Free Market Myth

[midcan5]

"To be fair, rarely does either side argue against regulation as such. The real issue is the structure of regulation and its impact on economic outcomes, especially income distribution."

Regulation is everywhere. Let’s choose who benefits.

by Dean Baker

"The extraordinary financial collapse of recent months has been commonly described as a testament to the failure of deregulation. The events are indeed testament to a failure—a failure of public policy. Blaming deregulation is misleading.

In general, political debates over regulation have been wrongly cast as disputes over the extent of regulation, with conservatives assumed to prefer less regulation, while liberals prefer more. In fact conservatives do not necessarily desire less regulation, nor do liberals necessarily desire more. Conservatives support regulatory structures that cause income to flow upward, while liberals support regulatory structures that promote equality. “Less” regulation does not imply greater inequality, nor is the reverse true."

Boston Review — Dean Baker: Free Market Myth

 

[Agnapostate]

One wonders if this matters, considering that both liberals and conservatives effectively support mixed-market capitalism, simply to different extents.

 

[midcan5]

One wonders if this matters, considering that both liberals and conservatives effectively support mixed-market capitalism, simply to different extents.

True but there is nothing inherently wrong with free market capitalism - although I would remove the word free and call it simply a market system. It is what people do with it that matters. There is a curious paradox in the fact capitalism leads to a rich elitist corporate group and communism ends with a elitist party group. Privilege rarely leads to egalitarianism, it usually leads to the leaders assuming they know best.

 

[editec]

True but there is nothing inherently wrong with free market capitalism - although I would remove the word free and call it simply a market system.

Excellent point.

Markets do not even form in an environment of pure FREEDOM.

They form in the backdrop of a society which has created itself by limiting freedom of individuals though a system of just laws which protect all the market from the excesses of freedom of individuals.

Abolutely FREE market capitalism cannot exist because CAPITAL is itself a manmade (by fiat of power) tool.

The only capital-less markets which exist are described as a barter-marketing system.

No government regulation is necessary for that system to more or less function since no recognized form of capital is required.

It is what people do with it that matters.

Exactly. Regulations which are fair and just promote greater prosperity for the market itself.

Regulations with are not fair and just promote prosperity for a few, but only until their excesses are such a drain on overall productivity that everyone ends up less well off. (as we're seeing right now, I might add)

There is a curious paradox in the fact capitalism leads to a rich elitist corporate group and communism ends with a elitist party group. Privilege rarely leads to egalitarianism, it usually leads to the leaders assuming they know best.

Power corrupts...that is the root source of the downfall of every system run by human beings.

Much as capital must pool for a capitalism market system to function, so too power must aggregate in the hands of a few for a government to impose order on a market.

Sadly, the lure of power is that it corrupts those who have it, such that they inevitably use that power for the own advantage even if in the aggregate the market suffers.

This phemomena is really little more than original sin playing out in the worlds of government and capital markets.

It can happen regardless of what kind of government (or economics) mankind cobbles together in his effort to create a functional society.

I'll be right there with you libertarian anarchists the very moment human nature becomes that of angels, though believe me. I'm not a big fan of governments or cops either to be honest.

Until that time, some form of government and government regulations seems necessary.

The what kind of, and how much of questions about that government and its regulations are, of course, always subject to rational debate.

But if you tell me that every regulation is an infringement on your personal freedom (or the market's freedom)?

Well then, I know you are still a child who doesn't understand the true nature of markets, or for that matter, of humankind.

 

[Paulie]

True but there is nothing inherently wrong with free market capitalism - although I would remove the word free and call it simply a market system. It is what people do with it that matters. There is a curious paradox in the fact capitalism leads to a rich elitist corporate group and communism ends with a elitist party group. Privilege rarely leads to egalitarianism, it usually leads to the leaders assuming they know best.

The difference between communism and capitalism is that we here in America, where capitalism still reigns, have the ability to tell our leaders what THEY think, whereas in communism, they tell us what WE think.

Our problem isn't the economic system, it's that we don't use the political system the way it's supposed to be used. Out of all the ways we can collectively make changes in this country, we only vote, and we don't even do THAT very well.

 

[Truthmatters]

if you have money you can make money in any market.

What this simple fact of the market leads to is a concentration of wealth into smaller and smaller hands. The wealthy TEACH their children about the market and how to navigate it. The poor have no idea how the market works because they have no meaningful contact with those with wealth. The schools dont teach it. The poor are left to mystify how the whole thing works. The middleclass are those who are begining to figure it out and are in the begining stages of wealth accumulation.

Then comes the deep swing of the market furtunes provided by the unfettered market. The poor starve, the middleclass are forced to use what little they have accumulated to survive the trough. The wealthy make money in the down time. It is obvious to ANYONE what this leads to. Its simple and plain for anyone who cares to face the truth. An Unfettered market will lead to a deep concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
You end up with an untra wealthy segment controling the entire economy at the expense of the vast majority. This would very obviously be the end of any democracy because the people would revolt and or the Few would be very able to BUY the government right out from underneath the majority.



Unfettered markets are just like communism in that they sound great on paper but when applied in real human conditions they fail miserably.

 

[editec]

Unfettered markets are just like communism in that they sound great on paper but when applied in real human conditions they fail miserably.

True dat.

 

[Truthmatters]

It is why in every inch of human history that the Freemarket Dream has never been applied.

If it were the natural way for the market to work best it would have developed that way Somewhere sometime, even for a decade or so before someone "ruined" it by setting regulations. The regulations (wether poorly consturcted or well constructed) were always employed to try and ameliorate the failures of the ufettered market.

It leads to consolidation of wealth in a very small sector of the population and is incompatible with Democracy.

 

[editec]

It is why in every inch of human history that the Freemarket Dream has never been applied.

A completely unfettered free market exists, or so I'm informed, in heaven.

If it were the natural way for the market to work best it would have developed that way Somewhere sometime, even for a decade or so before someone "ruined" it by setting regulations. The regulations (wether poorly consturcted or well constructed) were always employed to try and ameliorate the failures of the ufettered market.

No market forms before a government is in place to make it happen. No capitalist market at least.

It leads to consolidation of wealth in a very small sector of the population and is incompatible with Democracy.

Capitalism is not incompatible with a democratic society. Capitalism is a very flexible system. It can work in a democratic society, a republic, hell it can even work around a society which is a tyranny.

Capitalism merely requires a dominating force (either a representational government or a tyranny) which can define what capital is.

 

[Truthmatters]

Capitalism is not incompatible with Democracy.

I never siad that and DO NOT BELIEVE IT!

just wanted to make that clear.

Unfettered Capitolism is incompatable with Democracy because it will lead to extreme consilidation of wealth which leads to the buying out of the Democracy by the controling factor of such consolidated wealth.

 

[editec]

Capitalism is not incompatible with Democracy.

I never siad that and DO NOT BELIEVE IT!

My error. I thought that's what you wrote. I was rather surprised by it, to be honest. It didn't sound like you.

just wanted to make that clear.

clear

Unfettered Capitolism is incompatable with Democracy because it will lead to extreme consilidation of wealth which leads to the buying out of the Democracy by the controling factor of such consolidated wealth.

As we have now, you mean?

Quite right.

Now we have the worst of both worlds, which is pretty much what we'd expect to see happen.

Now the hodgepodge of regulations are mostly no longer benefitting and promoting fair and honest makrkets so much as they're giving greater advantages to to the capital which can best afford to pay the government to work on their behalf.

We're reaching the end game that inevitably happens when the market winners have their hands on tiller of government.

Now the big capital uses the government to amass the smaller capital pools that developed back when the system still made making it in America possible.

That's exactly why, now the still affluent enough, those productive members of our society are ending up paying most of the taxes that the BIG CAPITALISTS are no longer being forced to pay.

And the beauty of that system for the BIG CAPITALISTS is that enough of those more affluent workers are foolish enough to think its the POOR who are causing their taxes to rise.

It;'s a beautifully constructed system on legal racketeering by propaganda, I must say.

 

[Truthmatters]

Which is why it is so terminally sad to hear people spout the ideas that We just have too many regulations.

Its not the amount its the efficacy of the regulations that matter, Glass Steagal worked and that is why the Republicans wanted it dead. Clinton, who they see as the great liberal Evil, helped by signing it. It tore down the walls that did exsist and were working. Now we have this result.

These fools are now asking for all walls to be hammered to the ground.

 

[Agnapostate]

The difference between communism and capitalism is that we here in America, where capitalism still reigns, have the ability to tell our leaders what THEY think, whereas in communism, they tell us what WE think.

That is quite inaccurate. No less an anti-authoritarian figure than George Orwell noted the benefits of the implementation of socialism in Spain in his Homage to Catalonia.

 

[Paulie]

That is quite inaccurate. No less an anti-authoritarian figure than George Orwell noted the benefits of the implementation of socialism in Spain in his Homage to Catalonia.

I mentioned communism and capitalism. Not socialism. Socialism still offers a good deal of freedom, communism does not.

 

[Agnapostate]

I mentioned communism and capitalism. Not socialism. Socialism still offers a good deal of freedom, communism does not.

The major variety of socialism that was implemented in Catalonia was collectivism, which has few doctrinal differences with communism. Indeed, outright anarcho-communism was implemented throughout parts of anarchist Spain.

Moreover, I suspect that your conception of communism is likely clouded with inappropriate conflations with Soviet state capitalism.

 

[Paulie]

My conception of communism consists of its literal definition. I haven't studied communism in even a fraction of the amount that I've studied capitalism. I will never agree with it, so in this particular case, I have no desire to study its differential usage throughout history.

You seem to advocate some of its merits, and that is probably why you study it so specifically. There's nothing about the ideology that interests me.

 

[Agnapostate]

Then what is the accurate definition of the term "communism," and in what context has it been applied?

And are you planning on commenting on my criticism of trade liberalization and the misuse of the comparative advantage argument, and the subjugation of infant industries?

 

[Paulie]

When I get around to it, I'll comment on it. It's not something I'm going to sit down for 5 minutes and put together, which is usually the most free time I get at any given point during my day. I haven't even read the whole article yet. Be patient, young one.

 

[Agnapostate]

I wasn't aware that we were in the Jedi Order.

 

[Paulie]

I wasn't aware that we were in the Jedi Order.

It's been on TV while I've been taking care of the kids tonight