4 ms·

This discussion is seriously flawed. What free market proponents miss is that ALL markets are free markets. Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It

by Tichy 15y ago

This discussion is seriously flawed. What free market proponents miss is that ALL markets are free markets. Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost for doing something not allowed by the government was incredibly high (like death penalty). The free market then would go on to produce the things, according to prices and demand. The black market is simply a part of the general "free market". So there is not really any information contained in "let the free market regulate things". The environment (including politics) determines the actual prize of things. The free market then does the rest, but we still have to set up the environment in the proper way. For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics.

ckuehne 15y ago
"Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).
- Tichy 15y ago
  They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
  - ckuehne 15y ago
    Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off). [1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Yes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
      - Zakharov 15y ago
        There was a market, sure. A "free market" is a particular kind of market, one with greater freedoms than a typical market. The soviet market had considerably fewer freedoms.
      - ckuehne 15y ago
        "I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the 'free market' will save us" I will do no such thing because I have not argued that "a free market will save us". I solely wanted to note that arguing over definitions and making caricatures of commonly understood terms ("But what does it really mean to be free?") is pointless and does not add much to the discussion at hand. I agree, however, with the comment made by gaius: historically it is more probable that a free market produces innovation than a centrally planned economy. Not, IMHO, because the abstract entity “free market” somehow magically comes up with a solution. But rather because it allows individuals to tinker and to test their results w.r.t. the actual wants and needs of other people as opposed to assuming that the best solution can be planned and designed top down.
anamax 15y ago
> For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics. Food prices are an example that is infested with politics. The US spends a lot of money "supporting" various food prices, including wheat. Some other countries spend resources on depressing prices by means which reliably result in shortages.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I am aware of that. But there are also physical realities in food production. What is the point of your nitpicking?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > But there are also physical realities in food production. There are physical realities in producing pretty much everything. > What is the point of your nitpicking? I'm pointing out that food is among the worst possible examples for whatever your point is. (I'm assuming that you've got more than "must charge more than cost of production".)
    - Tichy 15y ago
      No I meant must charge more than cost of production.

by Tichy 15y ago

ckuehne 15y ago

"Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).

Tichy 15y ago
They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
- ckuehne 15y ago
  Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off). [1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Yes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
    - Zakharov 15y ago
      There was a market, sure. A "free market" is a particular kind of market, one with greater freedoms than a typical market. The soviet market had considerably fewer freedoms.
    - ckuehne 15y ago
      "I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the 'free market' will save us" I will do no such thing because I have not argued that "a free market will save us". I solely wanted to note that arguing over definitions and making caricatures of commonly understood terms ("But what does it really mean to be free?") is pointless and does not add much to the discussion at hand. I agree, however, with the comment made by gaius: historically it is more probable that a free market produces innovation than a centrally planned economy. Not, IMHO, because the abstract entity “free market” somehow magically comes up with a solution. But rather because it allows individuals to tinker and to test their results w.r.t. the actual wants and needs of other people as opposed to assuming that the best solution can be planned and designed top down.

anamax 15y ago

> For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics. Food prices are an example that is infested with politics. The US spends a lot of money "supporting" various food prices, including wheat. Some other countries spend resources on depressing prices by means which reliably result in shortages.

Tichy 15y ago
I am aware of that. But there are also physical realities in food production. What is the point of your nitpicking?
- anamax 15y ago
  > But there are also physical realities in food production. There are physical realities in producing pretty much everything. > What is the point of your nitpicking? I'm pointing out that food is among the worst possible examples for whatever your point is. (I'm assuming that you've got more than "must charge more than cost of production".)
  - Tichy 15y ago
    No I meant must charge more than cost of production.