Is the Free Market still free?

[Technosoul]

Is the free market still free or do you think that chain store monopolies have distroyed that concept to a large extent? Have imports or outsourcing changed the original ideas of supply and demand here in the USA, and is politics doing anything to insure a sound free market?

Is the old time mainstreet with it's mom and pop stores essential for the free market system to operate?

[Osborn F Enready]

The free market is a market, within a nation.

A free market is dependent on the enforcement of individual rights.

Do you mean free-trade?

The reason the system isn't working currently, is because people like Nixon, and other Neocons, helped pass laws to allow trade with nations that don't allow individuals legal precedent to enforce their rights. That means labor has no rights, which creates a huge drop in the cost of labor. The U.S. Government allowed trade deals to be made that would directly lower the "standard of living" in the United States, by allowing corporations to use foreign labor with no rights, or legal protection of rights, to still access the largest national markets for goods.

If corporations can access a market to sell goods made using slave labor, why wouldn't they, if profit for the CEO and Boardmembers is the only goal? (which it is, since they are free to move where the law suits their morals, or lack of them)

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The free market is a market, within a nation. A free market is dependent on the enforcement of individual rights.

Actually, capitalist monopolization is a mortal threat to liberty, and to basic egalitarian principles.

"Rights" are put up for sale, or rent. There's nothing particularly free about it.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

More soapboxing, no facts, no logic.

Thanks for playing gramps.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready More soapboxing, no facts, no logic. Thanks for playing gramps.

Surely you'd agree that allowing capitalism to become dominated by aggressive monopolies would be a bad thing. Without competition capitalism loses its entire reason for being. If an industry really can be run best by a giant competition-free monopoly, lets just cut to the chase and socialize it so that it can at least be controlled a bit by popular vote.

[Carrie Spooner]

Surely you'd agree that allowing capitalism to become dominated by aggressive monopolies would be a bad thing.

How would these aggressive monopolies form in a truly free market?

If an industry really can be run best by a giant competition-free monopoly, lets just cut to the chase and socialize it so that it can at least be controlled a bit by popular vote.

So you'd rather have mob rule? We already have what you propose and I think even you would agree that it isn't working well, to put it mildly.

[Milton Bradley]

The Feds empower agencies to regulate "Free Trade", so the simple admission of "regulation" indicates the the "Free Market is dead. ( If it exists at all, it may be in the Black Market )

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Technosoul Is the free market still free or do you think that chain store monopolies have distroyed that concept to a large extent? Have imports or outsourcing changed the original ideas of supply and demand here in the USA, and is politics doing anything to insure a sound free market? Is the old time mainstreet with it's mom and pop stores essential for the free market system to operate?

What free market? I don't see one around here.

- Rob

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready More soapboxing, no facts, no logic. Thanks for playing gramps.

And your post was filled with facts was it? Or do you confuse unsupported ascertains, regarding the folly of neo-conservative policy makers, with facts?

Sorry Os, but maybe you should apply the same standards you apply to Gramps posts to your own?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Carrie Spooner How would these aggressive monopolies form in a truly free market? So you'd rather have mob rule? We already have what you propose and I think even you would agree that it isn't working well, to put it mildly.

I see no reason why it can not, and while the era of the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers was not truly free it was much freer than it is now. Suppose a giant aggressive monopoly does form.

Such a monopoly should be forcefully broken up, no? Hypothetically if such a monopoly really is the optimal solution to providing a service and breaking it up would be bad, then it should be socialized. I can't think of a circumstance where a giant monopoly would do something better than a group of smaller competing companies, but if it was so I do want some means of easy public control.

[Objectivist]

The giant "capitalistic monopolies" that you are so worried about, and the "monopolies" of the past, did not come about as a product of laissez-faire capitalism. It did not come about as a result of unregulated economies. It came about as a result of government intervention and subsidization. (Example: The giant railroad companies that were formed after thanks to the Pacific Railroad Act) Robber Barons were created by the government, with government help... not the result of a free market.

One company cannot control all of one specific resource or product in the world. A monopoly is impossible in a system where men must trade and interact through free exchange of value for value. When men have the free chose to choose someone else, or when men have the freedom to choose not to purchase a product, a monopoly is made impossible.

But when government or society helps a person to corner a market, forces people to use or promote that product (through taxation and subsidization), and sometimes even buy the product (compulsory purchase of auto-insurance)-- abusive companies are created.

The market is not completely free.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready More soapboxing, no facts, no logic. Thanks for playing gramps.

Really, no logic? That's funny, because I'm pretty sure capitalism does undermine some basic egalitarian principle:

Egalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Human Rights, which promote economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people.

Perhaps I abide by a more literal translation of it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Objectivist The giant "capitalistic monopolies" that you are so worried about, and the "monopolies" of the past, did not come about as a product of laissez-faire capitalism. It did not come about as a result of unregulated economies.

That's why some people refer to the "free market" as a thing of fantasy, not reality.

And, of course, any rejection of these monopolies or the philosophical basis for capitalism are dismissed even more.

However, it is a folly to believe that perceived "Individual Rights" come from some mythic Laissez-Faire Capitalism. They don't. Often, they come from the struggles against the capitalist system, based largely on egalitarian principles (the kind that Osbourne claims have no basis in logic, despite a long and bloody history of labor-related conflicts).
Indeed, struggles against the state and even the basic principles of capitalism persist today, especially in "labour-intensive economies" like China, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam.

Alas, I'll have to take solace in the words of Agatha Christie on this issue:
"Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not
to give it."

Grandpa h.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: grandpa That's why some people refer to the "free market" as a thing of fantasy, not reality. And, of course, any rejection of these monopolies or the philosophical basis for capitalism are dismissed even more. However, it is a folly to believe that perceived "Individual Rights" come from some mythic Laissez-Faire Capitalism. They don't. Often, they come from the struggles against the capitalist system, based largely on egalitarian principles (the kind that Osbourne claims have no basis in logic, despite a long and bloody history of labor-related conflicts). Indeed, struggles against the state and even the basic principles of capitalism persist today, especially in "labour-intensive economies" like China, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Alas, I'll have to take solace in the words of Agatha Christie on this issue: "Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it." Grandpa h.

You're right Grandpa. The free-market is not a reality. There has never been a free market in the history of mankind. Why?

And you are right again! Individual Rights are not the results of a Laissez-Faire capitalistic system. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a a result of a system that protects individual rights.

A free market, is only possible when the people are indeed free.

[Thanatos]

I know the capitalist hypotheses. I'm not sure they're right because subsidies were more a product of their success and the ability to by congressmen than a cause of it, but I'll play along. I am asking hypothetically what should be done if a giant monopoly gets control in a free market.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Thanatos I know the capitalist hypotheses. I'm not sure they're right because subsidies were more a product of their success and the ability to by congressmen than a cause of it, but I'll play along. I am asking hypothetically what should be done if a giant monopoly gets control in a free market.

In an actual free market, a free system, a free society (Laissez-faire) a monopoly is impossible. In a free system where people are not forced to support companies (taxation for subsidization), people are not forced to buy a product (compulsory-purchase laws; ex: auto-insurance), and a society that plans economies and tells companies what resources they may use and where, a monopoly is impossible. No one company can control all the resources or product of one specific thing. They may be huge and they may have a huge impact, but it is not a monopoly.

It may also be important to note, that government interference through anti-trust laws and such, have been more responsible for creating monopolies, then if the corporations were allowed to exist without regulation...

[bishop]

Quote by: objectivist In an actual free market, a free system, a free society (Laissez-faire) a monopoly is impossible.

how utterly false.

Natural monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nobel economist Milton Friedman, said that in the case of natural monopoly that "there is only a choice among three evils: private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government operation." He said "the least of these evils is private unregulated monopoly where this is tolerable."

the existence of monopoly is a result of certain mathematical/economic conditions, as opposed to ideology.

there are also examples of monopolies that have arisen outside of government intervention/regulation. they are obviously fewer in number since the nature of government is to usurp power unto itself.


like rob, i'd also ask "what free market?".. for all of us posting on this forum, there has never been a truly free market in our lifetimes.

[Objectivist]

We could play word games here, but that doesn't make a very good debate.

So let's be precise. A "natural monopoly" has absolutely nothing to do with market share or power. A natural monopoly is used to describe cost structure (Example: if there is more than one firm providing a particular service, both firms will suffer lower profits and efficiency. The cost would be lower to have a single firm providing the service. Utilities usually fall under that category)

A 'natural monopoly' and the much more common term 'monopoly' are different and should not be confused.

If we are talking about a monopoly, where a single corporation has complete share of the market-- then it is impossible in a free system.

A natural monopoly could exist, but a natural monopoly is not describing a corporation that has complete control over a specific resource.

Furthermore: It is a matter of economist opinion whether natural monopolies exist at all. Many site mail and telecommunications as examples of natural monopolies, however as we can see today, several mail carriers and cell phone providers give us more efficient, cheaper service.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: bishop there are also examples of monopolies that have arisen outside of government intervention/regulation. they are obviously fewer in number since the nature of government is to usurp power unto itself.

Examples please...

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Objectivist In an actual free market, a free system, a free society (Laissez-faire) a monopoly is impossible. In a free system where people are not forced to support companies (taxation for subsidization), people are not forced to buy a product (compulsory-purchase laws; ex: auto-insurance), and a society that plans economies and tells companies what resources they may use and where, a monopoly is impossible. No one company can control all the resources or product of one specific thing. They may be huge and they may have a huge impact, but it is not a monopoly. It may also be important to note, that government interference through anti-trust laws and such, have been more responsible for creating monopolies, then if the corporations were allowed to exist without regulation...

Sigh. That wasn't just a question. It was confirmation on a test. If you ask a normal person what would happen if up suddenly became left they think for a moment and say you'd shoot off to the right. There's a fascinating thread in Miscellaneous about what would happen if there was a war between Canada and America...

People who have been brainwashed have a really really hard time handling impossible hypotheticals contrary to their beliefs.