4 ms·

> It's been this way for 70+ years now. The "free market economy," then as now, turns out to be its own worst enemy. You have it backwards. The problem that we

> It's been this way for 70+ years now. The "free market economy," then as now, turns out to be its own worst enemy. You have it backwards. The problem that we have today is a result of not letting the free market be free 70+ years ago. The article you link to says GM "forced" dealers into buying their cars during recessions despite having little chance of selling them. Bologna! They didn't force anything! The dealers had zero obligation to buy their cars. What should have happened is we should have let the free market destroy those dealers. Destroy the dealers that bought cars without being able to sell them. And you know what? You know what would have happened if all of GM's dealers went out of business after being "forced" to buy their cars. GM would die! Good! GM needed it's dealers to sell their cars. It's a balancing act that the free market easily could have handled but the dealers and legislators took the selfish way out. We would have had direct car sales decades ago if it wasn't for anti-free-market legislation. The moral of the story, let the free market be free and avoid the shit show that will always without fail happen as a result. (See: Uber)

Lagged2Death 12y ago
You have it backwards. The problem that we have today is a result of not letting the free market be free 70+ years ago. Well, okay, but absent a time machine, you can't fix that. Any solution that starts with "well you should have thought of that before" has already failed. Mistakes happen; a system that can't tolerate mistakes is a system designed to fail. And in this case, it was the actors within the market (the dealers) that decided to make the market less free. They did it out of their own perfectly rational self-interest, and damn the consequences. Something like that is always happening, will always be happening. The "free market" is always full of actors working to make it less free. Bologna! They didn't force anything! ... GM needed it's dealers to sell their cars. "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." The big auto makers were able to do this sort of cram-down because they apparently didn't value their dealers.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." No person faced an existential threat from that. Businesses on the other hand face existential threats all the time. Every time you don't buy something from a business you are, by you definition using "force" against them because they could go out of business without customers.
  - Lagged2Death 12y ago
    No person faced an existential threat from that. Corporations are people, my friend.
- randyrand 12y ago
  Well, okay, but absent a time machine, you can't fix that. Any solution that starts with "well you should have thought of that before" has already failed. Mistakes happen; a system that can't tolerate mistakes is a system designed to fail. Sounds like a great ad for more free-market solutions ;) "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." I'll concede that point, but the whole point of a free market is that you can't force anyone to do anything. If a deal isn't mutually beneficial then people don't agree to it. Simple as that. I use "force" everyday when I continue to not buy products from companies I don't like and help drive them towards change or extinction. Sure, some people have more leverage than others, that is always the case. But that doesn't matter. You're biggest mistake is thinking that it is bad when one party has a lot of say over another party (like McDonald's over their cashiers). It's not. That's called cutting out the middle man. If I can continue to do business without the little guys, or only need a few little guys anymore, I'm going to negotiate a less favorable deal with them or cut them out entirely. This is what drives progress. Eventually the big guy no longer needs the little guy, great! Cheaper products for everyone! As the big guy has more say, and it becomes worse to be a little guy, the little guys leave. A balance is reached. This is how free-markets operate. Creative destruction always hurts some people, but in the end we all prosper (when robots take all our jobs social assistance is necessary but the point stands) Do you think GM would have negotiated such a bad deal with the dealers if the tables weren't beginning to turn in GM's favor? Of course not!
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Creative destruction always hurts some people, but in the end we all prosper. Er, no. The first and second parts of this sentence contradict each other. The people that are hurt -- often fatally -- do not prosper.
  - Lagged2Death 12y ago
    ...the whole point of a free market is that you can't force anyone to do anything ... That's called cutting out the middle man. But not forcing out the middle man, no, never that. Sure, some people have more leverage than others, that is always the case. But that doesn't matter. Why would a rational adherent to free-market principles lift a finger to obtain the leverage in the first place, if it "doesn't matter?" Do you think GM would have negotiated such a bad deal with the dealers... Not sure what deal you're talking about. The dealership franchise laws were not a "deal" that was "negotiated." They were, ahem, something the dealers forced on the auto makers.

Lagged2Death 12y ago

You have it backwards. The problem that we have today is a result of not letting the free market be free 70+ years ago. Well, okay, but absent a time machine, you can't fix that. Any solution that starts with "well you should have thought of that before" has already failed. Mistakes happen; a system that can't tolerate mistakes is a system designed to fail. And in this case, it was the actors within the market (the dealers) that decided to make the market less free. They did it out of their own perfectly rational self-interest, and damn the consequences. Something like that is always happening, will always be happening. The "free market" is always full of actors working to make it less free. Bologna! They didn't force anything! ... GM needed it's dealers to sell their cars. "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." The big auto makers were able to do this sort of cram-down because they apparently didn't value their dealers.

seanflyon 12y ago
> "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." No person faced an existential threat from that. Businesses on the other hand face existential threats all the time. Every time you don't buy something from a business you are, by you definition using "force" against them because they could go out of business without customers.
- Lagged2Death 12y ago
  No person faced an existential threat from that. Corporations are people, my friend.
randyrand 12y ago
Well, okay, but absent a time machine, you can't fix that. Any solution that starts with "well you should have thought of that before" has already failed. Mistakes happen; a system that can't tolerate mistakes is a system designed to fail. Sounds like a great ad for more free-market solutions ;) "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." I'll concede that point, but the whole point of a free market is that you can't force anyone to do anything. If a deal isn't mutually beneficial then people don't agree to it. Simple as that. I use "force" everyday when I continue to not buy products from companies I don't like and help drive them towards change or extinction. Sure, some people have more leverage than others, that is always the case. But that doesn't matter. You're biggest mistake is thinking that it is bad when one party has a lot of say over another party (like McDonald's over their cashiers). It's not. That's called cutting out the middle man. If I can continue to do business without the little guys, or only need a few little guys anymore, I'm going to negotiate a less favorable deal with them or cut them out entirely. This is what drives progress. Eventually the big guy no longer needs the little guy, great! Cheaper products for everyone! As the big guy has more say, and it becomes worse to be a little guy, the little guys leave. A balance is reached. This is how free-markets operate. Creative destruction always hurts some people, but in the end we all prosper (when robots take all our jobs social assistance is necessary but the point stands) Do you think GM would have negotiated such a bad deal with the dealers if the tables weren't beginning to turn in GM's favor? Of course not!
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Creative destruction always hurts some people, but in the end we all prosper. Er, no. The first and second parts of this sentence contradict each other. The people that are hurt -- often fatally -- do not prosper.
- Lagged2Death 12y ago
  ...the whole point of a free market is that you can't force anyone to do anything ... That's called cutting out the middle man. But not forcing out the middle man, no, never that. Sure, some people have more leverage than others, that is always the case. But that doesn't matter. Why would a rational adherent to free-market principles lift a finger to obtain the leverage in the first place, if it "doesn't matter?" Do you think GM would have negotiated such a bad deal with the dealers... Not sure what deal you're talking about. The dealership franchise laws were not a "deal" that was "negotiated." They were, ahem, something the dealers forced on the auto makers.