5 ms·

I don't see any reason to distinguish them. A free market means a free market. When one monolithic organization with access to controlling capital makes its go

by Cushman 15y ago

I don't see any reason to distinguish them. A free market means a free market. When one monolithic organization with access to controlling capital makes its goal not to preserve the freedom of the market, but to extract value from the rest of the market for itself and its shareholders, that's not a market. That's a centrally planned economy. The bankers have turned Communist oligarchs in all but name.

z0r 15y ago
> When one [...] organization with [...] capital makes its goal [...] to extract value from the rest of the market for itself and its shareholders Nope, just a regular capitalist enterprise
- Cushman 15y ago
  And fascism is just a regular government, and secret police are just regular police, and martial law is just regular law... You know -- since I've got you here anyway -- I've always wanted to tell you how much I loved your novels, Mr. Orwell.
dantheman 15y ago
Actually you are incorrect, a free market is one in which people voluntarily interact for mutual gain, i.e. it is not coercive. If their is government interference then it is not a free market, cornering a market does not make it any less free if done solely through voluntary trade.
- Cushman 15y ago
  So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food, and their perfectly rational strategy is to choose not to sell food to anyone who competes with them, I'm not any less free to compete than if one person didn't get to make that decision? Get outta here with that.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food Then you can ride away on your unicorn. The western world doesn't have food monopolies. The 2nd world occasionally does, but they're created by their govts. Of course, it doesn't help that the US govt decided to raise corn prices by subsidizing corn ethanol.
    - Cushman 15y ago
      Why is it that a subsidy (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then collects money from taxes progressively) is bad, but an investment (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then sells it at a high price once someone gets hungry enough to buy it, and pocketing the cash) is good?
      - anamax 15y ago
        Huh? If you're going to claim two things are the same, it's good form to refer to them by their proper names before arguing similarity. And, if you're going to attribute a position to someone, you might want to have some evidence that they actually hold that position. (The fact that Hitler was bad does not imply that he killed puppies.) I'm against payments to farmers other than by folks voluntarily buying said farmer's output. That's a special case of a more general rule that applies to every work product. So I'm against "pays farmers to grow one thing" if it isn't money paid by folks who want and get said thing in exchange for said payment.
        Cushman 15y ago
        And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point: A subsidy is when the government pays for food, then gives it out for free (it costs less to the consumer than it would otherwise.) An investor pays for food, then sells it at a higher price, extracting the value for himself (it costs more to the consumer than it would otherwise.) That's the only difference; in neither case do the people who wind up actually eating the food, i.e. everyone else, have a choice what to pay. You're trying to draw this distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" payments which doesn't exist in the real world. I guess taxes are supposed to be involuntary, while food purchases are voluntary? Except that in the real world, if you don't buy food you die, and when one group of people who know they will never be hungry have the power to raise food prices across the board... That's a very twisted idea of "voluntary."
- keithg 15y ago
  A free market also implies some transparency does it not? If it's crystal clear what is being bought & sold, then everyone can make informed decisions and take their gains/losses honestly. When things like derivatives are created specifically to obscure the product and mislead potential buyers, then is it truly a free market? Shouldn't the government's roll be oversight (aka interference) if deception is creating a clear advantage for one party in the transaction? Your premise of mutual gain falls short in these cases.
anamax 15y ago
> When one monolithic organization with access to controlling capital makes its goal The only organization that controls enough capital is govt.

by Cushman 15y ago

z0r 15y ago

> When one [...] organization with [...] capital makes its goal [...] to extract value from the rest of the market for itself and its shareholders Nope, just a regular capitalist enterprise

Cushman 15y ago
And fascism is just a regular government, and secret police are just regular police, and martial law is just regular law... You know -- since I've got you here anyway -- I've always wanted to tell you how much I loved your novels, Mr. Orwell.

dantheman 15y ago

Actually you are incorrect, a free market is one in which people voluntarily interact for mutual gain, i.e. it is not coercive. If their is government interference then it is not a free market, cornering a market does not make it any less free if done solely through voluntary trade.

Cushman 15y ago
So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food, and their perfectly rational strategy is to choose not to sell food to anyone who competes with them, I'm not any less free to compete than if one person didn't get to make that decision? Get outta here with that.
- anamax 15y ago
  > So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food Then you can ride away on your unicorn. The western world doesn't have food monopolies. The 2nd world occasionally does, but they're created by their govts. Of course, it doesn't help that the US govt decided to raise corn prices by subsidizing corn ethanol.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    Why is it that a subsidy (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then collects money from taxes progressively) is bad, but an investment (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then sells it at a high price once someone gets hungry enough to buy it, and pocketing the cash) is good?
    - anamax 15y ago
      Huh? If you're going to claim two things are the same, it's good form to refer to them by their proper names before arguing similarity. And, if you're going to attribute a position to someone, you might want to have some evidence that they actually hold that position. (The fact that Hitler was bad does not imply that he killed puppies.) I'm against payments to farmers other than by folks voluntarily buying said farmer's output. That's a special case of a more general rule that applies to every work product. So I'm against "pays farmers to grow one thing" if it isn't money paid by folks who want and get said thing in exchange for said payment.
      - Cushman 15y ago
        And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point: A subsidy is when the government pays for food, then gives it out for free (it costs less to the consumer than it would otherwise.) An investor pays for food, then sells it at a higher price, extracting the value for himself (it costs more to the consumer than it would otherwise.) That's the only difference; in neither case do the people who wind up actually eating the food, i.e. everyone else, have a choice what to pay. You're trying to draw this distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" payments which doesn't exist in the real world. I guess taxes are supposed to be involuntary, while food purchases are voluntary? Except that in the real world, if you don't buy food you die, and when one group of people who know they will never be hungry have the power to raise food prices across the board... That's a very twisted idea of "voluntary."
keithg 15y ago
A free market also implies some transparency does it not? If it's crystal clear what is being bought & sold, then everyone can make informed decisions and take their gains/losses honestly. When things like derivatives are created specifically to obscure the product and mislead potential buyers, then is it truly a free market? Shouldn't the government's roll be oversight (aka interference) if deception is creating a clear advantage for one party in the transaction? Your premise of mutual gain falls short in these cases.

anamax 15y ago

> When one monolithic organization with access to controlling capital makes its goal The only organization that controls enough capital is govt.