5 ms·

Feel like diamonds are such a great example for the 'a free-market' people. They typically argue that in a truly free-market everything is better. Well diamond

Feel like diamonds are such a great example for the 'a free-market' people. They typically argue that in a truly free-market everything is better. Well diamond trade exists largely in a free market until it hits some of the countries they sell in but before that we basically have blood being spilt over them and companies existing outside of strong regulated countries to funnel the diamonds into and control the price. A truly free-market seems very scary in a modern world.

ameister14 9y ago
A truly free market requires complete transparency, something the diamond market has historically lacked.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  Yes, but a lot of free market proponents seem to ignore that transparency in markets doesn't just happen. There is no "invisible hand" guiding that.
- ancap 9y ago
  I disagree. I think in a lot of cases buyers should or would demand transparency (ie. has this house ever been flooded?), but I don't think it's a strict requirement in the broad sense you may be implying. Transparency can be subjective. For example, a person sells 100 shares of ACME stock to a savvy buyer. A short time later the stock triples in value, and the seller sues the buyer because they were not "completely transparent" about their knowledge that the stock would rise. Of course, in all of this I am not talking about deliberate fraud which would be strictly forbidden in a free market.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I was talking about market transparency; it's more like the person selling the shares sells them to one person at a discount and another person at a high price. For a free market to function, the buyer would need to know the other prices people have paid for the same goods. If you don't have that, a free market can't work well. When you buy something in a free market, you should know its quality, characteristics and the price on the market. You should also know its provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost. That's transparency. It lets you buy things and make the most efficient choices, which is why it's fundamental for a free market.
    - ancap 9y ago
      >...That's transparency The criteria you specify for transparency is subjective and I don't agree that all of those criteria are strictly necessary. Specifically, I don't agree that knowledge of "provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost" is required of a buyer at all in a free market, though they may personally have an interest in those things. I would venture that most consumers know and care very little about those things. >If you don't have that, a free market can't work well. >which is why it's fundamental for a free market What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline. Certainly there are cases where market actors will demand some of those (and many cases they will not), but I wouldn't state it's a foundational requirement the market must be built upon.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        We don't currently have a free market, and most customers definitely do not know the provenance, relative supply or transport/marketing cost of almost anything they buy. They trust food, for example, because the government secures it and regulates it. >What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline. No, that's important to a market period. A free market is a specific thing. You need the other things to move away from the necessity of government regulation (transparency, for example.) If you don't know what's in that apple and nobody is going to make sure it's safe, you can't buy or sell it efficiently.
        ancap 9y ago
        Even absent government regulation, I still don't see consumers being terribly concerned about the source of their apple. Why? Because the quality of it is reflected by the reputation of the seller. But even if I were to concede the argument for the particular case of food, that does not mean that knowledge of provenance is a prerequisite for a free market. >You need the other things to move away from the necessity of government regulation I guess this is the crux of the matter. You are suggesting that transparency must pre-exist a free market, I am suggesting that a free market pre-exists transparency, and when necessary transparency will be demanded by the consumers.
- kalcode 9y ago
  In a truly free-market who would enforce this 'transparency'? That is the whole point against it, no one would enforce it. You say the people would but would they? Would they care? People in the US know about 'blood' diamonds, heck a movie came out with an extremely famous cast and helped get lots of people aware of the dirty trade of diamonds. Diamonds still sell extremely well. Banking on the common person to push for transparency and help improve the market by not 'supporting' these diamonds doesn't work already. They know about diamonds trade and people still constantly buy them.
aeorgnoieang 9y ago
Typically 'free markets', at least among sincere proponents of them, don't include "blood being spilt"; that's what makes things un-free.
- kenning 9y ago
  Here the guy you're replying to is talking about U.S. Libertarian ideology, which wouldn't care about foreign conflict of any type.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    It's not true that U.S. libertarians don't "care about foreign conflict of any type".
swebs 9y ago
I hate comments like these. You could have used this as an argument against the free market in general, but instead you tried to turn it into some us-vs-them tribalistic debate punctuated with an appeal to emotion. It's the lowest form of dialog crafted only to rowdy up people, split them into two extremes, and pit them against each other.
- kalcode 9y ago
  Free market as an economic model really isn't considered acceptable in a laissez-faire approach. So I would have attacked 'free market' and people respond with 'economist don't actually believe a true free-market would work well in today modern world.' Instead I attack the ones that are actually driving to make policies that reflect a 'free-market', deregulate and push the ideology. Those are the ones pushing for an unreasonable policies.

ameister14 9y ago

A truly free market requires complete transparency, something the diamond market has historically lacked.

vanderZwan 9y ago
Yes, but a lot of free market proponents seem to ignore that transparency in markets doesn't just happen. There is no "invisible hand" guiding that.
ancap 9y ago
I disagree. I think in a lot of cases buyers should or would demand transparency (ie. has this house ever been flooded?), but I don't think it's a strict requirement in the broad sense you may be implying. Transparency can be subjective. For example, a person sells 100 shares of ACME stock to a savvy buyer. A short time later the stock triples in value, and the seller sues the buyer because they were not "completely transparent" about their knowledge that the stock would rise. Of course, in all of this I am not talking about deliberate fraud which would be strictly forbidden in a free market.
- ameister14 9y ago
  I was talking about market transparency; it's more like the person selling the shares sells them to one person at a discount and another person at a high price. For a free market to function, the buyer would need to know the other prices people have paid for the same goods. If you don't have that, a free market can't work well. When you buy something in a free market, you should know its quality, characteristics and the price on the market. You should also know its provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost. That's transparency. It lets you buy things and make the most efficient choices, which is why it's fundamental for a free market.
  - ancap 9y ago
    >...That's transparency The criteria you specify for transparency is subjective and I don't agree that all of those criteria are strictly necessary. Specifically, I don't agree that knowledge of "provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost" is required of a buyer at all in a free market, though they may personally have an interest in those things. I would venture that most consumers know and care very little about those things. >If you don't have that, a free market can't work well. >which is why it's fundamental for a free market What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline. Certainly there are cases where market actors will demand some of those (and many cases they will not), but I wouldn't state it's a foundational requirement the market must be built upon.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      We don't currently have a free market, and most customers definitely do not know the provenance, relative supply or transport/marketing cost of almost anything they buy. They trust food, for example, because the government secures it and regulates it. >What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline. No, that's important to a market period. A free market is a specific thing. You need the other things to move away from the necessity of government regulation (transparency, for example.) If you don't know what's in that apple and nobody is going to make sure it's safe, you can't buy or sell it efficiently.
      - ancap 9y ago
        Even absent government regulation, I still don't see consumers being terribly concerned about the source of their apple. Why? Because the quality of it is reflected by the reputation of the seller. But even if I were to concede the argument for the particular case of food, that does not mean that knowledge of provenance is a prerequisite for a free market. >You need the other things to move away from the necessity of government regulation I guess this is the crux of the matter. You are suggesting that transparency must pre-exist a free market, I am suggesting that a free market pre-exists transparency, and when necessary transparency will be demanded by the consumers.
kalcode 9y ago
In a truly free-market who would enforce this 'transparency'? That is the whole point against it, no one would enforce it. You say the people would but would they? Would they care? People in the US know about 'blood' diamonds, heck a movie came out with an extremely famous cast and helped get lots of people aware of the dirty trade of diamonds. Diamonds still sell extremely well. Banking on the common person to push for transparency and help improve the market by not 'supporting' these diamonds doesn't work already. They know about diamonds trade and people still constantly buy them.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago

Typically 'free markets', at least among sincere proponents of them, don't include "blood being spilt"; that's what makes things un-free.

kenning 9y ago
Here the guy you're replying to is talking about U.S. Libertarian ideology, which wouldn't care about foreign conflict of any type.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  It's not true that U.S. libertarians don't "care about foreign conflict of any type".

swebs 9y ago

I hate comments like these. You could have used this as an argument against the free market in general, but instead you tried to turn it into some us-vs-them tribalistic debate punctuated with an appeal to emotion. It's the lowest form of dialog crafted only to rowdy up people, split them into two extremes, and pit them against each other.

kalcode 9y ago
Free market as an economic model really isn't considered acceptable in a laissez-faire approach. So I would have attacked 'free market' and people respond with 'economist don't actually believe a true free-market would work well in today modern world.' Instead I attack the ones that are actually driving to make policies that reflect a 'free-market', deregulate and push the ideology. Those are the ones pushing for an unreasonable policies.