"Freedom" thread or something

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: And to me you seem like the person slamming his foot on the gas as the car is headed for a cliff. Your belief that we are headed for a cliff is based on an Excel spreadsheet error. So stop tearing pieces out of the car's engine.

Aside from the obvious strawman, I'm not so sure you even read that article before you linked it.

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: And to me you seem like the person slamming his foot on the gas as the car is headed for a cliff. Your belief that we are headed for a cliff is based on an Excel spreadsheet error.So stop tearing pieces out of the car's engine. Aside from the obvious strawman, I'm not so sure you even read that article before you linked it. Um... did YOU read it? Here's the gist - 2 Harvard professors wrote a paper about how nations should keep their debt under a certain point or their economy will have problems.    Paul Ryan and the libertarian budget hawk heroes use this paper to push their agenda. Then along comes a graduate student who tries to reproduce their results.   He just can't seem to do it, and finally asks them to share their work.   When said graduate student gets the spreadsheet they used, he finds they left out some data (perhaps on purpose?) and that they also had an excel formula error. So the Paul Ryan bunch have been basing their horror stories on an excel spreadsheet error.

Gerinski wrote: What Rogerthat mentioned is very relevant: the fact is that there is no 'fair competition'. It's easy for the very rich to abuse the poorer by means of money (let alone their power for bribing, which seems to be one of the Libertarian concerns but it does not provide any clear solution to).

rogerthat wrote: An important point here is that in classical/neo classical economics, equilibrium was envisaged in conditions of perfect competition in a free market.   Unfortunately, like lots of other things to be found in economic textbooks, perfect competition only exists in theory.  It is virtually impossible to ensure conditions of perfect competition will sustain in perpetuity.   Hence in practice many of the advantages of free markets will probably not accrue and only push the state closer to a robber baron set up.  If businessmen really believe so fervently in free markets, they ought not to ever form cartels or associations to lobby their case and they ought to voluntarily desist from monopolistic practices.  But businessmen only believe in one thing in reality and that is profit.  And profit motive does not by itself lead to equilibrium.  Or it might in the extremely distant future. In other words, the long run.  And in the long run, we are all dead anyway.   What is certainly desirable, though, is to as far as possible limit restrictions on business to those that go to secure the health and safety of consumers and protect the environment from substantial damage.  In India we have duty tinkering to push car makers to make more diesel cars or more 'small cars' (which is broad enough to include compact UVs and not just mini cars).   That kind of legislation is messy and does not provide a stable environment for business and should be avoided.

What is "perfect" competition?  Competition is not something that can be perfected; it's simply a natural part of economics.  Competition never stops, and it's an error to think of it as perfect or imperfect because it is not a perfectable system, it is fluid and unending and dynamic.

Robber barons can only dominate markets when they gain monopolies, which are well-nigh impossible to obtain in a free market.  One company may control the supply for a certain good or service at any one time but competition does not stop for them and if they control the market it is because they have lower prices, or are offering better service - it is a natural aspect of economics for other companies to adjust their practices when this happens and soon the dominant business is not as dominant as it used to be.  The reason monopolies occur is that government helps businesses get them. 

Here is an article that explains this.

Nobody is saying that businesses care about free markets.  They don't.  They want to make money.  This is why you see very few libertarian people in big business; they don't want free markets, they want the government to pass laws and make regulations that make it easy for them to dominate their market and crush small business competition.

dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: And to me you seem like the person slamming his foot on the gas as the car is headed for a cliff. Your belief that we are headed for a cliff is based on an Excel spreadsheet error.So stop tearing pieces out of the car's engine. Aside from the obvious strawman, I'm not so sure you even read that article before you linked it. Um... did YOU read it? Here's the gist - 2 Harvard professors wrote a paper about how nations should keep their debt under a certain point or their economy will have problems.    Paul Ryan and the libertarian budget hawk heroes use this paper to push their agenda. Then along comes a graduate student who tries to reproduce their results.   He just can't seem to do it, and finally asks them to share their work.   When said graduate student gets the spreadsheet they used, he finds they left out some data (perhaps on purpose?) and that they also had an excel formula error. So the Paul Ryan bunch have been basing their horror stories on an excel spreadsheet error.

Here's the gist: I don't base anything on that paper which makes sense since it appears to not even have been a public paper before that error was found. Aside from eliminating a magical result at 0.9 Debt/GDP, which should have been looked at with skepticism a priori, it does not significantly change the conclusions of the paper.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: That's debatable.  HOWEVER...what would happen in a government-less scenario if there was already a monopoly?  In other words, if we had a bunch of monopolies, and suddenly there was a void of governmental authority, what do you suppose would happen? I said "very few," not "none." I also tend to doubt how libertarian the Koch Brothers really are, as they helped to raise funds for Mitt Romney in 2012.

I know they did.  And they say a lot of the same things you do when it comes to politics.  Which is why I think the free market idea is crap.  They want there to be a free market so they won't have anything controlling them any more - so they can take over.  The last power holding them (and others like them) back will be gone.

It's also interesting to note, when looking at the Koch brothers, how many economic departments of colleges and universities they've bought.  So all these people who think they're so smart talking about the free market are repeating propaganda, not free thinking.

But go ahead.  Keep tearing out the pieces of the car's engine as we hurtle down the road at 75mph.  Keep giving the Kochs what they want.

I keep wondering why people keep coming in here trying to tell those of us that promote individualism and deride groupthink that the Koch Brothers are some sort of leaders that we all blindly follow while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are doing so from a position of shilling for the status quo and any number of mainstream talking heads.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: What is "perfect" competition?  Competition is not something that can be perfected; it's simply a natural part of economics.  Competition never stops, and it's an error to think of it as perfect or imperfect because it is not a perfectable system, it is fluid and unending and dynamic.

rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: What is "perfect" competition?  Competition is not something that can be perfected; it's simply a natural part of economics.  Competition never stops, and it's an error to think of it as perfect or imperfect because it is not a perfectable system, it is fluid and unending and dynamic. Er, ok, that is what I questioned anyway.  There is no such thing as perfect competition and yet many classical/neo classical theories are based on the twin assumptions of free markets and perfect competition.  Which also implies that equilibrium can never be attained in free markets.

But the lack of "perfect" competition, and thus the lack of perfect equilibrium, isn't really an argument against the free market.  Of course you never attain equilibrium.  Companies rise and fall, they gain advantages over competitors and then new companies rise up to challenge them; libertarians don't pretend that free markets will never have one business that dominates others in its area of interest.  What we claim is that dynamic competition, over time, prevents any business for obtaining a monopoly, because competition never ends.  You can't squelch competition.  It is an inherent part of free markets.  No matter how big a company gets, others continue to compete against it.  Economic theory that does not promote free markets assumes that a business is capable of eliminating it's competition.  That is not true.  That can really only happen in something like the jewel market, where you have to own the property that the jewels are on to sell them...so if you happen to be the guy who stumbles on the ruby mine no one can really compete with you.

Did you read the article I linked to?  It explains all of this very well, better than I can.

Rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Robber barons can only dominate markets when they gain monopolies, which are well-nigh impossible to obtain in a free market. What regulation exactly has allowed Microsoft and Google to monopolize software and search engines respectively?  Microsoft relied on tremendous first mover advantage (for their price point, that is) to establish near total ubiquity.   Tablets may have eaten into PC sales somewhat but replacing all corporate computers with some other software instead of MS is such a gargantuan task nobody would want to undertake it.   So I cannot really agree with your statement.  Any business that obtains an early advantage in an emerging sector can eventually attain near monopoly status.

Apple.  Linux.  Yahoo.  Bing.

Rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  One company may control the supply for a certain good or service at any one time but competition does not stop for them and if they control the market it is because they have lower prices, or are offering better service - it is a natural aspect of economics for other companies to adjust their practices when this happens and soon the dominant business is not as dominant as it used to be.  The reason monopolies occur is that government helps businesses get them.   I have to disagree.  Businesses that attain market leadership and strong cash position can certainly use it to browbeat their opponents through unfair means and have done so.   They can bully players in the supply chain to make contracts that favour them at the expense of competitors.   We have seen this even in the entertainment industry where production houses a good success record can command so much clout they can force distributors to sign agreements that take away most of the screens from competing film releases.   And again, entertainment industry is not one that is much regulated even in India, at least not in terms of business practices.

Do you have any sources for that?  I don't dispute that you're telling the truth, I just want to know the specifics of where/how/why this is happening, because I would like to continue discussion on this point but need to see articles and such on your example so I can examine it more closely.

Rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Nobody is saying that businesses care about free markets.  They don't.  They want to make money.  This is why you see very few libertarian people in big business; they don't want free markets, they want the government to pass laws and make regulations that make it easy for them to dominate their market and crush small business competition. Oh you or other libertarians on this thread may not have said it but those huge MNCs evangelize about the benefits of free markets to third world countries when they seek to get in.  Why, they even use it as a veiled threat: "without free markets, we fear it would not be so attractive to invest here".  The moment they get in, they simply buy up their competition with their cash chests and establish a total grip over the market.  And it is not govt regulations that help them buy up the competition; rather some countries do have regulations to make it difficult for a predator to take over a local business.  But they succeed in spite of this because they all have an army of lawyers and accountants to drill through the details.   Coke still retains India's most popular and enduring soft drink brand Thums up.  But they bought it over anyway long back rather than risk competition.   No local soft drink maker can hold a candle to Coke and Pepsi today and I am sure that is the case in lots of countries.    Whether what they are doing is as per libertarian principles is irrelevant to me.  This is just the practical experience of a de-regulated market.  De-regulation only works the way it is supposed to when you are starting from scratch (and even then, cue the MS example, it can still lead to monopolies and their problems anyway).  Otherwise, it serves to make the job of big business even easier as they can use their size and scale to nuke competition, kill small businesses and create only a few high paying jobs in place of several more modest ones.

A few questions:

How do the MNCs get in in the first place?

Are the lawyer and accountant armies a problem with free markets - or with the justice system?

Can you still get Thumbs up in India?  Do people want it?  What if the populace just prefers Coke and Pepsi?

Where Iive (in the US, Eureka, MO, 30 minutes outside of St Louis) I wouldn't say that small business has it all that great right now but businesses still manage to survive and thrive even though our town has many franchises and big businesses - little Nina's Produce is still up and running even though there's a Schnucks down the street, the local place Spooners Ice Cream is doing well while our Dairy Queen went out of business, loads of small restaurants coexist with McDonalds and Burger King.  I found 2 jobs in the food industry - low paying but I don't get treated like dirt or cheated and I didn't have to join a union.  Everything in my country points me to the fact that small business can coexist with big business and that both can thrive.

But I don't know what the situation in India is like - and I see the difference between big/small business relations in the US economy and then what might happen if huge US corporations busted into a poor country and started trying to get rid of their competition.  I'm not going to argue with you there because I'm no economist, and I don't understand all the details of a global economy and what happens when corporations from a rich country compete with small businesses from a poor country.  Teo has suggested in several places that libertarianism may not be the best system for countries with very different cultures and economic structures than the US, and I'm willing to consider that point.

Both you and Gerard, by the way, have made some very good points and very intelligent and well-thought out contributions to this thread, and I thank you for that.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - July 15 2013 at 21:05

There's nothing inherently unselfish about democracy or socialism or any governmental system. They're all just different forms of organization. If those in power are selfish, then the resulting governments will be too. Stop treating your view of organization as a fairy tale world where everything's magically perfect. 

Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   I also tend to doubt how libertarian the Koch Brothers really are, as they helped to raise funds for Mitt Romney in 2012.