quote from Hydroblunt:
You free market guys keep assuming that the players of the game would be honorable and noble about their business. Even with government regulations in USA, the welfare state, you can barely get even a fraction of these companies to be somewhat considerate, how in the world can you expect these same players to do the same in a free market environment?
Nevadan
Please reread this. Then re-establish what you mean by "free market".
I stand by my statement that Russia in 1990s is the closest to "free market" you have ever seen. Minimal government involvement, free-for-all. If you wanted to come to the auctions, you could have. Just good luck finding out that info.
If you want true free market competition, someone has to play hall monitor. But that goes against the whole free market theory. Sounds like the concept is flawed.
Eventually you will get to the big picture.
Well, hmmm... Where to begin; perhaps by examples of what is not a free market. What you call a free market still appears to me to be an invitation to plunder, and a closed invitation at that. There existed no mechanism to divest itself of assets when the pure socialist economy of Russia failed, since by definition the state owned all assets and resources, and only at the point of failure would the previously unthinkable action of sale occur. What happened was not a free market but simply theft by those with the ability to do so while hiding behind the pretense of auction. There was no action by government since the government had basically ceased to exist in its previous powers, i.e. they were broke.
As for as the Johnson County Range Wars, that can hardly be called a free market since it was clearly outside the rule of law and respect for private property. I would classify it as nothing more than a predatory monopoly. Both these examples have one other thing in common, that being the active participation of official corruption.
So what is a free market? A free market is where a skinny geek, starting out in his fathers garage, can become the richest man in the world. A free market is where one of his strongest competitors can lose market share to the point of losing control of his own company, only to come back several years later with new ideas and once again become a significant player in the industry. A free market is where a corporate giant can presume to control a new industry and fail because of the inability to produce what the consumer demanded and in sufficient quantities to satisfy that demand, eventually abandoning the market to its upstart competitors and leaving an architecture that no one remembers it designed as its lonely legacy to that market . How long has it been since anyone used the term clone to describe a PC? A free market is where a college student can develop a new business model of assembling components to a customers' specs and transacting by way of mail order, eventually becoming a giant in the industry. And all of this without a trace of help from Big Brother the hall monitor. There is an excellent video chronicling the adventures of Gates, Wozniak, Jobs et al entitled (if memory serves) "The Revenge of the Nerds" for those who might want more details on this.
In a free market, as long as the rule of law and respect for private property rights are observed, the first job of a businessman is to squash his competition. He is quite within his rights to seek this. And in all this messy capitalism some win, sometimes spectacularly while others lose and possibly all. That's life....get used to it. Meanwhile the rest of us benefit greatly from all that winning and losing.
As far as the big picture view, I have one but is bears no resemblance to the hallucinations you seem to be having. Free markets are the preferred scenario of those who have the choice. This fact is illustrated by one simple test: the Borders Test. The test consists of one simple observation. Given the choice, will people prefer to cross the border into or out of the country in question. It should be quite obvious that any country that erects physical barriers and posts armed guards at the borders has a problem with its population wishing to exit. And given that opportunity where do they prefer to go? To capitalistic countries where they rightly perceive greater liberty and improved economic prospects.
Since you claim that some combination of socialism and capitalism must be better than free markets, a la western European socialism, I would simply say that they enjoy whatever prosperity they have in spite of their socialist agendas, not because of it. For instance, of the major nations in the area Germany's economy is stronger than France's because Germany has a more conservative banking tradition than France, among other things ( and I don't use the word conservative in any political sense). And isn't it interesting that their neighbors to the east are realizing significantly more prosperity since adopting free market policies.
None of this is meant to suggest that the United States has much more in the way of free markets either. We are manipulated by a government monopoly that quite literally has a license to print money. Along with the Federal Reserve and a banking cartel it regularly distorts markets by fixing rates and increasing the supply of money to produce some effect deemed necessary by those with a vested interest in the system. It is a trickle down operation of the worst kind. The Federal Reserve authorizes member banks to create money out of thin air and collect interest for producing nothing of value. Those first in line reap the benefits of the new money immediately while all others see a benefit in direct correlation with their place in the chain, but also getting the disadvantage of inflation while they are waiting their turn. The market distortions produced in this process are many, including making long range business planning iffy at best due to uncertainty regarding cost of capital and forcing unwanted choices as an effect of tax planning.
The upshot of all this is there really is no such thing as a free market, but whatever approximation can be created is superior to central planning.
(And I admit that describing your views as hallucinations is a bit over the top, but I find your use of "get the point of capitalism yet", "Eventually you will get the big picture" etc. condescending and uncalled for. I prefer civil discourse to sniping and will happily consider your views, and as you can see am quite willing to debate these issues. Perhaps we could keep things at a higher level.)
