5 ms·

“Interfere to preserve free markets” is odd. The entire issue in the USA is regulatory capture and bribery of the government. The government has such tremendous

“Interfere to preserve free markets” is odd. The entire issue in the USA is regulatory capture and bribery of the government. The government has such tremendous lucre from taxing and such authoritarian power that every entity that can exploit it will exploit it. The government’s money and power is the one ring. The idea that the government should interfere is the entire problem. Just things like preventing insurance, a financial product, from being sold across the nation or around the world gives insurers undue power. Don’t get me wrong, in this case, breach of contract is a legal issue and the insurance company should be prosecuted, but Milton Friedman was off on this one by a mile. A government that has been purchased by banks, insurance companies, drug companies, and defense companies cannot act in the market fairly and therefore should not act at all.

CamperBob2 2y ago
It's not a free market if you're forced to participate in it. Which we all are, by virtue of being alive.
- BirAdam 2y ago
  No one chooses to be alive, but to be alive is to struggle to survive. Were it not a market, it would be compulsion. If it were neither of those it’d be hunting and gathering. There is no free lunch. We have and we live by effort.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    (Shrug) The whole idea behind health care -- and civilization in general -- is to ameliorate that struggle. "Insurance" is simply the wrong model when dealing with claims we will all eventually have to file.
Apocryphon 2y ago
So what can the average citizen do about it? Start funding Consumer Reports and other watchdogs until they have literal armies of lawyers and mercenaries? Stage acts of consumer-led industrial sabotage until these corporations are driven out of business until presumably better actors rise up in the market? To go back to my original post, neither business reputation nor customer boycotts would seem to have any effect. So if you were to deny the government the ability to regulate, then all you’re left with is vigilantism.
BlueTemplar 2y ago
The state, in liberal democracies, with its "ultimate power", is not really supposed to be a single entity like the One Ring, but one with powers separated into three branches (like the 3 Elven Rings ??). So, if they were all purchased, how did it happen ?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
taurath 2y ago
> “Interfere to preserve free markets” is odd. The entire issue in the USA is regulatory capture and bribery of the government. Amazon and landlords exert more power over the day to day life of Americans. The government exists at the edges, or hold a monopoly on violence so that Amazon doesn't have to hire mercenaries. Companies end up owning markets when there's no regulation. Look at the Bell System. Look at Amazon if you want to sell products. Look at every single uneconomic locally owned store or farm. The natural effect of free market capitalism is monopolies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
klabb3 2y ago
> A government that has been purchased by banks, insurance companies, drug companies, and defense companies cannot act in the market fairly and therefore should not act at all. Yeah but this is a problem in any system except anarcho-capitalism, which Milton Friedman did not believe in like most functioning adults. The point is precisely that Friedman is such a small-government proponent, much more in fact than the neocons who touted his rhetoric, and despite that he still didn’t think you could get a stable system without government intervention solely to make the markets freer. AFAIK he’s spent a great deal of time on market failures, which he knew were very real. A real world example would be the EU which in many respects is substantially more free market in practice than the US corporatocracy. Despite all the shit it gets (some well-deserved), they do actually enforce their rules predictably, and companies just align and move on with their day. Of course, it depends on how you define freedom, but the point with a free market is competition – that everyone can play, higher connectivity and strong signaling mechanisms, price transparency you get outrageous efficiency. In many EU markets, you have a ridiculous amount of consumer choice and real competition. For instance telecom used to be quite garbage and now it’s light years ahead of the us, no matter if you go with low cost or premium offerings.

CamperBob2 2y ago

It's not a free market if you're forced to participate in it. Which we all are, by virtue of being alive.

BirAdam 2y ago
No one chooses to be alive, but to be alive is to struggle to survive. Were it not a market, it would be compulsion. If it were neither of those it’d be hunting and gathering. There is no free lunch. We have and we live by effort.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  (Shrug) The whole idea behind health care -- and civilization in general -- is to ameliorate that struggle. "Insurance" is simply the wrong model when dealing with claims we will all eventually have to file.

Apocryphon 2y ago

So what can the average citizen do about it? Start funding Consumer Reports and other watchdogs until they have literal armies of lawyers and mercenaries? Stage acts of consumer-led industrial sabotage until these corporations are driven out of business until presumably better actors rise up in the market? To go back to my original post, neither business reputation nor customer boycotts would seem to have any effect. So if you were to deny the government the ability to regulate, then all you’re left with is vigilantism.

BlueTemplar 2y ago

The state, in liberal democracies, with its "ultimate power", is not really supposed to be a single entity like the One Ring, but one with powers separated into three branches (like the 3 Elven Rings ??). So, if they were all purchased, how did it happen ?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

taurath 2y ago

> “Interfere to preserve free markets” is odd. The entire issue in the USA is regulatory capture and bribery of the government. Amazon and landlords exert more power over the day to day life of Americans. The government exists at the edges, or hold a monopoly on violence so that Amazon doesn't have to hire mercenaries. Companies end up owning markets when there's no regulation. Look at the Bell System. Look at Amazon if you want to sell products. Look at every single uneconomic locally owned store or farm. The natural effect of free market capitalism is monopolies.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

klabb3 2y ago

> A government that has been purchased by banks, insurance companies, drug companies, and defense companies cannot act in the market fairly and therefore should not act at all. Yeah but this is a problem in any system except anarcho-capitalism, which Milton Friedman did not believe in like most functioning adults. The point is precisely that Friedman is such a small-government proponent, much more in fact than the neocons who touted his rhetoric, and despite that he still didn’t think you could get a stable system without government intervention solely to make the markets freer. AFAIK he’s spent a great deal of time on market failures, which he knew were very real. A real world example would be the EU which in many respects is substantially more free market in practice than the US corporatocracy. Despite all the shit it gets (some well-deserved), they do actually enforce their rules predictably, and companies just align and move on with their day. Of course, it depends on how you define freedom, but the point with a free market is competition – that everyone can play, higher connectivity and strong signaling mechanisms, price transparency you get outrageous efficiency. In many EU markets, you have a ridiculous amount of consumer choice and real competition. For instance telecom used to be quite garbage and now it’s light years ahead of the us, no matter if you go with low cost or premium offerings.