9 ms·

> All that is required is the desire to provide a useful service for the least consumption of resources or energy Yeah, that's what we call free market capital

by zbobet2012 9y ago

> All that is required is the desire to provide a useful service for the least consumption of resources or energy Yeah, that's what we call free market capitalism.

Naritai 9y ago
Not quite, as ULA was also operating under capitalism, yet clearly cared not a whit for minimizing the government's resources. Non-monopolistic capitalism is a closer description.
- Scramblejams 9y ago
  To be fair, their customer was always going to be price insensitive. When you're lofting a $2 billion recon satellite, there's no room for error and they don't care if the launch costs $100 million or $300 million -- they just want absolute assurance that it's going to work. So the incentives to minimize resource use weren't there for a very rational reason.
  - Naritai 9y ago
    Yeah but, not unlike in the car industry, reliability is a 'good enough' metric for many purchasers. That is to say, beyond some minimum assurance of execution, further improvments in that metric do not further improve the probability that the customer will choose that product over its competitors. So they're only price insensitive up to a point.
rectang 9y ago
I've lost faith in "free markets", which seem to devolve inevitably to market failures such as monopolies, and in those who advocate "free market capitalism" with no acknowledgement that market failures happen. For now, I'm finding the phrase "competitive markets" more attractive.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > I've lost faith in "free markets", which seem to devolve inevitably to market failures such as monopolie Despite the fact that about no free market exists in practice?
  - Joeri 9y ago
    Plenty of them exist. Just go to where no government exists, like any war zone, and see the beautiful ruthless efficiency of the unregulated market at work.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      War zones are not free markets - just because your existence is constantly under threat. This is a silly argument.
      - Joeri 9y ago
        Exactly my point, unregulated != free.
- stephen_g 9y ago
  It's also a bit of an ambiguous term. The more classical idea was a market free from economic rents and monopolies, whereas now the term is more understood to mean free from regulation and free for rent-seekers to do what ever they want...
- nickik 9y ago
  People keep arguing that free markets create monopolies. If you actually look at this history you see almost no monopolies rise from the market, but government created monopolies and cartels are all over the place. If this is such a huge problem please give me some examples where a company established a monopoly AND actually raised prices for consumer higher.
  - pjc50 9y ago

> All that is required is the desire to provide a useful service for the least consumption of resources or energy Yeah, that's what we call free market capitalism.

Naritai 9y ago

Not quite, as ULA was also operating under capitalism, yet clearly cared not a whit for minimizing the government's resources. Non-monopolistic capitalism is a closer description.

Scramblejams 9y ago
To be fair, their customer was always going to be price insensitive. When you're lofting a $2 billion recon satellite, there's no room for error and they don't care if the launch costs $100 million or $300 million -- they just want absolute assurance that it's going to work. So the incentives to minimize resource use weren't there for a very rational reason.
- Naritai 9y ago
  Yeah but, not unlike in the car industry, reliability is a 'good enough' metric for many purchasers. That is to say, beyond some minimum assurance of execution, further improvments in that metric do not further improve the probability that the customer will choose that product over its competitors. So they're only price insensitive up to a point.

rectang 9y ago

I've lost faith in "free markets", which seem to devolve inevitably to market failures such as monopolies, and in those who advocate "free market capitalism" with no acknowledgement that market failures happen. For now, I'm finding the phrase "competitive markets" more attractive.

ekianjo 9y ago
> I've lost faith in "free markets", which seem to devolve inevitably to market failures such as monopolie Despite the fact that about no free market exists in practice?
- Joeri 9y ago
  Plenty of them exist. Just go to where no government exists, like any war zone, and see the beautiful ruthless efficiency of the unregulated market at work.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    War zones are not free markets - just because your existence is constantly under threat. This is a silly argument.
    - Joeri 9y ago
      Exactly my point, unregulated != free.
stephen_g 9y ago
It's also a bit of an ambiguous term. The more classical idea was a market free from economic rents and monopolies, whereas now the term is more understood to mean free from regulation and free for rent-seekers to do what ever they want...
nickik 9y ago
People keep arguing that free markets create monopolies. If you actually look at this history you see almost no monopolies rise from the market, but government created monopolies and cartels are all over the place. If this is such a huge problem please give me some examples where a company established a monopoly AND actually raised prices for consumer higher.
- pjc50 9y ago