5 ms·
Time and time again we see regulators working for the monopoly corporations, not against them. Monopolies like Monsanto only exist /because/ of regulation. If t
by programmarchy 10y ago
Time and time again we see regulators working for the monopoly corporations, not against them. Monopolies like Monsanto only exist /because/ of regulation. If the market were free, both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. In a regulated market, neither of them do.
Edit: Realize there's a good chance you're being sarcastic, but responding anyway since there are many people who'd take this at face value.
- chii 10y ago> both Monsanto and the EPA would have to compete. what does the EPA have to compete against? They regulate! Unless you mean monsanto could choose to be regulated by a different agency, whose funding comes from monsanto, hence regulators will tend to weaken regulation to get "business"!
- programmarchy 10y agoNobody, which is exactly my point. In an actual free market, people would still want consumer information (e.g. Consumer Reports magazine, Organic-certified labels). Therefore, consumer information companies would be required to compete with each other by offering better products i.e. accurate information, and a solid reputation. The EPA has a terrible reputation and a long track record of failures, but it doesn't matter, because they have a state-enforced monopoly. They can take bribes all day long. However, if they existed in a competitive market, their reputation would be ruined and the market would be ripe for new competitors to enter.
- n10 10y agoAnd what is to stop those consumer information companies taking similar bribes. Especially without any regulatory agencies. Or do we just need another free market for consumer information on the consumer information companies.
- programmarchy 10y agoWhen there's competition, reputation matters, since consumers have a choice about who to trust. > Especially without any regulatory agencies. The history of progressive regulation is agencies protecting monopolies from competition, not protecting the public from economic abuses though that is how it is advertised. Corporations want state-enforced regulation because it allows them to cartelize. [1] [1] https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-progressive-movement https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-progressive-movement
- soVeryTired 10y agoDo tell - what's an "actual free market"? All market activity takes place in a background of law, and hence under regulation.
- programmarchy 10y agoYou're conflating the constitutional protection of individual rights with government interference in the market. There's a big difference.
- soVeryTired 10y agoGovernments mandate minimum wage laws. They protect intellectual (and other) property rights. They license banks to create money, and they set interest rates. There is no such thing as a market free from government interference.
- programmarchy 10y agoEverything you listed didn't exist before the 1900s, and was a result of Progressive Era legislation, which is what I'm arguing against.
- soVeryTired 10y agoAh yes. Because markets worked so well in the gilded age.
- programmarchy 10y agoHistory is more nuanced than the propaganda delivered by our state education would lead us to believe. Murray Rothbard has uncovered much here, so I will link this teaser article again. [1] Highly recommend his books to anyone wanting to dig into the history of Progressive Era regulation, which transformed our laissez-faire economy into a centrally managed one. It offers deep insights into why our economy seems completely dysfunctional and unfair; it was designed that way to benefit powerful interests. People actually were better off with more freedom. [1] https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-progressive-movement https://mises.org/blog/rothbard-progressive-movement
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y agoWhy would his comment be taken as sarcastic?
- amelius 10y agoIn a free market, companies become bigger and bigger, and start behaving more and more like monopolists (even though they are technically not).
- programmarchy 10y agoYou have this completely wrong. Have you ever studied economics? It sounds like you aren't even familiar with the fundamentals.
- maxxxxx 10y agoDo you want to explain the fundamentals to us?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]