4 ms·

First, I should point out that every party that was involved in the publication of the article has a financial conflict of interest in the public's perception o

First, I should point out that every party that was involved in the publication of the article has a financial conflict of interest in the public's perception of the free market. The journalist is unionized, and thus benefits from the barriers to competition from other workers created by left-wing labor laws that restrict his employer's right to freely contract, and negotiate with workers outside of the union. Unionized journalists not disclosing that they're unionized —and thus that they have a financial conflict of interest when doing economics/politics stories— is a major problem as virtually the entire mainstream media has a unionized workforce, and most people —I presume until I informed you of this, you included— are oblivious to it. The researchers formerly worked for the government, and have expertise relevant to jobs in the regulatory sector of the government. They stand to directly benefit from any expansion in public funds allocated for regulatory agencies. Moving on, even assuming this article's claims are correct, classical economics already recognizes that there are edge cases where a free market without government intervention is not absolutely optimal, so this doesn't invalidate it. And even in these cases, the inefficiencies created by natural monopolies can be addressed without suppressing the free market, via government subsidizing the development of decentralized open-source protocols that are capable of entirely replacing centralized parties in many markets. The state, being publicly funded, is the only entity capable of cost-effectively funding non-profit initiatives like this that produce public goods. Finally, the common characterization of a free market "anarchy" is nothing more than propaganda to vilify a free society. Laws, enforced by the state, that respect and protect the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions is the opposite of anarchy. It is a peaceful well-ordered society. The government, when misused, becomes an instrument of predation, as Frédéric Bastiat explained some over 170 years ago: https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state "Man rejects Pain and Suffering. And yet he is condemned by nature to the Suffering privation brings if he does not embark upon the Pain of Work. All he has, therefore, is a choice between these two evils. How can he avoid both? Up to now, he has only found and will only ever find one means, that is, to enjoy the work of others, to act in such a way that Pain and Satisfaction do not accrue to each person in accordance with natural proportions, but that all pain accrues to some and all satisfaction to the others. From this we get slavery or even spoliation, in whatever form it takes: wars, imposture, violence, restrictions, fraud, etc., all monstrous forms of abuse but in line with the thought that has given rise to them. We should hate and combat oppressors but we cannot say that they are absurd. Slavery is receding, thank Heaven, and on the other hand, our aptitude for defending our property means that direct and crude Spoliation is not easy to do. However, one thing has remained. It is this unfortunate primitive tendency within all men to divide into two our complex human lot, shifting Pain onto others and keeping Satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be seen in what new form this sorry tendency will manifest itself. Oppressors no longer act directly on the oppressed using their own forces. No, our conscience has become too scrupulous for that. There are still tyrants and victims certainly, but between them has placed itself the intermediary that is the State, that is to say, the law itself. What is more calculated to silence our scruples and, perhaps more appealing, to overcome our resistance? For this reason, we all make calls upon the State on one ground or pretext or another. We tell it “I do not consider that there is a satisfactory relation between the goods I enjoy and my work. I would like to take a little from the property of others to establish the balance I desire. But this is dangerous. Can you not make my task easier? Could you not provide me with a good position? Or else hinder the production of my competitors? Or else make me an interest free loan of the capital you have taken from its owners? Or raise my children at public expense? Or award me subsidies by way of subornation? Or ensure my well-being when I reach the age of fifty? By these means I will achieve my aim with a perfectly clear conscience, since the law itself will have acted on my behalf and I will achieve all the advantages of spoliation without ever having incurred either its risks or opprobrium!"

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
So? We are agreeing? Sounds like you understand and agree that markets need some regulation ('edge case' being the debated gray area). And you are ok with Governments stepping in to prop up competition to Monopolies. Guess that is a different way of doing it. Instead of breaking up monopolies to foster competition, seems you are arguing that it is better to allow monopolies to exist (to be free to do what they want), but to help keep a free market the government can step in and support their competitors until they can compete? Not sure how well that would work in practice. I think when the US had had the stomach to break up monopolies it has worked out better for the free market, because it keeps competition. I don't think AT&T and Standard Oil would have been taken down by more efficient rivals. That is the entire problem with monopolies, they don't have to be efficient. Also, whatever your opinion about modern Unions. The Free Market created Unions. If workers could actually compete for fair wages, their wouldn't be the need for unions. Workers were living in squalor in factory towns as slaves. Unions arose to fight for safer conditions, less child labor, and pay. When a few humans come together and form a company it is ok? But humans come together to form a union it is bad? What if a group of people came together to call themselves a 'consulting firm', and hired out their labor? Would that be more appetizing? So have labor firms, that are companies, that could negotiate working rates and supply labor? Would that side step calling it a 'union' even if it could do all the same things. I really don't get the backlash to unions. Almost all of the 'freedom's people take for granted today were from unions fighting for them. Weekends? 40 hour weeks? Vacation? Do you think the free market would have provided those? The free market treats humans as cattle.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >>And you are ok with Governments stepping in to prop up competition to Monopolies. Guess that is a different way of doing it. Instead of breaking up monopolies to foster competition, seems you are arguing that it is better to allow monopolies to exist (to be free to do what they want), but to help keep a free market the government can step in and support their competitors until they can compete? Not sure how well that would work in practice. I think when the US had had the stomach to break up monopolies it has worked out better for the free market, because it keeps competition. I don't think AT&T and Standard Oil would have been taken down by more efficient rivals. That is the entire problem with monopolies, they don't have to be efficient. Yes, I want the government to prop up competition to monopolistic entities, and I want that competition to become the new monopolist. The difference would be that that government-propped-up competition would be an open standard or a decentralized protocol —think TCP/IP, or a public blockchain— that doesn't require active management by the state. Once it has become the market standard, it is self-sustaining, and more efficient than any private company would be in that role, since it doesn't have a proprietor that would abuse its monopolistic position to extract economic rent. >>The Free Market created Unions. If workers could actually compete for fair wages, their wouldn't be the need for unions. Absolute nonsense. The "free market" doesn't create laws that make it illegal for an employer to refuse to employ unionized or striking workers. Greedy humans, who have no respect for the free market, do. And yes, people can convince themselves that they're being treated unfairly, and that they are entitled to use the state's apparatus of violence to restrict their fellow man's freedom to contract, for reasons of greed. Just because they're workers, doesn't mean their grievances are automatically legitimate. >>Almost all of the 'freedom's people take for granted today were from unions fighting for them. Weekends? 40 hour weeks? Vacation? Do you think the free market would have provided those? The free market treats humans as cattle. Unions destroyed or severely handicapped nearly every industry they took control of. The mandated benefits they encouraged to be imposed are immoral, in restricting the freedom of contract. As for improving work conditions and wages, that was already happening —and at an even faster pace— before industry was captured by unions. Detroit had the highest capita GDP in the US in 1950, and that prosperity emerged over the course over several decades where unions were a non-factor in the auto industry. 50 years after the UAW took over the US auto industry, and Detroit was a ghost town. Anecdotal, yes, but entirely typical.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

So? We are agreeing? Sounds like you understand and agree that markets need some regulation ('edge case' being the debated gray area). And you are ok with Governments stepping in to prop up competition to Monopolies. Guess that is a different way of doing it. Instead of breaking up monopolies to foster competition, seems you are arguing that it is better to allow monopolies to exist (to be free to do what they want), but to help keep a free market the government can step in and support their competitors until they can compete? Not sure how well that would work in practice. I think when the US had had the stomach to break up monopolies it has worked out better for the free market, because it keeps competition. I don't think AT&T and Standard Oil would have been taken down by more efficient rivals. That is the entire problem with monopolies, they don't have to be efficient. Also, whatever your opinion about modern Unions. The Free Market created Unions. If workers could actually compete for fair wages, their wouldn't be the need for unions. Workers were living in squalor in factory towns as slaves. Unions arose to fight for safer conditions, less child labor, and pay. When a few humans come together and form a company it is ok? But humans come together to form a union it is bad? What if a group of people came together to call themselves a 'consulting firm', and hired out their labor? Would that be more appetizing? So have labor firms, that are companies, that could negotiate working rates and supply labor? Would that side step calling it a 'union' even if it could do all the same things. I really don't get the backlash to unions. Almost all of the 'freedom's people take for granted today were from unions fighting for them. Weekends? 40 hour weeks? Vacation? Do you think the free market would have provided those? The free market treats humans as cattle.

ETH_start 3y ago
>>And you are ok with Governments stepping in to prop up competition to Monopolies. Guess that is a different way of doing it. Instead of breaking up monopolies to foster competition, seems you are arguing that it is better to allow monopolies to exist (to be free to do what they want), but to help keep a free market the government can step in and support their competitors until they can compete? Not sure how well that would work in practice. I think when the US had had the stomach to break up monopolies it has worked out better for the free market, because it keeps competition. I don't think AT&T and Standard Oil would have been taken down by more efficient rivals. That is the entire problem with monopolies, they don't have to be efficient. Yes, I want the government to prop up competition to monopolistic entities, and I want that competition to become the new monopolist. The difference would be that that government-propped-up competition would be an open standard or a decentralized protocol —think TCP/IP, or a public blockchain— that doesn't require active management by the state. Once it has become the market standard, it is self-sustaining, and more efficient than any private company would be in that role, since it doesn't have a proprietor that would abuse its monopolistic position to extract economic rent. >>The Free Market created Unions. If workers could actually compete for fair wages, their wouldn't be the need for unions. Absolute nonsense. The "free market" doesn't create laws that make it illegal for an employer to refuse to employ unionized or striking workers. Greedy humans, who have no respect for the free market, do. And yes, people can convince themselves that they're being treated unfairly, and that they are entitled to use the state's apparatus of violence to restrict their fellow man's freedom to contract, for reasons of greed. Just because they're workers, doesn't mean their grievances are automatically legitimate. >>Almost all of the 'freedom's people take for granted today were from unions fighting for them. Weekends? 40 hour weeks? Vacation? Do you think the free market would have provided those? The free market treats humans as cattle. Unions destroyed or severely handicapped nearly every industry they took control of. The mandated benefits they encouraged to be imposed are immoral, in restricting the freedom of contract. As for improving work conditions and wages, that was already happening —and at an even faster pace— before industry was captured by unions. Detroit had the highest capita GDP in the US in 1950, and that prosperity emerged over the course over several decades where unions were a non-factor in the auto industry. 50 years after the UAW took over the US auto industry, and Detroit was a ghost town. Anecdotal, yes, but entirely typical.