4 ms·

I am a pro-capitalist "market solves everything" person and Ayn Rand admirer. Now I enjoy speaking with (and, most importantly, listening to) Bernie Sanders sup

I am a pro-capitalist "market solves everything" person and Ayn Rand admirer. Now I enjoy speaking with (and, most importantly, listening to) Bernie Sanders supporters to understand them better. I am also open for inquiries from the other side. :)

progressive_dad 10y ago
Do you distinguish between truly competitive capitalism and modern acquisition based growth? I will admit I only know about these topics from exchanges with peers such as this and haven't made it a study. I feel that modern capitalism... What I would call, "Militaristic" capitalism eliminates competition in the market, foments monopolistic practices, but drives global market growth and competition. How would you describe your views on competition in the market and whether monopolies are desirable or inevitable in today's market?
- atemerev 10y ago
  Natural monopolies are OK, as long as they are not coercive (i.e. use laws, lobbying and other non-market means to cement their established position). Free market natural monopolies are usually short-lived — they might enjoy the economies of scale, but this advantage rapidly becomes offset by their bureaucratic inefficiencies. When combined with coercive forces of the government, the ineffective monopoly might stay on the market much longer than can be warranted by competency only. Therefore, revolving door-type monopolies are bad and ought to be disrupted, including by legal means.
  - progressive_dad 10y ago
    When is lobbying appropriate in your view? Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance? As with TTIP? How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm? How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market? Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate? *Your ideas don't sound very different from the form of capitalism practiced in America today which is a pretty far cry from the extreme ideas about free-market libertarian ideals I'm used to from fans of Ayn Rand. What are some principles you find appealing in her writing?
    - atemerev 10y ago
      Lobbying is appropriate when it helps resolve market inefficiencies created by outdated legal quirks, not the other way around. I think the US approach is reasonable — lobbying should be legal, transparent, monitored and regulated. I can understand why it was decided this way. > Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance? Technically, yes. However (under the current concept of sovereignty), some things can be obligatory in home territory but only "nice to have" abroad. Therefore, globally, it is more right than obligation (subject to costs-benefits analysis). > As with TTIP? I do not have enough expertise in international law and trade agreements to judge TTIP in its entirety. So far, I know that there are some good things there (steps to establish global markets operating transparently), and not so good things (mostly related to intellectual property laws, which are messed up). > How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm? With diplomatic and cultural efforts. Often it is enough to somehow show people that free market alternative exists. E.g. USSR was strictly controlling who could see what beyond its borders, otherwise it wouldn't survive that long. > How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market? It depends. If they are willing to participate on the same set of rules as everyone, and the government itself is not known for some atrocities, then yes, it will be allowed. Government business usually is not that efficient, and there is no coercion power beyond government's own domain. > Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate? Some. Ayn Rand wanted to abolish FDA and all healthcare-related regulations; I am not so sure about that (though these should be rooted from up-level laws preventing fraud in general). Some military-related stuff (you don't export arms to state enemies), etc. Incidentally, all of this is strangely similar to the current US economic and foreign policy. I have to think more about that. I am not even American.
bufordsharkley 10y ago
I'm a Georgist, and I really don't understand the justification one can make for the acquisition of natural resources, and the justification for passing the rents this generates to one's descendants. Any absolute property rights granted in this space inherently justify feudalism, I believe, which violates concepts of fairness (I tend to be a Rawlsian, but I think feudalism violates almost any idea of fairness). What responses do you have to such criticisms of property rights in land?
- atemerev 10y ago
  This is one of the two issues where I am not in complete agreement with Ayn Rand's theory (she thought that first come/first served approach is OK with land grab and other natural resources like frequency bands; and free market should diffuse the resources to the most efficient actors if competition and trade are not restricted.) This sounds logical (land grabs were OK when land was still abundant and mostly unaccounted for), but yes, there are some reasoning flaws with this approach. (The other issue is with intellectual property rights — I don't think that IP should be treated the same way and on the same legal basis as physical property.) What do you find compelling in Rawls theory? He is considered the arch-villain in libertarian circles, but I can see some logic in his statements about inherent inequality. However, his solutions amount to lottery, and for me, lotteries are extremely unfair to begin with.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    > What do you find compelling in Rawls theory? He is considered the arch-villain in libertarian circles, but I can see some logic in his statements about inherent inequality. However, his solutions amount to lottery, and for me, lotteries are extremely unfair to begin with. I think the Veil of Ignorance is extremely compelling, and I think leads inextricably to equal rights for natural resources, open borders, etc. A lot of his reasoning I don't agree with-- he thinks all actors behind the Veil would perform minimax analyses, which is unjustified. However, I think the overall thought experiment is very valid. As for your disagreements with Rand-- is there anything you disagree with Georgism about?

progressive_dad 10y ago

Do you distinguish between truly competitive capitalism and modern acquisition based growth? I will admit I only know about these topics from exchanges with peers such as this and haven't made it a study. I feel that modern capitalism... What I would call, "Militaristic" capitalism eliminates competition in the market, foments monopolistic practices, but drives global market growth and competition. How would you describe your views on competition in the market and whether monopolies are desirable or inevitable in today's market?

atemerev 10y ago
Natural monopolies are OK, as long as they are not coercive (i.e. use laws, lobbying and other non-market means to cement their established position). Free market natural monopolies are usually short-lived — they might enjoy the economies of scale, but this advantage rapidly becomes offset by their bureaucratic inefficiencies. When combined with coercive forces of the government, the ineffective monopoly might stay on the market much longer than can be warranted by competency only. Therefore, revolving door-type monopolies are bad and ought to be disrupted, including by legal means.
- progressive_dad 10y ago
  When is lobbying appropriate in your view? Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance? As with TTIP? How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm? How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market? Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate? *Your ideas don't sound very different from the form of capitalism practiced in America today which is a pretty far cry from the extreme ideas about free-market libertarian ideals I'm used to from fans of Ayn Rand. What are some principles you find appealing in her writing?
  - atemerev 10y ago
    Lobbying is appropriate when it helps resolve market inefficiencies created by outdated legal quirks, not the other way around. I think the US approach is reasonable — lobbying should be legal, transparent, monitored and regulated. I can understand why it was decided this way. > Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance? Technically, yes. However (under the current concept of sovereignty), some things can be obligatory in home territory but only "nice to have" abroad. Therefore, globally, it is more right than obligation (subject to costs-benefits analysis). > As with TTIP? I do not have enough expertise in international law and trade agreements to judge TTIP in its entirety. So far, I know that there are some good things there (steps to establish global markets operating transparently), and not so good things (mostly related to intellectual property laws, which are messed up). > How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm? With diplomatic and cultural efforts. Often it is enough to somehow show people that free market alternative exists. E.g. USSR was strictly controlling who could see what beyond its borders, otherwise it wouldn't survive that long. > How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market? It depends. If they are willing to participate on the same set of rules as everyone, and the government itself is not known for some atrocities, then yes, it will be allowed. Government business usually is not that efficient, and there is no coercion power beyond government's own domain. > Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate? Some. Ayn Rand wanted to abolish FDA and all healthcare-related regulations; I am not so sure about that (though these should be rooted from up-level laws preventing fraud in general). Some military-related stuff (you don't export arms to state enemies), etc. Incidentally, all of this is strangely similar to the current US economic and foreign policy. I have to think more about that. I am not even American.

bufordsharkley 10y ago

I'm a Georgist, and I really don't understand the justification one can make for the acquisition of natural resources, and the justification for passing the rents this generates to one's descendants. Any absolute property rights granted in this space inherently justify feudalism, I believe, which violates concepts of fairness (I tend to be a Rawlsian, but I think feudalism violates almost any idea of fairness). What responses do you have to such criticisms of property rights in land?

atemerev 10y ago
This is one of the two issues where I am not in complete agreement with Ayn Rand's theory (she thought that first come/first served approach is OK with land grab and other natural resources like frequency bands; and free market should diffuse the resources to the most efficient actors if competition and trade are not restricted.) This sounds logical (land grabs were OK when land was still abundant and mostly unaccounted for), but yes, there are some reasoning flaws with this approach. (The other issue is with intellectual property rights — I don't think that IP should be treated the same way and on the same legal basis as physical property.) What do you find compelling in Rawls theory? He is considered the arch-villain in libertarian circles, but I can see some logic in his statements about inherent inequality. However, his solutions amount to lottery, and for me, lotteries are extremely unfair to begin with.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  > What do you find compelling in Rawls theory? He is considered the arch-villain in libertarian circles, but I can see some logic in his statements about inherent inequality. However, his solutions amount to lottery, and for me, lotteries are extremely unfair to begin with. I think the Veil of Ignorance is extremely compelling, and I think leads inextricably to equal rights for natural resources, open borders, etc. A lot of his reasoning I don't agree with-- he thinks all actors behind the Veil would perform minimax analyses, which is unjustified. However, I think the overall thought experiment is very valid. As for your disagreements with Rand-- is there anything you disagree with Georgism about?