4 ms·

Jesus fuck this is disgusting. Why do cries of "free market!!1" always seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"?

wesammikhail 7y ago
> Why do cries of "free market!!1" __always__ seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"? Jeez, I wonder how many calories you burn each day by jumping into conclusions... The entire internet was built by free market ethos in the sense that it was a network of people doing what they thought was best for them and their causes. But ofc, that´s not as important now is it? after all, once the fruits of the free market ripens, somehow the rules change and suddenly "public good" means whatever people want it to mean as long as it extracts value in their favor. Now don´t get me wrong, I dislike this .org bullshit as much as the next guy, but imagine if I would have said: Why do cries of "public good!!1" __always__ end up meaning "I want to abolish all profits and usher in the marxist utopia"? It would be utterly stupid of me to say that because that is not the case, and the same goes for your statement.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  > Why do cries of "free market!!1" __always__ seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"? That matches the reality I've found myself reading about in the news for the last decade or so. Regular folk don't go declaring "free market", they don't need to, they just get on with things. It's those who feel they need to distract from or justify their actions that declare "free market" mainly because that shuts up the majority of critics who refuse to follow the money trail back to their sponsors. Hypercapitalism and Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" and all that.
- ausbah 7y ago
  The internet started as a government program, and so much for a "free market" when monopolistic ISPs control access to it.
- jon-wood 7y ago
  The Internet was built via a combination of defense funding and universities who thought it was a good idea. The free market didn't get involved until much later on in the process.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Why do cries of "free market!!1" always seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"? Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities, perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical. That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets.
- vcavallo 7y ago
  describing this further in a clearer and simpler manner (or with examples) could be very helpful.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    I'm not entirely sure but I don't think their point - with econ terms removed - is particularly profound. I think they're saying "the West" is so capitalist even the stuff people complain restricts free markets doesn't actually. If that's what they're saying I think they're wrong. For a good summary of why, see https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/ https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/ Rephrased: > Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is The West is very pro market, so when people argue for free markets they are usually arguing against... > a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities, ... making companies pay for the harms they cause (an example of internalizing a negative externality would be charging a factory for the CO2 they emit) > perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical. ... or maybe having the government own the company in the narrow spaces that makes more sense (probably they're referring to utility companies, but usually the argument for the government controlling that sort of company is slightly different) >×That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets. In other words when people cry "free markets" they're usually arguing against solutions that would result in slightly regulated but free enough markets.

wesammikhail 7y ago

> Why do cries of "free market!!1" __always__ seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"? Jeez, I wonder how many calories you burn each day by jumping into conclusions... The entire internet was built by free market ethos in the sense that it was a network of people doing what they thought was best for them and their causes. But ofc, that´s not as important now is it? after all, once the fruits of the free market ripens, somehow the rules change and suddenly "public good" means whatever people want it to mean as long as it extracts value in their favor. Now don´t get me wrong, I dislike this .org bullshit as much as the next guy, but imagine if I would have said: Why do cries of "public good!!1" __always__ end up meaning "I want to abolish all profits and usher in the marxist utopia"? It would be utterly stupid of me to say that because that is not the case, and the same goes for your statement.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
> Why do cries of "free market!!1" __always__ seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"? That matches the reality I've found myself reading about in the news for the last decade or so. Regular folk don't go declaring "free market", they don't need to, they just get on with things. It's those who feel they need to distract from or justify their actions that declare "free market" mainly because that shuts up the majority of critics who refuse to follow the money trail back to their sponsors. Hypercapitalism and Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" and all that.
ausbah 7y ago
The internet started as a government program, and so much for a "free market" when monopolistic ISPs control access to it.
jon-wood 7y ago
The Internet was built via a combination of defense funding and universities who thought it was a good idea. The free market didn't get involved until much later on in the process.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Why do cries of "free market!!1" always seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"? Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities, perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical. That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets.

vcavallo 7y ago
describing this further in a clearer and simpler manner (or with examples) could be very helpful.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I'm not entirely sure but I don't think their point - with econ terms removed - is particularly profound. I think they're saying "the West" is so capitalist even the stuff people complain restricts free markets doesn't actually. If that's what they're saying I think they're wrong. For a good summary of why, see https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/ https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/ Rephrased: > Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is The West is very pro market, so when people argue for free markets they are usually arguing against... > a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities, ... making companies pay for the harms they cause (an example of internalizing a negative externality would be charging a factory for the CO2 they emit) > perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical. ... or maybe having the government own the company in the narrow spaces that makes more sense (probably they're referring to utility companies, but usually the argument for the government controlling that sort of company is slightly different) >×That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets. In other words when people cry "free markets" they're usually arguing against solutions that would result in slightly regulated but free enough markets.