4 ms·

Big Business’s relentless push to equate the free market with freedom

20 points by cratermoon 4y ago

chiefalchemist 4y ago
I reads like they didn't just bury the lede, they completely missed it. The US doesn't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism. The latter having little to do with actual capitalism (i.e., free markets). So while the public might be trusting in one thing, behind the scenes (and under the table) big biz is constantly having Uncle Sam put his thumb on the scale.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  I guess only a True Scotsman would know for sure.
  - nick123567 4y ago
    Yes, Adam Smith would know for sure!
  - b1c1jones 4y ago
    Or a Texas Sharpshooter.
- antiutopian 4y ago
  I think it's helpful to understand capitalism as a historical process in the real world, and not as a pure idea which society fails to live up to. The state had an important role in the development of capitalism everywhere, it still plays a crucial role, and that's just the nature of the system. It's possible that you just don't actually like capitalism - healthy!
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Yes. Agreed. But there is a difference between guidance, direction and seeding (e.g., post fossil fuel energy source); and putting its thumb on the scale to provide favoritism, protect markets that don't need protection, subsidies that have out lived their purpose and so on. It's ok if we don't have free markets. It's not ok to perpetuate the idea that we do, especially when behind the scenes actions don't seek free markets.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > The US doesn't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism No True Communism called, they want their punchline back!
daniel-s 4y ago
Most people leave school able to perform basic arithmetic and to read and write. Almost nobody has a basic understanding of economics. Go here and learn more about economics in 30 minutes than 99% of people. https://mises.org/economics-beginners https://mises.org/economics-beginners
- cratermoon 4y ago
  That would be exactly the kind of Chicago School Free Market Fundamentalism the story is calling out. I suggest skipping this link and instead get your hands on a copy of Robert Heilbroner's book The Worldly Philosophers.
- b1c1jones 4y ago
  I don't trust any organization that in "Government as the Ultimate Cause of the Tragedy of the Commons" states that private ownership is the cure. Who owns the oceans, and who owns the air?
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    That is an unfortunate dismissal. Perhaps it would be better to examine the arguments provided rather than preemptively dismissing them. Fwiw, Mises.org is shadowbanned from new submissions on this site, but the authoritarian view from legacy media sources is celebrated. You can even post articles from socialist/marxist outlets like Jacobin.
    - b1c1jones 4y ago
      What makes anyone think I didn't examine the arguments? What is your view on the Tragedy of the Commons with regards to air, and ocean? Are you advocating they be privately owned?
      - aww_dang 4y ago
        If you did examine the arguments, you didn't engage with them. Instead you dismissed the conclusion with a flippant hand-wave. Doctor: Here's why you should take medicine. It is grape flavor jones: Underlying conditions be damned. I don't like grape flavor. Not taking it. Doctor 2: Yeah sure, just eat chocolate. jones: Here's my pharmacy's number If your use of the atmosphere on your property harms my health or otherwise detracts from the value of my person or property, then you should be liable. Liability shouldn't be limited by citing, "But I was within the EPA guidelines! Don't like it, take it up with the state! We all voted and you've had your say. Breathe in the toxic fumes democratically. You had your chance to elect politicians who in turn could appoint bureaucrats; Bureaucrats which can freely interpret and selectively enforce legislation as per their capricious whims. Yes, you've had your chance in the land of freedom." Is there a bigger tragedy of the 'commons' than democracy? Everything falls under the public prerogative. Who you should marry and what you should eat or drink is now part of the 'commons'. What is private today can just as easily become part of the "collective good".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
SkyMarshal 4y ago
I think the situation with China is forcing US policy circles to finally concede that free markets don’t bring freedom and democratization. The arrow of causality works in only one direction, freedom -> free markets. The former is a prerequisite for the latter, not a result of it. Free trade between a free market economy and an authoritarian nation results in mercantilist behavior on the part of the latter toward the former, with a range of net detrimental outcomes to the former.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > a range of net detrimental outcomes to the former. I don't buy this - China has provided us with natural resources, cheap goods, cheap labour. Material resources of this world. And no-one forced us to take them. The responsebility for the way it played out rests with us.
BoiledCabbage 4y ago
This article is calling out exactly what the country needs to relearn. And hopefully we don't have to re-learn it the hard way: The free market isn't what's good for society. Market competition is what's good for society. The fact that so many can't see the difference between these two is what has turned "free-market" into a religion. Market competition is what ensures companies compete to improve their products. Market competition is what ensures companies lower prices for consumers. Unregulated free markets create monopolies. Figma being sold to Adobe and scrapped is unregulated free-market. Figma staying unsold, forcing Adobe to compete, is regulated healthy market competition. The fact that free-marketers don't believe in natural monopolies or think that unhealthy monopolies can occur shows how far they will stretch reality to conform to their world view that "fundamentally companies should never be regulated for any reason what so ever". Even while a bank just rescinded regulation and is tipping the financial sector as we speak. Market competition is essentially for a healthy, innovate growing economy and country. Unregulated markets stifle competition and innovation and lead to unhealthy practices.
- js8 4y ago
  I would add one caveat there - market competition for companies, not people. It has also been used to politically justify low price of labor (especially of the manual and precarious one). I really like Michael Brooks quote: Be kind to people but ruthless to systems.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  There's a nuance issue with your above statement in that you need both a free market and strong competition in that market. You can coerce people or companies to compete in a market all you want with mixed effect but if you have people/companies choosing to compete in a market because they think they can win by providing better value, then you have the actual driver of consumer surplus growth. What this means is that government should focus on restraining/breaking up businesses that have market power and possibly on mitigating natural monopoly situations preferentially if they are going to get involved.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  >Unregulated free markets create monopolies. Figma being sold to Adobe and scrapped is unregulated free-market. Figma staying unsold, forcing Adobe to compete, is regulated healthy market competition. Do you believe that we are currently in a "unregulated free-market"? What of the easy money policies and price fixing of interest rates? Does this not drive sky high stock valuations, tech hype cycles and acquisitions? Look around the stock valuations in the tech sphere. Companies with no profits are hyped to the moon. Individual investors are speculating on cryptocurrencies with little to no underlying usage. AI virtual assistants are being hyped up as the next big thing. Serial employees are adding "ML researcher" to their resume as if they published research papers in the field. How can you claim this is laissez-faire? Regulators have been shoveling easy credit into the economy. They still cannot raise rates anywhere near their stated inflation metrics... and people are already panicking, blaming them for not providing more free candy.
freediverx 4y ago
When we hear political hacks using the word “freedom” we must always ask “freedom for whom to do what?” The answer is always some variation on “the freedom for sociopaths to exploit and oppress others.”
smitty1e 4y ago
> The Big Myth, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, recounts the coordinated 20th-century effort to instill unquestioning faith in markets above all There is no positive confidence in markets as such; there is negative certainty that control placed in the hands of the few is a ticket to tyranny, QED with social media.

20 points by cratermoon 4y ago

I reads like they didn't just bury the lede, they completely missed it. The US doesn't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism. The latter having little to do with actual capitalism (i.e., free markets). So while the public might be trusting in one thing, behind the scenes (and under the table) big biz is constantly having Uncle Sam put his thumb on the scale.

cratermoon 4y ago
I guess only a True Scotsman would know for sure.
- nick123567 4y ago
  Yes, Adam Smith would know for sure!
- b1c1jones 4y ago
  Or a Texas Sharpshooter.
antiutopian 4y ago
I think it's helpful to understand capitalism as a historical process in the real world, and not as a pure idea which society fails to live up to. The state had an important role in the development of capitalism everywhere, it still plays a crucial role, and that's just the nature of the system. It's possible that you just don't actually like capitalism - healthy!
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Yes. Agreed. But there is a difference between guidance, direction and seeding (e.g., post fossil fuel energy source); and putting its thumb on the scale to provide favoritism, protect markets that don't need protection, subsidies that have out lived their purpose and so on. It's ok if we don't have free markets. It's not ok to perpetuate the idea that we do, especially when behind the scenes actions don't seek free markets.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> The US doesn't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism No True Communism called, they want their punchline back!

daniel-s 4y ago

Most people leave school able to perform basic arithmetic and to read and write. Almost nobody has a basic understanding of economics. Go here and learn more about economics in 30 minutes than 99% of people. https://mises.org/economics-beginners https://mises.org/economics-beginners

cratermoon 4y ago
That would be exactly the kind of Chicago School Free Market Fundamentalism the story is calling out. I suggest skipping this link and instead get your hands on a copy of Robert Heilbroner's book The Worldly Philosophers.
b1c1jones 4y ago
I don't trust any organization that in "Government as the Ultimate Cause of the Tragedy of the Commons" states that private ownership is the cure. Who owns the oceans, and who owns the air?
- aww_dang 4y ago
  That is an unfortunate dismissal. Perhaps it would be better to examine the arguments provided rather than preemptively dismissing them. Fwiw, Mises.org is shadowbanned from new submissions on this site, but the authoritarian view from legacy media sources is celebrated. You can even post articles from socialist/marxist outlets like Jacobin.
  - b1c1jones 4y ago
    What makes anyone think I didn't examine the arguments? What is your view on the Tragedy of the Commons with regards to air, and ocean? Are you advocating they be privately owned?
    - aww_dang 4y ago
      If you did examine the arguments, you didn't engage with them. Instead you dismissed the conclusion with a flippant hand-wave. Doctor: Here's why you should take medicine. It is grape flavor jones: Underlying conditions be damned. I don't like grape flavor. Not taking it. Doctor 2: Yeah sure, just eat chocolate. jones: Here's my pharmacy's number If your use of the atmosphere on your property harms my health or otherwise detracts from the value of my person or property, then you should be liable. Liability shouldn't be limited by citing, "But I was within the EPA guidelines! Don't like it, take it up with the state! We all voted and you've had your say. Breathe in the toxic fumes democratically. You had your chance to elect politicians who in turn could appoint bureaucrats; Bureaucrats which can freely interpret and selectively enforce legislation as per their capricious whims. Yes, you've had your chance in the land of freedom." Is there a bigger tragedy of the 'commons' than democracy? Everything falls under the public prerogative. Who you should marry and what you should eat or drink is now part of the 'commons'. What is private today can just as easily become part of the "collective good".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

SkyMarshal 4y ago

I think the situation with China is forcing US policy circles to finally concede that free markets don’t bring freedom and democratization. The arrow of causality works in only one direction, freedom -> free markets. The former is a prerequisite for the latter, not a result of it. Free trade between a free market economy and an authoritarian nation results in mercantilist behavior on the part of the latter toward the former, with a range of net detrimental outcomes to the former.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> a range of net detrimental outcomes to the former. I don't buy this - China has provided us with natural resources, cheap goods, cheap labour. Material resources of this world. And no-one forced us to take them. The responsebility for the way it played out rests with us.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago

This article is calling out exactly what the country needs to relearn. And hopefully we don't have to re-learn it the hard way: The free market isn't what's good for society. Market competition is what's good for society. The fact that so many can't see the difference between these two is what has turned "free-market" into a religion. Market competition is what ensures companies compete to improve their products. Market competition is what ensures companies lower prices for consumers. Unregulated free markets create monopolies. Figma being sold to Adobe and scrapped is unregulated free-market. Figma staying unsold, forcing Adobe to compete, is regulated healthy market competition. The fact that free-marketers don't believe in natural monopolies or think that unhealthy monopolies can occur shows how far they will stretch reality to conform to their world view that "fundamentally companies should never be regulated for any reason what so ever". Even while a bank just rescinded regulation and is tipping the financial sector as we speak. Market competition is essentially for a healthy, innovate growing economy and country. Unregulated markets stifle competition and innovation and lead to unhealthy practices.

js8 4y ago
I would add one caveat there - market competition for companies, not people. It has also been used to politically justify low price of labor (especially of the manual and precarious one). I really like Michael Brooks quote: Be kind to people but ruthless to systems.
snapplebobapple 4y ago
There's a nuance issue with your above statement in that you need both a free market and strong competition in that market. You can coerce people or companies to compete in a market all you want with mixed effect but if you have people/companies choosing to compete in a market because they think they can win by providing better value, then you have the actual driver of consumer surplus growth. What this means is that government should focus on restraining/breaking up businesses that have market power and possibly on mitigating natural monopoly situations preferentially if they are going to get involved.
aww_dang 4y ago
>Unregulated free markets create monopolies. Figma being sold to Adobe and scrapped is unregulated free-market. Figma staying unsold, forcing Adobe to compete, is regulated healthy market competition. Do you believe that we are currently in a "unregulated free-market"? What of the easy money policies and price fixing of interest rates? Does this not drive sky high stock valuations, tech hype cycles and acquisitions? Look around the stock valuations in the tech sphere. Companies with no profits are hyped to the moon. Individual investors are speculating on cryptocurrencies with little to no underlying usage. AI virtual assistants are being hyped up as the next big thing. Serial employees are adding "ML researcher" to their resume as if they published research papers in the field. How can you claim this is laissez-faire? Regulators have been shoveling easy credit into the economy. They still cannot raise rates anywhere near their stated inflation metrics... and people are already panicking, blaming them for not providing more free candy.

freediverx 4y ago

When we hear political hacks using the word “freedom” we must always ask “freedom for whom to do what?” The answer is always some variation on “the freedom for sociopaths to exploit and oppress others.”

smitty1e 4y ago

> The Big Myth, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, recounts the coordinated 20th-century effort to instill unquestioning faith in markets above all There is no positive confidence in markets as such; there is negative certainty that control placed in the hands of the few is a ticket to tyranny, QED with social media.