Legitamate Market Force?

[grandpa]

Quote by: MplsBison That depends on the means that the consumer/voter willed regulation take. If it is via government regulation, then there is no place for it in a free market.

It always goes back to the consumer/voter. However, let's not pretend privatization requires no regulation. It does and, if history is any kind of guide, always would. There is no free market. In fact, trends are going in the opposite direction.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa It always goes back to the consumer/voter. However, let's not pretend privatization requires no regulation. It does and, if history is any kind of guide, always would. There is no free market. In fact, trends are going in the opposite direction. Grandpa h.

This is the mistake I believe you are all making. For a market to be free, it does not need to be free of regulation, it needs to be free of regulation that does not have as it's source the consumers. When a union or a government is acting as an arm of the comsumer, it is a legitimate part of a free market. The "free" refers to free of unwarrented and/or artificial regulation. Nothing ever has been or ever will be free of all regulation.

[MplsBison]

Sorry lsb skins, the definition of a free market was made long before either of us were born.


It is a market that is free of regulation. That is it.



Any other definition is something other than a free market.







Now will you not be reasonable and simply not waste your time arguing that definition?


Why not just argue that a better solution than the free market is a market that is regulated?


What is there to lose in doing that?



Are you worried that it gives an opening to people to advocate a free market in the US?

[Domino]

I believe the classic definition is that a free market is one which consists entirely of voluntary choices. Of course, regulation is the classic way to make some choices involuntary. A free market must be without regulation, but a market that is without regulation is not necessarily free.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison Sorry lsb skins, the definition of a free market was made long before either of us were born. It is a market that is free of regulation. That is it. Any other definition is something other than a free market. Now will you not be reasonable and simply not waste your time arguing that definition? Why not just argue that a better solution than the free market is a market that is regulated? What is there to lose in doing that? Are you worried that it gives an opening to people to advocate a free market in the US?

I am being perfectly reasonable. I am not wasting my time. I am not saying that other people have not defined "free" as meaning "free of regulation". I am saying that people who define a free market as one that is totally free of government regulation or free of any regulation are misapplying the lessons of Adam Smith, et al and it does not matter if they were born before me or not. I am saying that the central reason for wanting a market free of government regulation was that when the original concept was developed, there really was no such animal in the western world as a free and democratic state. I am saying that what they were attempting to fight were things such as Royal Grants that gave certain businesses unfair advantage in the market place, usually to the mutual finincial benefit of the monarch and whoever received the grant. I am saying those who cling to the narrow view that government regulation is bad are clinging to an outdated and factually erroneous concept. What you are arguing for may be what I argue for in practice, but the issue is not about that. The issue at hand is whether or not regulation by government in a free and democratic state is just as damaging to a productive market as regulation by a government that is divorced from the will of the people. After all, people don't (or shouldn't) argue for a free market "just because", they do it because they think they are arguing for something that makes the market more "pure" and therefore, more productive. I am saying that regulation that is based on the will of the customer is NOT a market impurity, it is a part of a pure and healthy market.

[MplsBison]

Regardless, I will not waste any more time debating definitions.


There are two cases: a market without government regulation and a market with government regulation, however you choose to label them.


The unregulated market is faster in responding to market dynamics and is more "ruthless", if you will.


But undoubtedly, a market with government regulation is the "better" market, using an arbitrary criteria for better in the egalitarian method.

[lsbskins1]

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why voters/customers should not be allowed to effect the market through legislation and/or why it should be viewed as a free market corruption when they do.

[Voluntary]

I already did. You disagreed. I ask for an explanation. I was ignored. Best of luck.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Still waiting for someone to explain to me why voters/customers should not be allowed to effect the market through legislation

They currently do that in our mixed economy.



My personal preference is that there should be as little regulation as needed. Regulation slows down the market reactions.


So in areas of business where regulation is not critical, say for example the flat panal TV market, there should be no regulation.



But in areas of business where regulation is critical, such as food safety, there should be heavy regulation.

and/or why it should be viewed as a free market corruption when they do.

I have told you why already: a market without regulation responds the quickest to market dynamics.


From a pure economics standpoint, the faster the response the better.



But from a humanist egalitarian standpoint, a response that is too fast often ruins the lives of many people unnecessarily.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is the mistake I believe you are all making. For a market to be free, it does not need to be free of regulation, it needs to be free of regulation that does not have as it's source the consumers.

I hope you realize that's still a lot of regulation.

As you may know, I don't have faith in "privatization" (which leads to a balkanization of our society), and I agree that consumers and producers should regulate their own industries -- but guess what that means.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: MplsBison They currently do that in our mixed economy. My personal preference is that there should be as little* regulation as needed.

We should have no regulation by elected representatives, but maximum participation by all interested producers and consumers in our economy.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

I'd always thought that expediency was the sole reason for regulation.

If someone makes a harmful product, the market has to figure out that it's harmful, spread the word, organize the consumers, and boycott the business until it either changes its ways or shuts down, and then you'd still got product shipped that some hapless folk might, eventually, buy, if it doesn't get warehoused for a few years before being put back on the shelf in a different box, for everyone to buy.

In a regulated market, you find out that a product is harmful, you report it to the regulatory body, and the business is shut down, all product is recalled. Quick and easy, no loose ends.

I mean, really, just about anytime I see someone advocate a free market solution, it's because they believe it'll turn out better in the long term.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Domino I'd always thought that expediency was the sole reason for regulation. If someone makes a harmful product, the market has to figure out that it's harmful, spread the word, organize the consumers, and boycott the business until it either changes its ways or shuts down, and then you'd still got product shipped that some hapless folk might, eventually, buy, if it doesn't get warehoused for a few years before being put back on the shelf in a different box, for everyone to buy.

There is an obvious need for practical regulation of sorts, which is why I advocate general, free cooperatives.
That way, even in a cash economy, people could more easily bring concerns to the table other than cutting costs and profits.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Voluntary The business should be operating in their best interest to ensure that they stay competitive and continue to make a profit. The consumers DEMAND safe toys for their children and a healthy business will SUPPLY this demand. For free markets to work, you need perfect information. Cases like this is where the business uses asymmetric information to create a profit. If people were perfectly aware that lead paint was used to manufacture toys, then this business would not survive since another business would SUPPLY this DEMAND. Unfortunately we do not live in a free market with perfect information, so regulation is required. I am a proponent of the free market, but a free market requires voluntary consent between the buyer and seller. This voluntary consent requires perfect information, not asymmetric information. Does this answer your question?

This does not address the question I am asking, though I agree with the concept you put forward. I am not asking for someone to explain why we need regulation. I understand that. I am asking for someone who believes that it is always bad to allow GOVERNMENT regulation to explain why they believe that any GOVERNMENT regulation is always bad. I have explained why I believe it is not, and in what circumstances I believe it is not. I want someone who takes the "always bad" stance to give me logical reasons why they believe I am mistaken. Explain how it is a mistake to consider the voter in a free and democratic system to be one and the same entity as the consumer in the market. Explain how it is a mistake to believe that the consumer, who they claim they believe is the only legitimate "controller" of the market, to use the government that they control as well, to control the market. It is like saying it is ok to scratch your back with your fingers, but it is a crime to use a stick that you hold in your fingers to reach a little further down. I want them to explain the logic that they use to arrive at that conclusion. Your response does not address that issue at all. Your response addresses how the stick makes it eassier to scratch that spot on your back and why you can't really reach the spot without the stick. I agree with you. But, you did not adress the question posed in the OP.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison They currently do that in our mixed economy. My personal preference is that there should be as little regulation as needed. Regulation slows down the market reactions. So in areas of business where regulation is not critical, say for example the flat panal TV market, there should be no regulation. But in areas of business where regulation is critical, such as food safety, there should be heavy regulation.

Then you are not against any government regulation and are not supporting the point I was challenging.

Quote by: MplsBison I have told you why already: a market without regulation responds the quickest to market dynamics. From a pure economics standpoint, the faster the response the better. But from a humanist egalitarian standpoint, a response that is too fast often ruins the lives of many people unnecessarily.

This takes us to the meat of the matter. I believe that those who support an unregulated market are looking at things from a standpoint that ignores the human factor. They make a case that pretends that people are not involved. They crunch numbers and look only at some profit/efficiency quotient and forget that the market does not exist solely to create profit. First and foremost, it exists to provide humans with the products and services they need to survive. People make tractors because people need tractors to farm. They need to farm so that people can eat. If you start viewing tractor manufacturers as existing purely as a profit making entity, you have completely lost sight of a core reality. If, in pursuing the end that gives profit more weight than any other factor, you build a system that will forever cycle towards damaging what it is supposed to serve, what are you accomplishing? Business do not exist to make a profit. They exist to provide a service to PEOPLE. They need to create profit in order to continue providing the service to the people. Profit IS NOT the reason d'etre for business. It is what the business needs to generate in order to accomplish it's function. In the end, regulation, government, and the market all exist for the same purpose. That purpose is to make life possible for the humans/voters/comsumers they serve. I am for the system that best allows that function to be met. Regulation by a government that is protecting the interests of the few over the intersts of the many is bad. That is what can not be allowed. Government regulation that protects the interests of the many over the intersts of the few allows markets to better serve their intended purpose, providing goods and services that the many need to survive.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Business do not exist to make a profit. They exist to provide a service to PEOPLE. They need to create profit in order to continue providing the service to the people. Profit IS NOT the reason d'etre for business.

I can not agree with you on this.


The goal of any private business is purely profit.


When profit margins dry up, the business either changes its business plan or it goes out of business.




But certainly there are essential services that the market can not provide because of a combination of high costs and small profit margins.


That is where the government steps in and has its place.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison I can not agree with you on this. The goal of any private business is purely profit. When profit margins dry up, the business either changes its business plan or it goes out of business. But certainly there are essential services that the market can not provide because of a combination of high costs and small profit margins. That is where the government steps in and has its place.

If that were the truth, we would all open our own mints and be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. People have to need or want your goods and/or services. Business does not exist to profit, it exists to fill wants and needs. Profit is what makes it possible for them to continue filling wants and needs, not what calls them into being. Profit is a beneficial secondary gain, not the primary object. It all started as barter. I need shoes, you need corn. Let's trade. But then, you have the problem of unequal values, so we get a medium of exchange. That medium of exchage allows for imballance, but is a necessary evil. In the end, it is really about trading shoes for corn. I get what I need, you get what you need. Profit can be a carrot to make you make better shoes than the other shoe guy, but again, in the end, you would never make shoes if people did not need shoes. The business would not be if it did not fill a need. That is why it exists. And so, by extention, if a business or business in general, start behaving as if they exist to serve only their own ends, then they become a corruption of their purpose.

[Nono]

Quote by: Bison There should be as little regulation as needed.

Agreed LOL. The whole question involves the definition of "needed".

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I am not asking for someone to explain why we need regulation. I understand that. I am asking for someone who believes that it is always bad to allow GOVERNMENT regulation to explain why they believe that any GOVERNMENT regulation is always bad.

History.


This is one of those times when our side asks for a single example of the government getting something right, and then the thread dies, or the point is ignored.


Regulation could occur through a private entity, but for some reason that scenario is always unacceptable to those of the Left side of this issue.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I have explained why I believe it is not, and in what circumstances I believe it is not. I want someone who takes the "always bad" stance to give me logical reasons why they believe I am mistaken. Explain how it is a mistake to consider the voter in a free and democratic system to be one and the same entity as the consumer in the market. Explain how it is a mistake to believe that the consumer, who they claim they believe is the only legitimate "controller" of the market, to use the government that they control as well, to control the market. It is like saying it is ok to scratch your back with your fingers, but it is a crime to use a stick that you hold in your fingers to reach a little further down. I want them to explain the logic that they use to arrive at that conclusion. Your response does not address that issue at all. Your response addresses how the stick makes it eassier to scratch that spot on your back and why you can't really reach the spot without the stick. I agree with you. But, you did not adress the question posed in the OP.

Quite simply, the government bureaucracy is the poison pill. It has always been so. There is no accountability in current government, and granting them more powers is an exercise in futility. Whenever anything bad ( take public schools for example ) occurs, the solution is always to cede more power to government, take more of the same medicine that complicated matters in the first place. The answer is always throw money at the problem.


That's you answer in a nutshell, but then, I remember explaining all of this to you before, so I expect that this was not really the answer you fishing for.

[Domino]

Regulation could occur through a private entity, but for some reason that scenario is always unacceptable to those of the Left side of this issue.

Given that any entity is corruptible, private entities are far less accountable. Unlike corporations, a government cannot simply change its name and start over with a clean slate.