3 ms·

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

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.

ETH_start 3y ago
>If humans want to get paid, then they are greedy? But if a corporation is greedy it is good? Why the dichotomy? Both are greedy, and people in both sectors will happily convince the population to institute anti-free-market laws that give themselves a monopoly if we let them. That's what we let the unions do, when we passed laws making it illegal for employers refuse to employ unionized workers, or to negotiate with anyone outside of one once one emerges in their workforce and demands collective bargaining. >I meant the free market created unions, by forcing humans to group together for self preservation. Wages were rising at a rapid rate in the late 1800s, before unionization rates became significant, so no, the evidence clearly debunks your claim that the free market was harming workers. Unions were formed out of greed. >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. Anecdotally, I always hear the exact opposite from people who've experienced working in both environments. >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? Government does not have a right to use the threat of violence to compel people who are not defrauding or assaulting anyone to act a certain way, so no I would absolutely not be okay with it. As I keep saying, I totally oppose regulations that violate the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions. Offering a game system using a particular protocol is a mutually voluntary interaction and there can be no justification for prohibiting it. I would support the government funding an open game system standard that various manufacturers would then choose to voluntarily adopt because of the technical superiority of that standard, or even purchases by the government from manufacturers adhering to it.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Got it. I miss-read your thoughts on open standards. So don't require corps to use open standards. But have government develop their own open standards and releasing it. Still think it is a tall order to have wide adoptions of standards without a little bit of a 'stick'. High Definitions TV's wouldn't exist if the government hadn't mandated the change to that standard. A lot of companies resisted it. Except for a few utopian cases like TCP/IP, I'd be hard pressed to think of any 'standard' that grew on its own without some enforcement.

ETH_start 3y ago

>If humans want to get paid, then they are greedy? But if a corporation is greedy it is good? Why the dichotomy? Both are greedy, and people in both sectors will happily convince the population to institute anti-free-market laws that give themselves a monopoly if we let them. That's what we let the unions do, when we passed laws making it illegal for employers refuse to employ unionized workers, or to negotiate with anyone outside of one once one emerges in their workforce and demands collective bargaining. >I meant the free market created unions, by forcing humans to group together for self preservation. Wages were rising at a rapid rate in the late 1800s, before unionization rates became significant, so no, the evidence clearly debunks your claim that the free market was harming workers. Unions were formed out of greed. >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. Anecdotally, I always hear the exact opposite from people who've experienced working in both environments. >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? Government does not have a right to use the threat of violence to compel people who are not defrauding or assaulting anyone to act a certain way, so no I would absolutely not be okay with it. As I keep saying, I totally oppose regulations that violate the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions. Offering a game system using a particular protocol is a mutually voluntary interaction and there can be no justification for prohibiting it. I would support the government funding an open game system standard that various manufacturers would then choose to voluntarily adopt because of the technical superiority of that standard, or even purchases by the government from manufacturers adhering to it.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Got it. I miss-read your thoughts on open standards. So don't require corps to use open standards. But have government develop their own open standards and releasing it. Still think it is a tall order to have wide adoptions of standards without a little bit of a 'stick'. High Definitions TV's wouldn't exist if the government hadn't mandated the change to that standard. A lot of companies resisted it. Except for a few utopian cases like TCP/IP, I'd be hard pressed to think of any 'standard' that grew on its own without some enforcement.