Exploring The Ideas Of Milton Friedman

[antitrust]

Quote from benwm:

haha - I thought Africa more closely resembled a corrupt, centrally planned economy, the best jobs are working for government because of all the foreign aid going to government, & you choose it as the example of a free market...this discussion could go on forever..!

cmon man - if you keep harping on about "Africa" I will have to start talking about North Korea or every single centrally planned European economy from 1945-1990.
that would probably be a waste of everyone's time

What they do both have in common is African produce is shut out of Europe because of European tariffs, and North Korea and Eastern Europe economies were intentionally shut off from other nations.

the single best thing we could do for African poverty is for the West to open up its markets to Africa...speaking from a UK perspective, if we could import African goods without having to pay 20% value added tax and import duties a whole raft of new industries would emerge...personally speaking, I am not seeing a great deal of benefits to the UK from cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world

reread my post

no Africa as mentioned above has a more liberal ( that means the markets are liberalized (free)) and has exactly no middle class. The market is open to the west we have been pillaging there nat res. for 100 years. Europe has the same value added tax on home grown goods so thats a wash. The best thing for Africa is to industrialize so their labor can afford to by what their natural recourses will make. and not be dependent on other nations to absorb their production. Africa will not develop any industries as long as it has to compete with mature ones

a protectionist economy that i described in my first post is far from the north Korea you love to point out. It real is irreverent to what i;m describing. But go ahead and take things to absurd extreams it just proves my point that you have subscribed to idealog first, then look for proof and ignore any counter evidence

By the way an economy is always planned just depends if the government does it or the money power does it.

you should really take a look at undeveloped countries they are the purest form of free markets and have not produced any results except to in rich a few at the expense of the masses.

 

[antitrust]

Quote from benwm:

I'm not sure what I've got myself into here

Perhaps time to throw in the towel...not because I think I'm being defeated in the debate...but because we're leaning a little off topic and I can see this is going to be a time consuming endeavour..

Where does it end, finding a common solution to the world's economic problems?!

Maybe I should explore Friedman's ideas in a quiet, dark place, all by myself

exactly were did we go off topic aren't we talking about Freidman no regulations is the best. He is the brain behind the free markets in Africa and Latin america.

 

[benwm]

Quote from antitrust:

free markets in Africa

I'm going to look into this claim of yours that Africa represents the free market ideal...

Friedman argued for low government spending (sub-10% as a proportion of GDP) and low taxes. In this respect, modern day Europe and US have moved far far away from what he would define as free markets.

But let's look into how Africa stacks up, on these two fronts. I don't pretend to have the numbers on hand so it will take some research.
Or if anyone else has the details to hand, please share so we can test the validity of antitrust's statement.

 

[benwm]

Quote from antitrust:

Those who have that temporary advantage will sell at below cost to destroy competition and discourage capitol investment.

I have re-read your comments..

If the advantage is "temporary", what is the problem because when the temporary advantage disappears the competition will step in? In the meantime the consumer gets a better price, and they would have bought the same product anyway (because of the comparative advantage), except at a higher price. Resources allocated as they should be. Consumers better off.

When the loss making exercise is completed, competition will be encouraged again to invest, unless of course the only potential competition comes from overseas and they are restricted from entry...we are back to your protectionist world...

Except the firm which pursued the loss making endeavours to delay competition has now strung up a string a losses and is in a weaker condition than before...

And I suppose you're answer now is that that is when the government steps in with the bailouts or more protectionism??

Dude, you're rapidly losing credibility. I don't claim to know everything, but your logic is f***ed up.

 

[benwm]

Sometimes I get the feeling I really am talking to Paul Krugman here.

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from benwm:

If the advantage is "temporary", what is the problem because when the temporary advantage disappears the competition will step in?

Because it's generally more expensive to (re)start competition than it is to keep competition alive. So once the competition is killed, consumers are often left dealing with a very small number of suppliers, ie, an oligopoly capable of raising its own margins.

The consumer ends up paying more, over long period of time, for a temporary price reduction.

And you can dismiss it if you like, but the plain historical fact is evident, oligopolies are much more effective at generating governmental subsidies/bailouts for themselves.

 

[antitrust]

Quote from benwm:

I have re-read your comments..

If the advantage is "temporary", what is the problem because when the temporary advantage disappears the competition will step in? In the meantime the consumer gets a better price, and they would have bought the same product anyway (because of the comparative advantage), except at a higher price. Resources allocated as they should be. Consumers better off.

When the loss making exercise is completed, competition will be encouraged again to invest, unless of course the only potential competition comes from overseas and they are restricted from entry...we are back to your protectionist world...

Except the firm which pursued the loss making endeavours to delay competition has now strung up a string a losses and is in a weaker condition than before...

And I suppose you're answer now is that that is when the government steps in with the bailouts or more protectionism??

Dude, you're rapidly losing credibility. I don't claim to know everything, but your logic is f***ed up.

no you're mis reading again

temporarily advantage turns permanent advantage

the Rockefeller would dump cheep oil on a region one by one the competition did not come back until it was broken up. Capitol would not risk going up against the Rockefeller's seemingly unlimited money.

the same thing happened in the railroads. The barons used profits from places they had a monopoly on to drive out competing firms in other regions. America could't compete with British textiles out right ,but ended up out mechanizing after tariffs were in place to keep Rockefeller type practices from subverting their efforts.

this isn't my fucked up logic it is what happens in history
but i take no offence this is simple Friedman practice take one word or phrases and twist it into something that seemingly proves your point rather than do research.


"Competition is a sin".
John D. Rockefeller

 

[antitrust]

Quote from benwm:

Sometimes I get the feeling I really am talking to Paul Krugman here.

i do not follow any modern day economists except steve keen and micheal hudson

how do you know what Krugman is if you've not studied him

 

[antitrust]

sounds like your more interested in the celebrity economists then economics itself no?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from benwm:

...So we must do better to understand and present our own arguments in favour of capitalism and free market ideology.
...

Yes, I agree so long as the arguments do not assume capitalism has anything to do with free markets. Free markets must be argued for independent of arguments for capitalism.

One can be in favor of the simplest form of capitalism -- where capital and the means of production is in private hands-- and at the same time also favor free markets. It is rare, however, for capitalists to favor free markets. Most capitalists prefer monopolies and cartels. Capitalism does not require free markets, and most capitalists abhor them.

Capitalism and free markets are two different things. In theory, they are not mutually exclusive, but in practice the extent to which markets are free is inversely proportional to capitalist control of an economy.

What some suppose is a failure of American Capitalism is in reality the failure of markets to remain competitive in the face of capitalism. American Capitalism has succeeded marvelously and is alive and well. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to hear someone extolling how "socialist" America has become. For example, medicare, a favorite target of the anti-socialist wing of American politics, has proved to be a goldmine for American capitalists and the medical cartel; the income tax code consists of thousands of pages, of nearly unintelligible provisions, favoring capitalist interests, etc., etc.

The only, and last remaining, socialist institution of any importance in the United States, viz. Social Security, is under withering attack from Wall Street whose lies and deceits will very likely succeed in ruining the most successful and efficient, non-capitalist-favoring, government program.

America is clearly becoming less socialist, not more; American style capitalism is alive and well!