7 ms·

When people say we want a free market where government does not mess with it regulating things, they usually dream of some Ayn Randian utopia. In actuality this

by rdtsc 10y ago

When people say we want a free market where government does not mess with it regulating things, they usually dream of some Ayn Randian utopia. In actuality this is what happens every time. China in a way is more "free market" than America or Europe is. The same stuff happens in Eastern Europe and other less developed countries. So behold, the wonders of unregulated-everything. Anyone headed to the airport yet to live in this utopia? (It is only a half joke, some will actually thrive there). Yeah sure, on paper all these places have their FDAs, EPAs, FCCs in practice they are not effective, so you do whatever you want. One can make an argument that eventually the free market will resolve the problem, and those selling gutter oil or mystery white chemical powder as baby formula will be out of business and the true quality products will emerge. Yes, maybe, but do you want to be the failing test case who gets cancer 5 years later, just so others learn that such and such a vendor was putting benzine in their tomatoes. Are you even be able to find them 5 years later to sue them? Or even publicly shame them?

slicktux 10y ago
With all do respect, you should go read the definition of what a free market is; supply and demand is free from government intervention and also free from price fixing, just look at Venezeula's socialist market. . .it is failing and the people are getting by with the 'black market' that is free market. Anyhow I think you are confusing free market with government regulations; like USDA, FDA, etc etc. I am against such regulations because they are federal regulations and well it is unconstituional, but that is not to say that the states cannot provide the same services; or heck even the free market itself; say for e.g. like NON-GMO project. . .
- realusername 10y ago
  Venezeula failed because it depended entirely on the petrol price, they put all their eggs in one basket, nothing related to their socialist polices, it would have crashed with whatever government in place, they are not even really socialist either if you ask me. The free market without intervention is a pipe dream, the natural state of most industries is to form a monopoly to protect their interests. First you have cooperatives, then conglomerates and at some point there is no competition anymore. There is no incentive either without regulation to protect the consumer, you would just end up with a market full of fakes to get a quick buck and you could not even guarantee the safety of what you are buying, not sure I want to live in that world.
  - slicktux 10y ago
    Venezuela's failure is up for debate; my point was that they are now thriving of the black market which is essentially a free market because people are providing goods (food) for the people for a higher price than that set by the government, but they are supplying what the government cannot; two things, supply and price setting. Anyhow, I do agree that a free market will essentially turn into a monopoly; but that is not to say the states cannot prevent them; A cry for a free market or its antithesis is usually made with a uniformed ideology on which the Federal Government must intervene, and that is not a free market; hence I am for a free market where the states make the laws necessary to protect its citizens, as well as quality control regulations. Because government regulation is not equivocal with state and federal government regulations, especially when one lives in a democratic republic as I do. I apologize if I come off as a cynic, I may have taken the attack on the free market a little too personal and I felt like I had to distinguish the points I just made. (edit)Spelling corrections---
  - altstar 10y ago
    * they are not even really socialist either if you ask me* Interesting statement. It certainly will be news to the Chavistas and the 17 years they are working on the Bolivarian Revolution.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The free market without intervention is a pipe dream, the natural state of most industries is to form a monopoly to protect their interests. First you have cooperatives, then conglomerates and at some point there is no competition anymore. And there's plenty of money to be made by anyone who breaks ranks and sells cheaper - unless the law prevents them: http://europe.newsweek.com/raisin-laugh-supreme-court-324789?rm=eu http://europe.newsweek.com/raisin-laugh-supreme-court-324789... Meanwhile, where's the evidence that such conglomerates are stable and free from competition for more than a few years, without help from the State?
  - mamon 10y ago
    Forming monopoly usually requires some kind of help from government, like patent and regulatory laws that make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Without it fighting competition is like figthing mythical hydra: for one competitior you've driven bankrupt there are three others starting a business. That's why big corporations are usually against free market. They prefer higly regulated economy where they can bribe politicians to alter the law in their favor.
zzzcpan 10y ago
There are plenty of products on all those government regulated markets that give you cancer. And plenty that don't, but not there. That's because there are no regulations without someone's self-interests involved somehow. It's always about money and power.
rayiner 10y ago
Interestingly, each of those agencies corresponds to an instance of acknowledged market failure: the FDA exists because of information asymmetries that undermine the market for food and drugs (it's hard for consumers to know what actually goes into their food and drugs); the EPA deals with the negative externalities of pollution. And the FCC was created to deal with the potential tragedy of the commons with regard to spectrum.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
The anti-regulation argument is much more convincing to me if it's put in terms of making markets effective. Effective markets have three things - thickness in potential trading opportunities, time for evaluating possible trades before needing to make a decision, and rules that make it safe to participate. Which regulations are there matters more than how many.
wycx 10y ago
I imagine that the hyper-laissez faire libertarian sitting in the passenger seat of a crashing (unregulated) commercial airliner would fondly reflect on the fact that they are about to be part of an event that will transmit information to the market that will permit market participants to make an informed choice regarding their air travel options.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Unless the company covers it up somehow, and since they have a very clear profit motive...::crash::

by rdtsc 10y ago

slicktux 10y ago

With all do respect, you should go read the definition of what a free market is; supply and demand is free from government intervention and also free from price fixing, just look at Venezeula's socialist market. . .it is failing and the people are getting by with the 'black market' that is free market. Anyhow I think you are confusing free market with government regulations; like USDA, FDA, etc etc. I am against such regulations because they are federal regulations and well it is unconstituional, but that is not to say that the states cannot provide the same services; or heck even the free market itself; say for e.g. like NON-GMO project. . .

realusername 10y ago
Venezeula failed because it depended entirely on the petrol price, they put all their eggs in one basket, nothing related to their socialist polices, it would have crashed with whatever government in place, they are not even really socialist either if you ask me. The free market without intervention is a pipe dream, the natural state of most industries is to form a monopoly to protect their interests. First you have cooperatives, then conglomerates and at some point there is no competition anymore. There is no incentive either without regulation to protect the consumer, you would just end up with a market full of fakes to get a quick buck and you could not even guarantee the safety of what you are buying, not sure I want to live in that world.
- slicktux 10y ago
  Venezuela's failure is up for debate; my point was that they are now thriving of the black market which is essentially a free market because people are providing goods (food) for the people for a higher price than that set by the government, but they are supplying what the government cannot; two things, supply and price setting. Anyhow, I do agree that a free market will essentially turn into a monopoly; but that is not to say the states cannot prevent them; A cry for a free market or its antithesis is usually made with a uniformed ideology on which the Federal Government must intervene, and that is not a free market; hence I am for a free market where the states make the laws necessary to protect its citizens, as well as quality control regulations. Because government regulation is not equivocal with state and federal government regulations, especially when one lives in a democratic republic as I do. I apologize if I come off as a cynic, I may have taken the attack on the free market a little too personal and I felt like I had to distinguish the points I just made. (edit)Spelling corrections---
- altstar 10y ago
  * they are not even really socialist either if you ask me* Interesting statement. It certainly will be news to the Chavistas and the 17 years they are working on the Bolivarian Revolution.
- icebraining 10y ago
  The free market without intervention is a pipe dream, the natural state of most industries is to form a monopoly to protect their interests. First you have cooperatives, then conglomerates and at some point there is no competition anymore. And there's plenty of money to be made by anyone who breaks ranks and sells cheaper - unless the law prevents them: http://europe.newsweek.com/raisin-laugh-supreme-court-324789?rm=eu http://europe.newsweek.com/raisin-laugh-supreme-court-324789... Meanwhile, where's the evidence that such conglomerates are stable and free from competition for more than a few years, without help from the State?
- mamon 10y ago
  Forming monopoly usually requires some kind of help from government, like patent and regulatory laws that make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Without it fighting competition is like figthing mythical hydra: for one competitior you've driven bankrupt there are three others starting a business. That's why big corporations are usually against free market. They prefer higly regulated economy where they can bribe politicians to alter the law in their favor.

zzzcpan 10y ago

There are plenty of products on all those government regulated markets that give you cancer. And plenty that don't, but not there. That's because there are no regulations without someone's self-interests involved somehow. It's always about money and power.

rayiner 10y ago

Interestingly, each of those agencies corresponds to an instance of acknowledged market failure: the FDA exists because of information asymmetries that undermine the market for food and drugs (it's hard for consumers to know what actually goes into their food and drugs); the EPA deals with the negative externalities of pollution. And the FCC was created to deal with the potential tragedy of the commons with regard to spectrum.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

The anti-regulation argument is much more convincing to me if it's put in terms of making markets effective. Effective markets have three things - thickness in potential trading opportunities, time for evaluating possible trades before needing to make a decision, and rules that make it safe to participate. Which regulations are there matters more than how many.

wycx 10y ago

I imagine that the hyper-laissez faire libertarian sitting in the passenger seat of a crashing (unregulated) commercial airliner would fondly reflect on the fact that they are about to be part of an event that will transmit information to the market that will permit market participants to make an informed choice regarding their air travel options.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Unless the company covers it up somehow, and since they have a very clear profit motive...::crash::