Legitamate Market Force?

[Domino]

It is true that government is not purely a regulatory body: it has many other functions, and has taken it upon itself to declare people members from birth.

It is also true that a free market is no longer possible: the economy has appropriated all available resources, to the point that one can no longer choose not to participate. A free market requires voluntary actions as its basis, but our market is now the only source of food, property, and other essentials, so participation is mandatory, and what should have been a voluntary interaction becomes a limited choice with a forced deadline.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Domino It is true that government is not purely a regulatory body: it has many other functions, and has taken it upon itself to declare people members from birth. It is also true that a free market is no longer possible: the economy has appropriated all available resources, to the point that one can no longer choose not to participate. A free market requires voluntary actions as its basis, but our market is now the only source of food, property, and other essentials, so participation is mandatory, and what should have been a voluntary interaction becomes a limited choice with a forced deadline.

Articulated as such, that is positively biblical. Mystery Babylon anybody?



This is why it is critical to become critical of this system you are all buying into.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Domino It is true that government is not purely a regulatory body: it has many other functions, and has taken it upon itself to declare people members from birth. It is also true that a free market is no longer possible: the economy has appropriated all available resources, to the point that one can no longer choose not to participate. A free market requires voluntary actions as its basis, but our market is now the only source of food, property, and other essentials, so participation is mandatory, and what should have been a voluntary interaction becomes a limited choice with a forced deadline.

There are still some very remote but livable places (interior Alaska, for example) that one could live in and never be bothered by other people or government.


But for any reasonably populated place you are correct.



That does not legitimize government regulation, though.

[grandpa]

Quote by: MplsBison There are still some very remote but livable places (interior Alaska, for example) that one could live in and never be bothered by other people or government. But for any reasonably populated place you are correct.

Isolation is our closest thing to a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's sad.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Nobody has yet explained WHY regulation from a democratic government is bad. You keep repeating that it is but you have not supported the contention. Regulation from a dictatorial power that aims to further it's own ends (Five Year Plans and such) is clearly not an example of a free public exercising it's rightful control over the market. Why is regulation by the will of the people wrong? Do not just say, "Because it is regulation." Talking to your neighbor and agreeing that you should not buy from a certain store is regulation. Consumers banding together and insisting on enforceable laws is just a more efficient means to exert the control consumers are meant to have. Explain why this is not legitimate from an economic theory standpoint. Nobody has done that. A preferred alternative is all fine and dandy, but it has to be "better" to be preferred. Explain where your preferred method wins the contest or explain how consumers have no natural right to regulate the market through a more efficient means.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Nobody has yet explained WHY regulation from a democratic government is bad. You keep repeating that it is but you have not supported the contention. Regulation from a dictatorial power that aims to further it's own ends (Five Year Plans and such) is clearly not an example of a free public exercising it's rightful control over the market. Why is regulation by the will of the people wrong? Do not just say, "Because it is regulation." Talking to your neighbor and agreeing that you should not buy from a certain store is regulation. Consumers banding together and insisting on enforceable laws is just a more efficient means to exert the control consumers are meant to have. Explain why this is not legitimate from an economic theory standpoint. Nobody has done that. A preferred alternative is all fine and dandy, but it has to be "better" to be preferred. Explain where your preferred method wins the contest or explain how consumers have no natural right to regulate the market through a more efficient means.

The belief that it all government regulation is inherently evil is irrational, therefore no rational argument against your position can be made.
Consumer protection laws, as we know them, are democratic, just as you've explained.
Your argument is 100% sound.

[Domino]

There are still some very remote but livable places (interior Alaska, for example) that one could live in and never be bothered by other people or government.

This requires a specialized skill set, for which most people would have to pay to learn. It is entirely possible, though, that many people could figure it out as they went.

That does not legitimize government regulation, though.

What if regulation makes the market more free?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Domino What if regulation makes the market more free?

Free market means free of regulation.


So you would have to be considering some other definition of free market that I am not aware of.

[grandpa]

Quote by: MplsBison Free market means free of regulation. So you would have to be considering some other definition of free market that I am not aware of.

Well, it's not totally free of regulation. The rich need the legal system to try and monopolize resources.
Unfortunately, the "Free Market" deity is far from dead. Some would cling to it til the bitter end.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

Free market means more than just free from regulation: it means that all interactions within it are voluntary. Since our free market has accumulated some involuntary interactions, the right regulation could make the market more free.

[MplsBison]

So you are using a non standard definition for free market.


Well I am using the definition that if a market is free of government regulation it is called a "free market".

[grandpa]

Quote by: MplsBison So you are using a non standard definition for free market. Well I am using the definition that if a market is free of government regulation it is called a "free market".

But using non-standard semantics was necessary; we don't have a free market system and, at least to my knowledge, regulation is needed for a capitalist society to have some semblance of stability. Hence, I often use the term "state-capitalism," which seems reasonable enough. Quite often, markets are unwilling to clean up their own messes, or they lobby to get special perks from the government -- as anyone might predict regarding an authoritarian, elitist, "dog-eat-dog" culture such as ours.

Does the alleged "free market" entail freedom, as the Libertarian Party suggests? Not really. The most libertarian parts of their platform doesn't necessarily have anything to do with capitalist economics.

Consider this from the 1996 Libertarian party Platform:
"We regard the tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies to be
aggravated, if not created, by government policies of censorship,
restriction, regulation, and prohibition. Therefore, we call for the repeal
of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in
voluntary exchanges of goods, services, or information regarding human
sexuality, reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological
technologies."

Notice how capital needn't be a part of any of this. If the "Libertarians" included the smallprint about needing money for all of these things (which they no doubt support), it's convolute things and have many scratching their heads. We might ask, for example, how unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are going to be prevented if money is at issue. We might ask how 'voluntary" and exchange of goods is when the banks legally dominate resources and monopolistic tendencies exist which place people at teh mercy of those with economic power. If people must pay for all their goods, services, or information -- as capitalism certainly encourages -- it's not quite as liberating as they'd have us think. But the "Libertarian Party" seeks to establish sort of a capitalist Priesthood, the gatekeepers of profit-hungry society. And, as if capitalists were Kings, we'd have to pay tribute if anything is to be accomplished, much like the system is now and much like Feudalism was. On a related note, some "Libertarians" even talk about establishing private police forces, as if guns-for-hire are somehow inherently more just than current police forces that could, at least in theory, be held accountable for misconduct.

Grandpa h.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Talking to your neighbor and agreeing that you should not buy from a certain store is regulation.

You are describing the "invisible hand" that is the basis for laissez faire capitalism working correctly.

explain how consumers have no natural right to regulate the market through a more efficient means.

Consumers should not have the power to tell someone how to run their business.


They should only get to decide if they will buy the products of that business.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Nobody has yet explained WHY regulation from a democratic government is bad.

It's called learning from history.


Even more compelling, is why your side has never been able to provide evidence about why you believe as you do.

Quote by: lsbskins1 You keep repeating that it is but you have not supported the contention. Regulation from a dictatorial power that aims to further it's own ends (Five Year Plans and such) is clearly not an example of a free public exercising it's rightful control over the market. Why is regulation by the will of the people wrong?

To suggest the regulation comes at the behest of the people is disingenuous. The cries for regulation eminate feom the monied interests who profit from the less than free market.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Do not just say, "Because it is regulation." Talking to your neighbor and agreeing that you should not buy from a certain store is regulation. Consumers banding together and insisting on enforceable laws is just a more efficient means to exert the control consumers are meant to have. Explain why this is not legitimate from an economic theory standpoint. Nobody has done that. A preferred alternative is all fine and dandy, but it has to be "better" to be preferred. Explain where your preferred method wins the contest or explain how consumers have no natural right to regulate the market through a more efficient means.

Consumers regulate the market by purchasing, or not purchasing products.


Government regulation creates monopolies, and unfair business practices.


Perhaps you wold care to show us a heavily regulated market that outperforms freer markets.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Milton Bradley It's called learning from history. Even more compelling, is why your side has never been able to provide evidence about why you believe as you do. To suggest the regulation comes at the behest of the people is disingenuous. The cries for regulation eminate feom the monied interests who profit from the less than free market. Consumers regulate the market by purchasing, or not purchasing products. Government regulation creates monopolies, and unfair business practices. Perhaps you wold care to show us a heavily regulated market that outperforms freer markets.

I note with amusement that in your first comment, you asked the poster to prove a negative in order to excuse your inability to make a case against his/her position, and that you posed a strawman argument in your final comment. Who claimed regulation improves economic performance?
That isn't its function.

How does regulation create monopolies and unfair business practices?
Can you explain and give concrete examples?

The rest of your comments are similar baseless statements which are equally unsupported by any attempt at reasoning, whereas your opponent has fully explained his/her reasoning.

In other words, you've lost the debate.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley It's called learning from history. Even more compelling, is why your side has never been able to provide evidence about why you believe as you do.

I believe as I do because I do learn from history. I believe as I do because history has proven that markets free of government regulation are more likely to result in monopolies and much more likely to do harm to the customers they are supposed to serve. Let's not confuse issues here. We are talking about regulation in support of the consumer. Business interests are always willing to support regulation that "socializes" loss. Regulation in the name of tort reform? Big business is all over that regulation. Regulation that allows Wal-Mart to farm out the cost of health care to the tax payer by hiring a large percentage of part-time workers who are then forced to turn to the state when they break an arm? Big business is all about that kind of regulation. Regulation that shields executives from having to incur personal loss when their personal choices lead to losses for the business? Hell, yes. They love that. But when it comes to regulation that says they must provide health care to employees hurt on the job? Government out! Regulation that says they can not sell tainted meat to the public. That will cause them to go out of business! Regulation that says they can't dump chemicals in the water? Who the hell do those jerks think they are,l telling them how to run their business.

Quote by: Milton Bradley To suggest the regulation comes at the behest of the people is disingenuous. The cries for regulation eminate feom the monied interests who profit from the less than free market.

Some "regulation" serves the monied interests, it's true. I addressed that above. But not one "government out" talking head on the Conservative side of this issue hates that kind of regulation. And not one Libertarian who hates both types can explain to me how it is better for the buying and voting public to surrender the power they have to halt the abuses of unfettered capitol. It may make it easier for the few to enrich themselves, but it does not serve the public interest. It's like insisting that because cancer cells are created naturally that there is no good purpose served in arresting their growth. The market should do two things. It should serve the consumer and serve the producer. An unregulated producer is like a cancer. It will kill the host in it's drive to replicate. The more it feeds it's insatiable need for profit, the more dangerous it becomes. But, there are two sides to the coin. The producer deserves a certain amount of protection, because it is in the individual comsumer's cancerous interest to deny the producer their contribution to the producer's profit. That is why we need regulation. It protects both parties to the contract, because both sides will abuse the system to their own advantage and by allowing protection and sanction through regulation equilibrium can be found. No regulation at all will lead to one thing. The naturally more potent power of the producer growing until the consumer has no power left to refuse to buy.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Consumers regulate the market by purchasing, or not purchasing products.

Not when unregulated markets lead to the means of production being controlled by a powerful few. If my only source for tires is Tire King and I need tires, how do I refuse to buy tires from Tire King? Tell me I can chose to walk to break their power and I will tell you you have just admitted I have no power. If I'm a long-haul trucker, I can't "walk" my load from Boston to Miami. No choice, no power.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Government regulation creates monopolies, and unfair business practices.

It can and does, but not by protecting consumers. It does that when it refuses to protect consumers but happily protects producers.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Perhaps you wold care to show us a heavily regulated market that outperforms freer markets.

I can, if you care to admit that profit is not the sole reflection of a market's performance. But, I would guess that is the sole measure you are willing to accept. I would point you to the US economy after WW II. Expanding middle class, most people feeling as if they were heading towards a secure future for themselves and a secure future for their children and pretty heavily regulated in comparison to the time leading up to the depression. Were corporations logging the same level of profits? Nope. But there was greater stability and in the long run, stability counts for more. That is my measure. Sustainable growth and a system that values the long term health and security of both parties to the equation. People who say the sole reason a business exists is to generate and maximize profits forget that the REAL reason the business exists is to provide a service to the consumer.

[BobbyO]

[quote]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Right, cause nobody knew about the dangers of lead paint before those actual lead paint toys hit the market. So by your logic, what DID happen, would never happen, cause you would have to be insane to put lead paint in a toy, when we have known for YEARS that lead paint is dangerous, especsially to young children. You would have to be insane to endanger your business that way. Unless, of course, you knew that all regulation was a sham and that you could spend a good few years making money and then all you had to do was just fold up this shop and either walk away or begin again a few years later.

Yes. Selling toys with lead based paint is against the law. It is against the law because we NOW know of the health effects in ingesting lead.

I fail to see the complaint on this issue.

You seem to be declaring yourself, or perhaps the regulators, clairvoyant or all knowledgable in that all their public pronouncements are infallable. .
It is not self regulating on any real level.

[BobbyO]

[

QUOTE=lsbskins1;489764]Nobody has yet explained WHY regulation from a democratic government is bad.

Because it distorts the market and interferes with allocation of resources. It doesn't change because the regulation was done so "democratically" as oposed to dictatorially.

[BobbyO]

I can, if you care to admit that profit is not the sole reflection of a market's performance. But, I would guess that is the sole measure you are willing to accept. I would point you to the US economy after WW II. Expanding middle class, most people feeling as if they were heading towards a secure future for themselves and a secure future for their children and pretty heavily regulated in comparison to the time leading up to the depression. Were corporations logging the same level of profits? Nope. But there was greater stability and in the long run, stability counts for more. That is my measure. Sustainable growth and a system that values the long term health and security of both parties to the equation. People who say the sole reason a business exists is to generate and maximize profits forget that the REAL reason the business exists is to provide a service to the consumer.

[/quote]

Yes. The purpose of business is to provide its service to people who desire that service. And "profit" is the measurement by which it is determined whether that business is succeeding in doing so.

As per the 50s: The economy was indeed more heavily regulated, in certain aspects anyhow, than today. And the United States endured three recessions.

[lsbskins1]

[quote=BobbyO;490274]

Yes. Selling toys with lead based paint is against the law. It is against the law because we NOW know of the health effects in ingesting lead. I fail to see the complaint on this issue. You seem to be declaring yourself, or perhaps the regulators, clairvoyant or all knowledgable in that all their public pronouncements are infallable. . It is not self regulating on any real level.

No. You need to follow the flow of the thread. I was responding to the assertion that no business would dare endanger it's existence by offering up a product that would lead to customers abandoning the business. They did, as you have said. And this goes to prove my point that laws absent enforcement and inspection mean nothing. The lead paint was illegal. It was not found because we did not effectively test or enforce. The law can not be clarvoiyant, but it can be effective at stopping future abuse. To do that, it must be enforced. To enforce, you have to provide a reasonable means of ensuring compliance. In many cases, that means inspection.