Planetarion Forums - "I support a free market" is the most meaningless platitute ever invented

Nodrog · 3 Mar 2004, 01:41

including the famous Welsh saying "Ikken yogi tnabari thon getiki!".

I dont think I've ever met anyone that claimed not to 'support a freemarket'. Every single person in the entire country "supports a free market but <insert worthless statist control here>".

Seriously guys, I dont know why you cant just be honest and say you hate the idea of free trade, I'd respect you a lot more

Nodrog · 3 Mar 2004, 01:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

Government-regulated markets ROCK DUDE!!

no mang, government regulations are bad, free trade is good as long as we have it in a restricted zone with no more than 14.56% state subsidies allowed on selected goods.

Deepflow · 3 Mar 2004, 02:01

i support nationalisation of ALL industries.

Nodrog · 3 Mar 2004, 02:03

Parcelforce failed to deliver a package to me on Monday whereas Royal Mail have managed to deliver all my letters ok, so I think a public post office is definitely called for guys.

Deepflow · 3 Mar 2004, 02:04

stop being silly you giner scotsman

midge5 · 3 Mar 2004, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

including the famous Welsh saying "Ikken yogi tnabari thon getiki!".

What the hell does that mean I can't remember ever hearing it?

JammyJim · 3 Mar 2004, 02:53

'gains from trade'

economics 101

free trade is 'da bomb'

apparently.

acropolis · 3 Mar 2004, 02:58

define free market. is murder okay, noting that if someone didn't want to be murdered they could hire security?

anyway herr bush has control over the meaningless platitude category, with his contraversial stances against "evil" and "bad"

JammyJim · 3 Mar 2004, 03:08

a free market doesnt not necessarily mean a freedom to do what you want....?

a free market is the ability to trade goods and services without any government intervention.

i.e. the trade is only governed by the 'natural laws' of economics with no outside influences such as protectionism etc

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 03:09

What's even funnier is the two democrats taht could win in are both for even more protectionism and pissing off the EU on the trade front.

acropolis · 3 Mar 2004, 03:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by JammyJim

a free market doesnt not necessarily mean a freedom to do what you want....?

a free market is the ability to trade goods and services without any government intervention.

i.e. the trade is only governed by the 'natural laws' of economics with no outside influences such as protectionism etc

where do you get your goods from though?

originally?

and what about environmental laws? and minimum wage? neither would technically be affecting your ability to trade, but a lot of the time free traders are more against those than, say, sales tax.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 03:46

The best thing about free trade is that nobody, anywhere, ever really wants everyone to have the same opportunities as they do.

Tactitus · 3 Mar 2004, 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The best thing about free trade is that nobody, anywhere, ever really wants everyone to have the same opportunities as they do.

In my experience, most people don't object to equal opportunity unless/until they start to believe it comes at their own expense. For example, if you have a zero-sum outlook then you might tend to regard more opportunities for others leading to fewer for you; whereas if you have a win-win outlook then you might regard more opportunities for others as actually increasing your own opportunities.

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 06:10

I know some books you should read but I'm not finished reading them yet.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 06:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

In my experience, most people don't object to equal opportunity unless/until they start to believe it comes at their own expense. For example, if you have a zero-sum outlook then you might tend to regard more opportunities for others leading to fewer for you; whereas if you have a win-win outlook then you might regard more opportunities for others as actually increasing your own opportunities.

Can you find me anyone who actually believes in equal opportunity for all people? Ireland was all "up the free market and equal opportunity!!!1111" when the celtic tiger was booming but now that the economy's not doing so well and it looks likely that the number of eastern Europeans, willing to work for less money in the same jobs as Irish people, will increase (EU accession mid-2004) everyone's like "hay i support freedom of movement but out country's our country so stay out foreigners and don't steal our jobs

"

PS Who's sunday talking to?

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 06:20

All of you.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 06:29

Okay. I know some books you should read as well. Namely books 18-22 of the rather less famous Curious Paul series.

18: Curious Paul goes to Canada
19: Curious Paul meets a polar bear
20: Curious Paul is sexually abused by a polar bear
21: Curious Paul attempts to sound superior on the internet.
22: Curious Paul does not succeed.

The Omnibus Collection, Curious Paul: A Failure in Life, is rather good as well.

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 06:51

Jonny is bitter and has never really paid much attention to the 18th century I guess.

Tactitus · 3 Mar 2004, 06:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Can you find me anyone who actually believes in equal opportunity for all people?

You mean besides myself? :/

Quote:

Ireland was all "up the free market and equal opportunity!!!1111" when the celtic tiger was booming but now that the economy's not doing so well and it looks likely that the number of eastern Europeans, willing to work for less money in the same jobs as Irish people, will increase (EU accession mid-2004) everyone's like "hay i support freedom of movement but out country's our country so stay out foreigners and don't steal our jobs "

We have lots of people coming to the US looking for jobs too. I don't have a problem with that as long as they're looking for work and not a handout. The reality is that cheaper labor is its own efficiency; so if you don't import the labor then you'll end up exporting the jobs. So I say, 'Welcome to America!'

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2004, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Seriously guys, I dont know why you cant just be honest and say you hate the idea of free trade, I'd respect you a lot more

Very few people "hate" free trade. You'd need to be kind of weird to care that much.

Although I'm not sure what you mean by "free trade" tbh. I'm against the sale of human beings (for instance) so I guess I'm an evil anti-free-trader. Or is that a worthless state control you can support for xyz philosophical reasons?

Stew · 3 Mar 2004, 10:38

Anything that stops markets from clearin is not

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Jonny is bitter and has never really paid much attention to the 18th century I guess.

Yes, because that's what the 18th century was based on. Free trade

PS I believe in it as well Tactitus, and I'd probably vote for it but in practice I'm too busy looking out for myself to really care what happens to a bunch of people I've never met and know nothing about.

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 17:53

Have we really became less enlightened since the 18th century?

Nodrog · 3 Mar 2004, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Although I'm not sure what you mean by "free trade" tbh. I'm against the sale of human beings (for instance) so I guess I'm an evil anti-free-trader. Or is that a worthless state control you can support for xyz philosophical reasons?

If people want to sell themselves, I'm not convinced theres that much of a problem. I suppose you could support a maximum duration on the contract though, but I wouldnt really call that anti free trade.

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 17:57

Adam Smith

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2004, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If people want to sell themselves, I'm not convinced theres that much of a problem. I suppose you could support a maximum duration on the contract though, but I wouldnt really call that anti free trade.

I was referring to chattel slavery, or the sale of children or whatever.

(as T&F said)

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

What about him?

Part of the Enlightenment.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Adam Smith

Does my signature actually appear as "I am a ****ing moron" to you? Seriously.

PS What on earth do you mean by we, or enlightened for that matter? I imagine certain members of the English aristocracy know less now than they did then, most people living in poverty-stricken nations know as much now as they did then, ie **** all, Ireland's probably better off, Europe isn't as strong but it's population are better off. I'm rather confused here I must admit.

Nodrog · 3 Mar 2004, 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I was referring to chattel slavery, or the sale of children or whatever.

(as T&F said)

You cant sell what you dont own, thats kind of implicit in the idea of trade.

Nodrog · 3 Mar 2004, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So you would regulate the market to make sure people didn't do that would you?

There isnt a market for human trade, I think youve confused yourself.

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 18:10

And, it's not my fault if you refuse to make yourself as enlightened as your fellow subjects were during the 18th century when they created the social sciences amongst other things.

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2004, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You cant sell what you dont own, thats kind of implicit in the idea of trade.

Ah, then we are in agreement. I am a total free-marketeer then (according to this definition).

I merely oppose the sale of human beings or land, since neither can be owned.

edit : or arguably ideas, but that's easy to undercut.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Ah, then we are in agreement. I am a total free-marketeer then (according to this definition).

I merely oppose the sale of human beings or land, since neither can be owned.

If you can't own land what exactly can you own? Is it possible to own the products of the land without owning the land?

Evergreen · 3 Mar 2004, 18:14

They discussed this better at least 250 years ago you know.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

They discussed this better at least 250 years ago you know.

Look seriously shut up I've been reading books on the Enlightenment, Smith and capitalism for years and I dare say I've forgotten more about it than you currently know. Either contribute or bugger off.

Stew · 3 Mar 2004, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Adam Smith

PBOH.

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2004, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If you can't own land what exactly can you own? Is it possible to own the products of the land without owning the land?

Ignoring the Lockean argument for a moment, there's an issue of reasonableness.

Under current land law, let's say I leave my factory open but unused for several years. Under current legal framework, it's still my factory, but I think it's reasonable to say that if squatters went in and used my tools (but didn't cause any damage) to make themselves stuff, I wouldn't reasonably "own" their products.

Locke points to laws that switch ownership of land if no-one uses it productively for x years, but this strikes me as an argument from utility, not ethics.

Intrepid00 · 3 Mar 2004, 18:31

Well, lets see here. The phone service in the US became unregulated a few years ago. Prices dropped a LOT because of stiff competition that opened up and the fact the goverment was no longer involved in the BS long stranded process of approval price changes. I bet my phone calls cost a lot less then yours over more distance.

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2004, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Well, lets see here. The phone service in the US became unregulated a few years ago. Prices dropped a LOT. I bet my phone calls cost a lot less then yours over more distance.

I don't think a practical demonstration is useful in a debate like this. Someone will mention how the train serve in the UK is even more rubbish after privatisation, you'll mention another deregulation success, they'll mention another failure, etc, etc. It doesn't really prove much.

Plus, the telecoms industry had undergone a lot of technological changes (I'd imagine, no expert) which realistically would have eroded costs anyway.

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2004, 18:34

See?

Intrepid00 · 3 Mar 2004, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yeah and then there was the spectacular success of energy deregulation in California.

Which worked well in PA. I enjoy lower power cost now. Power is a bad example. Its not like you can package power up into battieres and sell it in bulk like you can in phone minutes. In other words, California didn't create competition when they unregulated like PA did.

MrL_JaKiri · 3 Mar 2004, 18:39

In some areas, competition is meaningless.

JonnyBGood · 3 Mar 2004, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Ignoring the Lockean argument for a moment, there's an issue of reasonableness.

Under current land law, let's say I leave my factory open but unused for several years. Under current legal framework, it's still my factory, but I think it's reasonable to say that if squatters went in and used my tools (but didn't cause any damage) to make themselves stuff, I wouldn't reasonably "own" their products.

Locke points to laws that switch ownership of land if no-one uses it productively for x years, but this strikes me as an argument from utility, not ethics.

Seeing as utilitarianism is an ethical system it's not exactly fair to disregard it though. Most of the problems arise as you delve further into it though. Factories cost money to maintain obviously and it's fairly reasonable to expect someone to pay part of the upkeep if they wish to use the factory. The question then arises of percentages and what should be paid and to whom. If they have no money at that point in time could they bargain with a portion of their future profits? Clearly it needed both of you, or rather them and your property to produce these goods. Surely you should gain something out of that? What is "not using"? is there a definitive cut-off point that transcends all temporal and geographical boundaries?

Intrepid00 · 3 Mar 2004, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So what your saying is that that free market can be good but not in all circumstances.

Yes, but it usually is. The only time I wanna see requlation is when its impossiable to have competiotion or a market is showing signs of an not competiting. Like the phone market at one time could not compete because of technology. Technology changed and now it can.

Intrepid00 · 3 Mar 2004, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

In some areas, competition is meaningless.

Which is usually the result of the consumer being an idiot or its out of your markets hands to create competition. For example, women's underwear. Plenty of diffrent brands and companies but women pay for 1 pair underwear men get like a pack of 6.

Why, because women are willing to pay for it.

MrL_JaKiri · 3 Mar 2004, 18:59

You have to look at whether some parts of the industry are more profitable than others, yet the less profitable ones are still desired by the government to take place. The obvious comparison is with the British postal service, where the royal mail's monopoly on parcel deliveries was broken, meaning profits were down significantly, because they still had to subsidise the loss making letter deliverise, whereas other companies didn't have this problem, am i rite

MrL_JaKiri · 3 Mar 2004, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Which is usually the result of the consumer being an idiot or its out of your markets hands to create competition. For example, women's underwear. Plenty of diffrent brands and companies but women pay for 1 pair underwear men get like a pack of 6.

Why, because women are willing to pay for it.

I don't really see the problem with lack of competition in that example. Different products having different prices isn't exactly destructive to the free market.