|
| Thread: Free Market |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted June 13, 2013 02:10 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:13, 13 Jun 2013.
|
Free Market
Since a lot of debates refer to free market as a golden recipe or it is objected by not being one, I think we should clarify what everybody understands from this concept and its consequences.
1- Do you believe free market has ever existed or it can exist, at least in theory.
2- If the answer is yes, how is that different to you than 19th century capitalism on principle. This part is especially important IMO, because at this point of history, I think we will all probably agree that the Communist State was an overreaction and it had more flaws than what it was objecting to. However, it was still a factual reaction that was caused by the reckless capitalism of that age. In the long term, it had a balancing effect on capitalism itself. If you think otherwise, explain.
3- In today's global world, what are or what should be the position of nation states in the free market? To what limit they should interfere with the regulations? Do you think cultural clash will play an important role, if clash of social classes will be triggered by transnational corporations.
4- Do you think free market will lead to monopoles eventually? If so, why and how? If not, why and how?
5- Do you think globalism is actually global integration or do you think it is a new form of colonialism? Will the existing, unbalanced distribution of infrastructure and capital among countries eventually resolve by the ideal of a free market or will it only contribute to the existing inequalities?
6- If social explosions occur, how should they be dealt with? Is the ideal of free market expendable or not?
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 07:25 PM |
|
|
Free Market? There is no such thing as Markets always cost gold, ore and wood.
____________
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Free Market? There is no such thing as Markets always cost gold, ore and wood.
A market costs 50 ducats and a magistrate.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 08:00 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:00, 13 Jun 2013.
|
is it really a free market if it needs a bureocrat/magistrate and 50 ducats of tax? sounds like pure communism to me
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1- Do you believe free market has ever existed or it can exist, at least in theory.
No. It serves as a foundation of the fairy-tale economic department and can even be part of serious economic theories but ultimately every theory which assumes it as a prerequisite is flawed a priori.
Quote:
3- In today's global world, what are or what should be the position of nation states in the free market? To what limit they should interfere with the regulations? Do you think cultural clash will play an important role, if clash of social classes will be triggered by transnational corporations.
Well, there's no free market.  Other than that, the state should encourage innovation and development and discourage or outright ban the formation of monopolistic and oligopolistic structures.
Quote:
4- Do you think free market will lead to monopoles eventually? If so, why and how? If not, why and how?
There's no free market.  Other than that - the capital has inherent centrifugal tendencies so - with the existence of private market entities - sooner or later it get distributed between a small number of big players. At least on the big markets.
Quote:
5- Do you think globalism is actually global integration or do you think it is a new form of colonialism? Will the existing, unbalanced distribution of infrastructure and capital among countries eventually resolve by the ideal of a free market or will it only contribute to the existing inequalities?
Not exactly. Nowadays the trend is to outsource production and services in countries where the overall expenses are significantly lower than in the own country. This effectively transfers part of the capital abroad and could increase the unemployment in certain sectors of the home economy. The classical colonialism was more about using the colonies as sources of raw materials and not-so-complex end products while the "advanced industries" were located in the metropolitan country.
On the other hand, there are boundaries to the economical expansion - cultural and political. The colonialism relied on political subjugation to exploit the colonial countries no matter their preferences while nowadays more subtle methods need to be found. They can however hit the mentioned political or cultural barriers. Of course then then old-fashion war can be used to kick some capitalistic values in certain people's heads but even that is not as straight-forward as it used to be.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
is it really a free market if it needs a bureocrat/magistrate and 50 ducats of tax? sounds like pure communism to me
No but that's the cost of construction.
Once it's done, no more tax or magistrates, the market is free
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 09:46 PM |
|
|
yeah but on a free market, individuals would invest in the construction of the market without there being tax money or bureocrats involved
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1- Do you believe free market has ever existed or it can exist, at least in theory.
Individual voluntary exchanges exist, but the free market as a whole does not and has never existed. However, it is possible for it to exist.Quote:
If the answer is yes, how is that different to you than 19th century capitalism on principle.
I assume this is talking about western countries. They weren't free-market. To use the US as an example - there was slavery, there were significant tariffs, the government freely gave land to the railroad companies, there was anti-union violence, Southern laws mandated segregation in private businesses, blue laws were common (including some that banned contraception), "obscenity" was criminalized, there were limitations on women's ability to inherit and sell property, there was poor enforcement of property rights regarding pollution (which is why there was so much of it), and there was much corruption leading to non-enforcement of existing good laws.Quote:
In today's global world, what are or what should be the position of nation states in the free market?
To protect private property rights by protecting physical property, catching criminals, trying them in courts, etc, as well as punishing any other entities that initiate force or fraud, whether they're companies that sell unsafe products or employers who don't keep to the terms of their contract.Quote:
Do you think free market will lead to monopoles eventually?
In some industries, yes. For example, roads are likely to be a monopoly, which is why they should be provided by government.Quote:
Do you think globalism is actually global integration or do you think it is a new form of colonialism?
There are free-market aspects, but there are also colonial aspects. Many developing countries have poor enforcement of property rights, so companies that come there are not working in a free market. Nevertheless, it is making foreign workers better off. However, sometimes the governments of wealthy countries act to protect corporations in poor countries, and that is imperialism. But the elimination of trade barriers is good.Quote:
If social explosions occur, how should they be dealt with?
They should be put down if they occur, though it is better to prevent them through education. But if people start to riot, burn cars, and loot shops, the police should step in. With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 07:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:48, 27 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
If a free market is one in which private property rights are strongly protected, and people have freedom of association, the US is by no means a free market.
Hypothetical question, there's a bridge that the government is about to build, it has to be built on a specific location and it will solve the city's traffic problem, it will also cause people to use less gas and not pollute the air etc etc. The benefits are huge for millions of people. I have property in a zone where one of the foot of the bridge will be. Should the government have the right to evacuate me, giving me a fair price for the land, of course or as a single land owner do I have the right not to sell?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:07 PM |
|
|
If it would benefit so many people, then the government could tax them and offer me a good part of the revenue, above the market value of the land. If I still don't want to sell, then too bad for the other people, I'm not leaving.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:13 PM |
|
|
|
Part 2... This time, there's a war and an observation tower of critical importance has to be built on my land, let's say they have to demolish my house and build it right above it. Do they have the right, or does land ownership rule again?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:29 PM |
|
|
The question is, will it benefit me more to have the tower or not? If I'd die or be enslaved without the tower, obviously it's more in my interest to have it, and if I disagree, I'm mistaken about what my interests are. But if I'm actually sacrificing and losing value from it, then I should be able to keep my land.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:36 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:38, 27 Sep 2013.
|
I don't think the state having the right to annex privately owned land for warmongering is a particulary nice idea.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:38 PM |
|
|
|
Part 3... The ruins of a great ancient city has been discovered underneath my house. Scientists say this archeological discovery will change everything we know about human history radically, broadening our horizon in ways unimaginable. Do I, the landowner, have the right to sit on it, further more, since it's on my land, are the artifacts mine to destroy as I wish?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:40 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:43, 27 Sep 2013.
|
Well, it's likely that the landowner spending (or getting) money to excavate the ground would like to do something meaningful with it but the answer is yes.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:44 PM |
|
|
Yes. You own the artifacts, and they're yours to do with as you please.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:44 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 20:45, 27 Sep 2013.
|
Just wanna jump some steps...
Suppose Darth Vader comes to Earth and demands humanity to build a statue of himself on your land for worship purpose or else he would use his Death Start to evaporate the planet. But then he comes to you saying that he would give you 10 times more than humanity would give to you to save it + regardless of what your choise is, you live. Would you sell your land or still refuse?
Think I marked the spot with this one
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:46 PM |
|
|
mvass said:
The question is, will it benefit me more to have the tower or not? If I'd die or be enslaved without the tower, obviously it's more in my interest to have it, and if I disagree, I'm mistaken about what my interests are. But if I'm actually sacrificing and losing value from it, then I should be able to keep my land.
xerox said:
I don't think the state having the right to annex privately owned land for warmongering is a particulary nice idea.
Well, in our example, for the sake of simplicity, the government is using it for truly defensive purposes. And the enemy is imperialistic and as offensive as can be. So the tower will actually save lives. But, in theory, that doesn't matter, it may be on your benefit or not, if you have the right, you also have the right to make a mistake or be an ***hole about it also.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:50 PM |
|
|
Facing an imperialistic invading force, it's probably strongly in your self-interest to support the army.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 27, 2013 08:55 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, but I also have the right to ignore my self-interest. The real question here is, does my right of ownership surpass the martial emergency, putting many others at risk.
|
|
|
|
