back and re-read your posts. Here is the source of the problem:

Quote:
There is healthy competition, DESPITE consolidation, because there is no govt interference forcing small businesses to abide by expensive rules like zoning and licensing etc.

Whether you meant to or not, you very much left the impression that small businesses are more affected by regulation than large ones.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 8:41 PM

Sig,

No. Systems have rules intrinsic to their setup. These aren't laws, they're mechanisms.

Here's one. If I have no money, and Sky gives me a dollar, I cannot give you two dollars.

By your above logic, in a "free market" I should be able to because no regulation is preventing me from doing so. In reality, it is the lack of a second dollar that is preventing me from doing so.

You don't need regulation to stop that from happening. If you don't want me just printing my own dollars, then the maker of the currency can just make it impossible to counterfeit, or at least so difficult that it would cost me more than a dollar to do for a one off.

By contrast, Clinton enacted a regulation which said bankers could do just this. That was a regulation whose name was "deregulation" or nickname really. I forget what the bill was called but I used to know.

Okay, you want a definition of a free market, here goes.

DT's on the spot free market definition.

1) When you work for someone, you earn wages that they pay you. This money is yours because you are not a slave, but in fact have the rights to the fruits of your labor.

2) When you spend this money, it represents the labor you performed, ergo, if you have done an hour of work you should be able to hire a person in a similar field and skill level to do an hour of work for you with no systemic generation loss

3) You can also use your earnings to buy products of your choice of anything which is available for sale. No one can force you to buy a product nor ban you from buying one.

4) Providers of the products can bring products into competition with other vendors and no one can shut them down. This ensures the constant marketplace competition that feed the evolution of products and avoids price fixing.

Those are the basic points. I think that from there you can interpret it however. For instance, I have an idea I call "implied liability" that I'd like to see implement. It's where if you create a product, the money you get might boomerang back if your product has a serious unadvertised flaw, like a dead mouse in it. The amount of the liability should not be based on court cases, but rather intrinsic to the economic system. I'm just using this to illustrate how you can make a free market system very different from the one we have.

Our current system would be in violation of all four points above I have made for a free market, but I think most free market fundamentalists would agree with them. I also don't think it's relevant if Sky and myself disagree on what we might create, though I have no reason to believe that this is the case. I could, If I really wanted to, nitpick the differences between your vision of socialism and those of your compatriots, I have noticed them from time to time. All this means is that we aren't really a clone army, which is why this sports fan mentality actually degrades the argument. IMHO

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 9:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I looked into the various definitions of "free market" just to be sure I wasn't off base. What they say is
-----------
A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand.

A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.

An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businsses.

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

Nothing there about the size of business, elimination of stock market, or anything else in your definition. In fact, there is no way to GUARANTEE competition in an unregulated market. In an unregulated market, history seems to show that the large get larger and that businesses consolidate, so I think the definition of a "free market" as an unregulated competitive market is a logical improbability, an oxymoron if you will. Reiterating your preferences for what you would LIKE a free (unregulated) market to look like doesn't make it so.

You have not shown me, or anyone, that an unregulated market will remain competitive. And despite the fact that you do not recognize certain business practices as being part of an unregulated market, you have no way of ensuring that they will not occur. For example, if I have one dollar I cannot give you two... but I CAN owe you. There is nothing to stop lending and borrowing, or the sale of business shares, or many of the other practices which you seem to think "should not" exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2012 10:12 PM