3 ms·

>>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

>>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
If humans want to get paid, then they are greedy? But if a corporation is greedy it is good? Why the dichotomy? Why should someone agree to less pay, because of a belief in the free market? That sounds kind of religious. Warship the free market to such a degree to be willingly take a lower wage to keep the system working? How is that itself free? Why can't humans through "mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults" form a coalition (or company) to enter into a contract to supply labor to another company? It is not a 'free market' if it is only 'free' for some people and not others. I meant the free market created unions, by forcing humans to group together for self preservation. Remember, at that time corporations hired private armies (Pinkertons), to kill anyone that protested low wages or working conditions. The Government did not step in and create unions, people were being killed and the Government stepped in to protect them. I'm not arguing for socialism, I'm assuming you would call unions socialist, and there is a wide field of study that unfettered free markets lead to socialism. Mostly because the population becomes so poor the government has to step in to prop up the workers so they can eat, which is really supporting the corporations since the corporation then does not have to cover all the wage. Welfare programs are in essence, providing the 'difference', that the corporations should be paying. If 'Free Markets' worked, then corporations should actually be paying higher wages. (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-... (https://newpolity.com/blog/capitalism-produces-socialism https://newpolity.com/blog/capitalism-produces-socialism) But, it is complicated and has changed over time. Unions also grew, became bureaucratic, and corrupt. Generally they also became calcified and hindered progress. So there are examples of this I agree with, mostly when technology changes, and then union laws didn't keep up. ( I think Train Unions were biggest example I think, as train technology advanced, the rules about staffing didn't keep up and did cause huge inefficient overhead). Anecdotally, I have worked in Union plants, and Non-Union. I've seen union plant employees being very engaged and driving efficiency, and I've seen non-union (hence supposedly free and more incentivized by pay) beat down, insolent and checked out. My overall impression was that when humans are living in fear and can be fired for looking at the boss wrong, then they are not the most productive. This mentality only works for the most manual labor industries where humans are just muscle. Your views on monopolies are different. I can't imagine there are 'free market' activist that would agree that propping up competitors to monopolies is better than splitting up monopolies. That sounds like something, that if tried, would be called 'government interference'. But, it is interesting idea. Not sure this standards approach would work with all industries, especially those that require large capital investment. I guess you would be ok with something like the Government making a law to force MS Xbox and Sony PlayStation to have open protocols so games could be played across platforms? I think that sounds interesting, but also think all the 'free market' activists would come up with some reason why that is government interference. I am sympathetic with this idea. High Definition TV's were successful in large part because of government enforced standards, so that all companies equipment could interoperate. I also remember it was the 'free market' side that opposed those standards because they would 'be too expensive and bankrupt small business'. Just seems like these free market arguments just move around depending on what the current entrenched companies need to survive.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

If humans want to get paid, then they are greedy? But if a corporation is greedy it is good? Why the dichotomy? Why should someone agree to less pay, because of a belief in the free market? That sounds kind of religious. Warship the free market to such a degree to be willingly take a lower wage to keep the system working? How is that itself free? Why can't humans through "mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults" form a coalition (or company) to enter into a contract to supply labor to another company? It is not a 'free market' if it is only 'free' for some people and not others. I meant the free market created unions, by forcing humans to group together for self preservation. Remember, at that time corporations hired private armies (Pinkertons), to kill anyone that protested low wages or working conditions. The Government did not step in and create unions, people were being killed and the Government stepped in to protect them. I'm not arguing for socialism, I'm assuming you would call unions socialist, and there is a wide field of study that unfettered free markets lead to socialism. Mostly because the population becomes so poor the government has to step in to prop up the workers so they can eat, which is really supporting the corporations since the corporation then does not have to cover all the wage. Welfare programs are in essence, providing the 'difference', that the corporations should be paying. If 'Free Markets' worked, then corporations should actually be paying higher wages. (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-... (https://newpolity.com/blog/capitalism-produces-socialism https://newpolity.com/blog/capitalism-produces-socialism) But, it is complicated and has changed over time. Unions also grew, became bureaucratic, and corrupt. Generally they also became calcified and hindered progress. So there are examples of this I agree with, mostly when technology changes, and then union laws didn't keep up. ( I think Train Unions were biggest example I think, as train technology advanced, the rules about staffing didn't keep up and did cause huge inefficient overhead). Anecdotally, I have worked in Union plants, and Non-Union. I've seen union plant employees being very engaged and driving efficiency, and I've seen non-union (hence supposedly free and more incentivized by pay) beat down, insolent and checked out. My overall impression was that when humans are living in fear and can be fired for looking at the boss wrong, then they are not the most productive. This mentality only works for the most manual labor industries where humans are just muscle. Your views on monopolies are different. I can't imagine there are 'free market' activist that would agree that propping up competitors to monopolies is better than splitting up monopolies. That sounds like something, that if tried, would be called 'government interference'. But, it is interesting idea. Not sure this standards approach would work with all industries, especially those that require large capital investment. I guess you would be ok with something like the Government making a law to force MS Xbox and Sony PlayStation to have open protocols so games could be played across platforms? I think that sounds interesting, but also think all the 'free market' activists would come up with some reason why that is government interference. I am sympathetic with this idea. High Definition TV's were successful in large part because of government enforced standards, so that all companies equipment could interoperate. I also remember it was the 'free market' side that opposed those standards because they would 'be too expensive and bankrupt small business'. Just seems like these free market arguments just move around depending on what the current entrenched companies need to survive.