4 ms·

> If you believe in free market fundamentalism, why regulate anything? Just label things. I'll answer like you're not sarcastic. In the free market, things wo

by xzjis 3y ago

> If you believe in free market fundamentalism, why regulate anything? Just label things. I'll answer like you're not sarcastic. In the free market, things won't be labeled. Why? "Just don't buy the products without labels!". What if 100% of the available products isn't labelled, because you have no one in position of power (those who sell those products or houses) that benefits from it. You have to buy homes anyway, it's not something you can skip. Also, realistically, no actor in the free market has 100% of the knowledge in existence at any moment. Some (and probably most TBH) people will not know that asbestos is carcinogen. Now, I believe you were sarcastic, because I can't think you imagined that there are no power dynamics at play.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
I'm not sarcastic, why would I? I really don't understand how you can be for free market fundamentalism and for regulation of asbestos at the same time. From watching the US from the outside and from several visits, it looks like a huge amount of people in the US are free market fundamentalists. People did label me socialist for suggesting market regulation. You're right. I haven't thought that one through. Consumers could band together and pay labs for lists of products, or subscribe to a labeling service. Or if there is a market, companies will label their products for a segment. (If it isn't clear, I'm no free market fundementalist)
- lobsterthief 3y ago
  > From watching the US from the outside and from several visits, it looks like a huge amount of people in the US are free market fundamentalists. People did label me socialist for suggesting market regulation. Honestly there’s a very loud vocal minority here on things like this. Most people in the US are not free market fundamentalists. There are still things sold in the US that are harmful for you. Look at cigarettes. Smoking in the US is at an all-time low; part of that is e-cigarettes, but a large part is the constant education and reminders here that it’s bad for you. If it were up to the free market, as it used to be, cigarette manufacturers would not label their products at all. That’s what they used to do, and far more people smoked back then—sans forced education and labeling.
  - isleyaardvark 3y ago
    And the so-called free market fundamentalists rarely follow free market principles.
- specialist 3y ago
  Yes and: Open markets require rules. And some referees. Fair rules and impartial referees are anathema to the plantation class. They prefer incumbency protection enforced by the government at the expense of everyone else. Regulation is a scary word for rules. Socialism is a scary word for collective action. "Free markets" is doublespeak for might makes right; with the "freedom" to act without consequences.
  - veson 3y ago
    Hey. I'm sorry for bothering you in this thread. I found your old comment about your business processes built around literate programming and I can't reply there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35988792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35988792 Is this approach documented anywhere? Honestly, this would be a cool blog post. I'd love to know more. I use org-mode for literate programming, but jupiter would do as well I guess. So, my question is more about the business side of it.
- xzjis 3y ago
  People in favor of the most free market possible will always blame individuals for making bad choices. You're in a bad health, because you're overweight? It's your fault. But I don't believe in that. I believe it's structures fault. I believe that there are already people who are more powerful than others, because they're shareholders, they already have money or their parents do, they own physical properties such as lands or houses, etc. And those people in power, if you make the market even more free, they will just increase the power they have over others. Some other will randomly (because they're lucky) also aquire wealth sometimes, and become more powerful, but it's highly unlikely according to many scientific studies. And I didn't even talk about other kind of things that can lead to more inequalities, such as the skin color, your gender, whether you're trans or not, etc. It has been shown (in the US) that even well born black people are disavantaged at school compared to white people. So being rich alone isn't enough. You just have to check the top 10 of richest people in the world, and see how similar they are: cis, white, men. So that's where I believe they're wrong: the "free market" isn't free (or as they say meritocratic) if you don't first do a big reset, and make everyone equal first. Which can't happen realistically.

by xzjis 3y ago

KingOfCoders 3y ago

I'm not sarcastic, why would I? I really don't understand how you can be for free market fundamentalism and for regulation of asbestos at the same time. From watching the US from the outside and from several visits, it looks like a huge amount of people in the US are free market fundamentalists. People did label me socialist for suggesting market regulation. You're right. I haven't thought that one through. Consumers could band together and pay labs for lists of products, or subscribe to a labeling service. Or if there is a market, companies will label their products for a segment. (If it isn't clear, I'm no free market fundementalist)

lobsterthief 3y ago
> From watching the US from the outside and from several visits, it looks like a huge amount of people in the US are free market fundamentalists. People did label me socialist for suggesting market regulation. Honestly there’s a very loud vocal minority here on things like this. Most people in the US are not free market fundamentalists. There are still things sold in the US that are harmful for you. Look at cigarettes. Smoking in the US is at an all-time low; part of that is e-cigarettes, but a large part is the constant education and reminders here that it’s bad for you. If it were up to the free market, as it used to be, cigarette manufacturers would not label their products at all. That’s what they used to do, and far more people smoked back then—sans forced education and labeling.
- isleyaardvark 3y ago
  And the so-called free market fundamentalists rarely follow free market principles.
specialist 3y ago
Yes and: Open markets require rules. And some referees. Fair rules and impartial referees are anathema to the plantation class. They prefer incumbency protection enforced by the government at the expense of everyone else. Regulation is a scary word for rules. Socialism is a scary word for collective action. "Free markets" is doublespeak for might makes right; with the "freedom" to act without consequences.
- veson 3y ago
  Hey. I'm sorry for bothering you in this thread. I found your old comment about your business processes built around literate programming and I can't reply there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35988792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35988792 Is this approach documented anywhere? Honestly, this would be a cool blog post. I'd love to know more. I use org-mode for literate programming, but jupiter would do as well I guess. So, my question is more about the business side of it.
xzjis 3y ago
People in favor of the most free market possible will always blame individuals for making bad choices. You're in a bad health, because you're overweight? It's your fault. But I don't believe in that. I believe it's structures fault. I believe that there are already people who are more powerful than others, because they're shareholders, they already have money or their parents do, they own physical properties such as lands or houses, etc. And those people in power, if you make the market even more free, they will just increase the power they have over others. Some other will randomly (because they're lucky) also aquire wealth sometimes, and become more powerful, but it's highly unlikely according to many scientific studies. And I didn't even talk about other kind of things that can lead to more inequalities, such as the skin color, your gender, whether you're trans or not, etc. It has been shown (in the US) that even well born black people are disavantaged at school compared to white people. So being rich alone isn't enough. You just have to check the top 10 of richest people in the world, and see how similar they are: cis, white, men. So that's where I believe they're wrong: the "free market" isn't free (or as they say meritocratic) if you don't first do a big reset, and make everyone equal first. Which can't happen realistically.