The Free Market

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's our fault though. You could still get better product, but you rather have the cheap one. If there's a market for better products at a decent price it would be taken in a free market. You can't really force it anyways.

Most people can't afford the better product. The idea that we'd rather have a piece of hormone injected, genetically altered slab of beef is crazy. Most people don't know what's in their food. Those that do don't shop at Food Lion or Wal-Mart, they have to go specialty stores.

You're right though, you can't force it. This is why it won't happen. And when you say it's our fault, I assume you include those people that own these retailers that take advantage of people, by offering them cheaper goods that are bad for them.

Originally posted by Devil King
Most people can't afford the better product. The idea that we'd rather have a piece of hormone injected, genetically altered slab of beef is crazy. Most people don't know what's in their food. Those that do don't shop at Food Lion or Wal-Mart, they have to go specialty stores.

You're right though, you can't force it. This is why it won't happen. And when you say it's our fault, I assume you include those people that own these retailers that take advantage of people, by offering them cheaper goods that are bad for them.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's like the big box stores, like WM, Target, Costco, Sam's Club, etc?

This is where I disagree with the theory. Sure, in theory, it leads to better service through lower prices and competition, but what actually ends up happening is we settle for less because we pay less.

What needs to happen is a fair price for a better product and a respectable customer service. These days, it's a matter of the same shitty product sold in all those stores, each trying to out pricepoint the next. So, we all settle for less.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
[b]VIII. Potential Problems

I have discussed the government’s role in curbing monopolies, but large businesses and corporations would still become inevitable. We see this in a number of areas already, and it produces a large amount of standardization of product, and occasionally stifles diversity. As a result of such “chain store” mentality, the diversity and quality of some services may go down. For example, the food industry is dominated by large chain stores (mostly fast food). Few, if any, would argue that the highest quality comes from these chains. But their dominance in the market ensures their prevalence.

No one would argue for government controlled food services, but it is easy to see how this principle could be applied to more relevant fields. We have already seen such concerns in education if it were to be made into a free market service.

My rebuttal to it is that the presence of such chains does not completely wipe out niche markets. Individual, privately owned restaurants (or small businesses in any field) still exist. They are less numerous, surely, but not in danger of utter extinction. Second, the dominance of such chains is still related to consumer choice. If they provide a valued service (in this case food) at competitive prices, they are rewarded by public consumption. Higher quality food (or higher quality anything) is still the choice of many, and enough to keep the higher quality services alive. One need not refer to the tendency of the masses to invalidate a system that is still essentially as free as possible, so long as those tendencies do not eliminate the choices present to others (which they don’t). [/B]

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Not really what I was addressing. Lower pricess have equaled lower standards, which have equaled across the market lower customer expectaions. And the success of those lower standards (lower prices) has been emulated by the competitors.

So when Bardock doesn't include those people that take advantage of the consumer, it isn't really our fault. It's the only ecomonic option left to them.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not really what I was addressing. Lower pricess have equaled lower standards, which have equaled across the market lower customer expectaions. And the success of those lower standards (lower prices) has been emulated by the competitors.

So when Bardock doesn't include those people that take advantage of the consumer, it isn't really our fault. It's the only ecomonic option left to them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It isn't. They have other options. Why should I include the people providing the service. They do nothing wrong. They just provide what the people want.

All the while taking advantage of the fact that those people have no idea what they're buying.

Don't worry, you don't need to tell me it's not their fault those people have no clue what they're buying, I know that. The people are stupid, but it's not the fault of the people selling the poisoned goods or the cheaply made lawmowers.

Originally posted by Devil King
All the while taking advantage of the fact that those people have no idea what they're buying.

Don't worry, you don't need to tell me it's not their fault those people have no clue what they're buying, I know that. The people are stupid, but it's not the fault of the people selling the poisoned goods or the cheaply made lawmowers.

Not really. And those people could easily find out what they are buying. And what they are buying mostly not harmful.

If we are talking about poisoned goods, that's a different matter. You got any statistics how many people died due to poisoned goods sold by WalMart (for example)? Is it 2? Maybe 3?

Originally posted by Devil King
Not really what I was addressing. Lower pricess have equaled lower standards, which have equaled across the market lower customer expectaions. And the success of those lower standards (lower prices) has been emulated by the competitors.

So when Bardock doesn't include those people that take advantage of the consumer, it isn't really our fault. It's the only ecomonic option left to them.

But it usually isn't. Even if the Wal-Marts and McDonslad's of the world have the majority of their share of the market in their respective industries, there will always be niche markets for higher-quality goods and services. This is true of any industry, where a vast majority exists at some lower than average standard, but a better alternative exists for those who are willing to sacrifice more of their wealth for it.

I added a couple sections to my essay, but I won't repost everything....just the new stuff.

V. Public Housing and Education

The link I draw between these two areas is my own, but public housing is an area that is widely targeted by libertarians as something that needs to be abolished or at least heavily reformed.

The idea behind government mandated public housing is that it gives poverty-stricken families at least a minimum level of security in the form of a home. In reality these structures and neighborhoods cause a variety of problems.

The biggest knock against public housing complexes is that it groups a large number of impoverished families together. The link between poverty and crime is well-documented. And this problem becomes enhanced by the presence of so much poverty centralized in one location. One does not need statistics (though they exist) to tell you that urban areas experience higher crime rates due to poverty-stricken inhabitants, and these crimes increase as you concentrate more people together. Any city is proof enough of this, and public housing makes the problem worse.

Second, I’d like to assert a viewpoint that was first pointed out to me by a teacher friend of mine who has taught both in city and suburban schools. He stated, quite confidently, that the teachers in city schools were every bit as qualified and talented at teaching as any other school district. Often times, he felt they were the best teachers he had ever worked with. Similarly, the schools themselves weren’t lacking for resources and technology, even if the district itself was somewhat more poor than their suburban counterparts. So why the sizable discrepancy in quality of education? Because of the students. And it wasn’t a racial comment but an economic one, and was simply that families with less wealth tended to have more problems and place less emphasis on discipline and education. Public housing, then, groups such people into the same place. In the poorest of areas, it’s a wonder education can happen at all due to the vast number of problems experienced by poverty-stricken children.

Thus, allowing people to live as they will in a competitive market, impoverished families will tend to disperse more. This will have the effect of reducing crime rates, reducing the negative influence such communities can have on children (or, indeed, anyone at all), as well as lessening the burdens faced by school districts who have the task of educating the youth of such areas.

The logical counter to this is that if people are not provided housing by the government, they literally can’t afford to live anywhere else. In our current system, this is true. But public housing is far from the only solution. In the next section, Distribution of Funds, we shall see how this can be remedied by infusing the lowest economic brackets with enough money to survive.

...

And:

XI. Socialism’s Appeal and Common Misconceptions

It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that government control could potentially be better off for the majority of people. After all, if the intellectual elite are in place to ensure that the programs are created efficiently and fairly, could it not be a good system?

I will not deny that government-run programs can provide a valuable service, nor that there exists ideal situations where it may even be better than a free market. But the variety of opinions and interests of people, in addition to the apathy and waste that infects any large-scale organization without direct competition, means that the ideal socialist programs will stay in the realm of the ideal, not in reality.

Socialism is a system of arrogance, where the few believe that they can ensure the happiness and prosperity of many. The free market is a system based on freedom, where each person is responsible for their own happiness and well-being, and it is expected that they can best pursue this happiness rather than having it dictated to them by a government.

Beyond that, the biggest complaint I hear upon recounting one or more aspects of the free market is that there are problems or holes where either businesses would grow unchecked, product quality would suffer, or people would be exploited. These have all been dealt with in their various forms throughout this essay. And in general, the rote answer to such criticisms is that the free market checks itself in the form of competition, and the voluntary exchange of money. People will not part with money for a bad deal (at least not for long once it is discovered) and so both business and consumer are kept in check naturally, without sacrificing freedom.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I added a couple sections to my essay, but I won't repost everything....just the new stuff.

[b]V. Public Housing and Education

The link I draw between these two areas is my own, but public housing is an area that is widely targeted by libertarians as something that needs to be abolished or at least heavily reformed.

The idea behind government mandated public housing is that it gives poverty-stricken families at least a minimum level of security in the form of a home. In reality these structures and neighborhoods cause a variety of problems.

The biggest knock against public housing complexes is that it groups a large number of impoverished families together. The link between poverty and crime is well-documented. And this problem becomes enhanced by the presence of so much poverty centralized in one location. One does not need statistics (though they exist) to tell you that urban areas experience higher crime rates due to poverty-stricken inhabitants, and these crimes increase as you concentrate more people together. Any city is proof enough of this, and public housing makes the problem worse.

Second, I’d like to assert a viewpoint that was first pointed out to me by a teacher friend of mine who has taught both in city and suburban schools. He stated, quite confidently, that the teachers in city schools were every bit as qualified and talented at teaching as any other school district. Often times, he felt they were the best teachers he had ever worked with. Similarly, the schools themselves weren’t lacking for resources and technology, even if the district itself was somewhat more poor than their suburban counterparts. So why the sizable discrepancy in quality of education? Because of the students. And it wasn’t a racial comment but an economic one, and was simply that families with less wealth tended to have more problems and place less emphasis on discipline and education. Public housing, then, groups such people into the same place. In the poorest of areas, it’s a wonder education can happen at all due to the vast number of problems experienced by poverty-stricken children.

Thus, allowing people to live as they will in a competitive market, impoverished families will tend to disperse more. This will have the effect of reducing crime rates, reducing the negative influence such communities can have on children (or, indeed, anyone at all), as well as lessening the burdens faced by school districts who have the task of educating the youth of such areas.

The logical counter to this is that if people are not provided housing by the government, they literally can’t afford to live anywhere else. In our current system, this is true. But public housing is far from the only solution. In the next section, Distribution of Funds, we shall see how this can be remedied by infusing the lowest economic brackets with enough money to survive.

...

And:

XI. Socialism’s Appeal and Common Misconceptions

It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that government control could potentially be better off for the majority of people. After all, if the intellectual elite are in place to ensure that the programs are created efficiently and fairly, could it not be a good system?

I will not deny that government-run programs can provide a valuable service, nor that there exists ideal situations where it may even be better than a free market. But the variety of opinions and interests of people, in addition to the apathy and waste that infects any large-scale organization without direct competition, means that the ideal socialist programs will stay in the realm of the ideal, not in reality.

Socialism is a system of arrogance, where the few believe that they can ensure the happiness and prosperity of many. The free market is a system based on freedom, where each person is responsible for their own happiness and well-being, and it is expected that they can best pursue this happiness rather than having it dictated to them by a government.

Beyond that, the biggest complaint I hear upon recounting one or more aspects of the free market is that there are problems or holes where either businesses would grow unchecked, product quality would suffer, or people would be exploited. These have all been dealt with in their various forms throughout this essay. And in general, the rote answer to such criticisms is that the free market checks itself in the form of competition, and the voluntary exchange of money. People will not part with money for a bad deal (at least not for long once it is discovered) and so both business and consumer are kept in check naturally, without sacrificing freedom. [/B]

And what makes the business side of your last paragraph regulate themselves and participate in full disclosure?

Originally posted by Devil King
And what makes the business side of your last paragraph regulate themselves and participate in full disclosure?

Full disclosure? You're going to have to explain that.

And it's not they're regulating themselves so much as the system regulates itself. You seem to be too worried that individual businesses will exploit the customer without realizing that the bigger exploitive agent is the wasteful government institutions that have no direct competition. Their exploitation is

Consumers, because the system is voluntary, only spend money on things that they want and for deals where they think that they benefit. No one forces them into any deal, so the consumer regulates businesses. And thus, they'll make more intelligent spending decisions than if an impersonal institution tries to make them for everyone. So between businesses competing and consumers purchasing services and products with the greatest benefit to them, no one business or institution will get out of hand.

Full disclosure as far as how and where their products are made, what's in those products, etc.

I don't seem to be worried, I am worried. I see how screwed the consumer is now, and I don't see where less regulation and gutting the government in favor of the scouts honor policy is going to benefit any of us in the long run.

Originally posted by Devil King
Full disclosure as far as how and where their products are made, what's in those products, etc.

I don't seem to be worried, I am worried. I see how screwed the consumer is now, and I don't see where less regulation and gutting the government in favor of the scouts honor policy is going to benefit any of us in the long run.

Scouts honor has nothing to do with it. If you want, we can say that the gov't is still responsible for environmental regulations for businesses, or safety regulations for products (which would be covered in a subset of the "basic protection" area of my "Role of Gov't" section), that's fine. Part of the govt's responsibility is to the protection of its citizens....but not to deciding how they spend their wealth.

Beyond that, even strip away gov't regulations for a second (though we surely wouldn't in the real world). Once again, a compnay that gouges customers in any manner will not survive. Some minimal level of safety and earned trust is advantageous to business, not some evil that they do only to make money. In most industries, we're already in a relatively free market and it happens naturally.

And how "screwed" are we really? The only thing that takes a significant portion of my income that I don't voluntarily agree to are government taxes for programs I am against. Everything else I freely decide to spend.

Personally, I'm much more worried that my gov't isn't allowing me the freedoms I deserve because it deems itself worthy to dictate to me what I should and shouldn't spend money on.

Take the time to understand what this guy is saying, the english is a bit broken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGngWcehFOo

basically I agree with his main point, that welfare indentures people to the state, and destroys human autonomy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Scouts honor has nothing to do with it. If you want, we can say that the gov't is still responsible for environmental regulations for businesses, or safety regulations for products (which would be covered in a subset of the "basic protection" area of my "Role of Gov't" section), that's fine. Part of the govt's responsibility is to the protection of its citizens....but not to deciding how they spend their wealth.

Beyond that, even strip away gov't regulations for a second (though we surely wouldn't in the real world). Once again, a compnay that gouges customers in any manner will not survive. Some minimal level of safety and earned trust is advantageous to business, not some evil that they do only to make money. In most industries, we're already in a relatively free market and it happens naturally.

And how "screwed" are we really? The only thing that takes a significant portion of my income that I don't voluntarily agree to are government taxes for programs I am against. Everything else I freely decide to spend.

Personally, I'm much more worried that my gov't isn't allowing me the freedoms I deserve because it deems itself worthy to dictate to me what I should and shouldn't spend money on.

So, the key point is not just that a bad retailer won't survive because of consumer backlash, it's that these companies have means to circumnavigate bad press and pay offs and non-disclosure. The basis of the economic libertarian is total transparency (which I called scouts honor), but they have no incentive to cost themselves more money by adhering to that honor when it will cost them more and enforce a little business, marketing and masnufacturing integrity.

So what happens when the suddenly well informed consumer market then seeks to prevent something bad from happening to the next guy? They sue the retailer, and a judgment is passed down in favor of either the retailer or the plaintiff. This ruling becomes a matter of public record, which then influences other judicial rulings in cases where a precedent is illustrated. Then, groups are formed to make sure that these businesses are following procedure, which ends up resulting in government bureaucracy as motivated by public advocacy groups.

It's a perfectly logical social and economic theory, but not very realistic. In fact, it's where we started 230 years ago, and the natural evolution of our national mindeset has resulted in the very things that you don't like. I don't like them either. So I'm all for turning the clock back, but not at the expense of 230 years of experience and national growth.

Originally posted by inimalist
Take the time to understand what this guy is saying, the english is a bit broken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGngWcehFOo

basically I agree with his main point, that welfare indentures people to the state, and destroys human autonomy.

Welfare and social security and medicare/medicade and the IRS. They all do just that.

Originally posted by Devil King
Welfare and social security and medicare/medicade and the IRS. They all do just that.

actually ya. When the state is the only provider of medical treatment, you become pretty dependent on it. When your only paycheck comes from the government, you are loyal to whoever will keep paying it.

I'm not saying they are that bad as policies, but they certainly remove human autonomy.

I'd just thought I'd chime in here and comment on what DigiMark posted originally since I've actually got around to reading it all. I thought it was an excellent piece. You made some awesome points and I think you cleared up a lot of the fog around the Free Market. Even though I think you were kind of vague (maybe you've cleared it up since, I don't know haven't really been reading the thread) on some points like your proposal for education, but other than that you were clear and direct and addressed things nicely.

Edit: **** didn't read the new parts. Will do now.

Edit: Read it. As usual, nice read.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually ya. When the state is the only provider of medical treatment, you become pretty dependent on it. When your only paycheck comes from the government, you are loyal to whoever will keep paying it.

I'm not saying they are that bad as policies, but they certainly remove human autonomy.

But don't forget the programs we pay by way of income taxes, which means we're only getting back money we've already paid. It's unfortunate that the government uses it for what it will until we need it and then it becomes a reality that we aren't getting back the money we'v paid, but the money some one paid after us.

Originally posted by Devil King
But don't forget the programs we pay by way of income taxes, which means we're only getting back money we've already paid. It's unfortunate that the government uses it for what it will until we need it and then it becomes a reality that we aren't getting back the money we'v paid, but the money some one paid after us.

I have to agree with that one, just because middle class seems to pay for the poor and the rich.