What IS The Free Market

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, tragedy of commons can read tragedy of communism. It is used to support conservatism not communism. What grade are you in?

Why do you constantly support greedy communists in China? Are you stupid??

dear, tragedy of commons can read tragedy of communism. It is used to support conservatism not communism. What grade are you in?

 

[bripat9643]

The land in your picture is public land that was never used to produce food. Pl

How do you know that?
The water and the land around could have been used by the indigenous people to grow food for their own consumption. Why do you imagine only capitalists can produce food?

IF you think land in the jungle where indigenous indian tribes live is privately owned then you obviously know nothing about Latin America. The area has obviously been bulldozed, so the idea that the indians used it for water prior to that is absurd. There was nothing there but jungle prior to Texaco being there.

Furthermore, your article says the government of Equador was the primary the primary partner in the consortium that did the drilling. In other words, if anyone is at fault, it's the government of Ecuador.

In 1964, Texaco Petroleum Company (TexPet) began exploring for oil in northeast Ecuador, in an area which was inhabited by indigenous people. The following year it started operating a consortium owned equally by itself and Gulf Oil, to develop a tract in the area. Nueva Loja was originally founded as a base camp of Texaco. The consortium struck oil in 1967 and began full-scale production in 1972. The Ecuadorian government, through its national oil company CEPE, now Petroecuador, obtained a 25% interest in the consortium in 1974.[7] Gulf subsequently sold its interest to CEPE. By 1976, the consortium was majority-owned by the Ecuadorian government.[8] TexPet transferred management of the consortium to Petroecuador in 1990. TexPet's concession expired in 1993, leaving Petroecuador as the sole owner. Petroecudaor continues drilling in the area.[3]​

I don't imaging that only capitalists can grow food. But when they do they don't ruin the land like the government of Ecuador did. If some third party pollutes their land, they sue the perpetrator. There was obviously no private owner of this land because a class action case was required to pursue legal action.

In short, blaming this incident on capitalism is beyond absurd.

 

[ralfy]

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

There is no need to conflate what is actually the same. Also, not just property rights but even the formation of corporations involved such frameworks.

 

[ralfy]

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

dear, the Fed Chairman is usually a college professor appointed by the president and approved by Congress and supported intellectually by most college economics professors.

The Fed is a private consortium controlled by commercial banks. It also operates independently of the government.

The Fed is intimately connected to government. It's the perfect example of non-free market corporatism, and a direct result of indulging government interference in economic matters.

The Fed works independently of the government. It is the result of free market capitalism, as those in financial power eventually take over. Also, it doesn't work for the government but the other way round.

I actually agree with the characterization that the government works "for" the Federal Reserve. This has long been my point, that the regulatory regime we think of as keeping corporations "in line" actually serves their interests. But business employing government to force it's will on people is not a free market.

That's because of industrialization coupled with free market capitalism, both the result of a free market. In this case, we see robber barons exploiting natural resources, and with support from government, and later the rise of industrialists coupled with financiers, then the takeover of money supply, followed by consumer spending and then financial deregulation.

 

[ralfy]

If competition is removed from capitalism, is it still capitalism?

There are different types, and some minimize aspects of competition:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ralfy]

who takes better care of a house: renter or owner?

Tragedy of the commons.
"The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. The term is taken from the title of an article written by Hardin in 1968, which is in turn based upon an essay by a Victorian economist on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land."
Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

dear, tragedy of commons can read tragedy of communism. It is used to support conservatism not communism. What grade are you in?

It's the other way round.

 

[dblack]

dear, the Fed Chairman is usually a college professor appointed by the president and approved by Congress and supported intellectually by most college economics professors.

The Fed is a private consortium controlled by commercial banks. It also operates independently of the government.

The Fed is intimately connected to government. It's the perfect example of non-free market corporatism, and a direct result of indulging government interference in economic matters.

The Fed works independently of the government. It is the result of free market capitalism, as those in financial power eventually take over. Also, it doesn't work for the government but the other way round.

I actually agree with the characterization that the government works "for" the Federal Reserve. This has long been my point, that the regulatory regime we think of as keeping corporations "in line" actually serves their interests. But business employing government to force it's will on people is not a free market.

That's because of industrialization coupled with free market capitalism, both the result of a free market. In this case, we see robber barons exploiting natural resources, and with support from government, and later the rise of industrialists coupled with financiers, then the takeover of money supply, followed by consumer spending and then financial deregulation.

Again, in order to have anything to 'de-regulate', we first have to indulge their desire to regulate their markets in the first place, and that is our 'original sin'. It took thousands of years, and much unnecessary suffering, but we finally learned our lesson regarding the mixing of government and religion. The only way to keep religion out of government is to keep government out of religion. The same dynamic applies to economic power, and it looks like we're destined to learn the hard way yet again.

 

[dblack]

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

There is no need to conflate what is actually the same. Also, not just property rights but even the formation of corporations involved such frameworks.

There's a distinct difference between laws that protect the rights of the people, and those that mandate conformity in the name of state "interests". The difference between "regulation" and "legislation" should probably be another thread, but it is very relevant to the idea of a free market. Free markets require laws proscribing theft, fraud and coercion. But they also require freedom from arbitrary rules that dictate our economic decisions in the name of social manipulation.

 

[georgephillip]

There was nothing there but jungle prior to Texaco being there

Obviously, there was water in Ecuador before Texaco polluted it?

 

[bripat9643]

There was nothing there but jungle prior to Texaco being there

Obviously, there was water in Ecuador before Texaco polluted it?

It was dry ground, and the government of Ecuador polluted it. Didn't you read the Wiki article you posted?

The whole incident appears to be a scam to shakedown American oil companies. For instance,

Cristóbal Bonifaz, the lawyer who had filed the initial action in New York in 1993,[5] was dismissed from the litigation in 2006. He went on to file a case against Chevron in 2007 on behalf of new clients who claimed that pollution had given them cancer. The court found that three of the plaintiffs did not have cancer. After dismissing their claims (leaving two claims active), the court imposed a $45,000 fine against Bonifaz for making frivolous claims.[16][19]
​

There's a lot of other evidence in the article that indicates the people making the charges are a gang of con artists.

 

[georgephillip]

Furthermore, your article says the government of Equador was the primary the primary partner in the consortium that did the drilling. In other words, if anyone is at fault, it's the government of Ecuador.

And if Texaco's capitalists bribed corrupt Ecuadorian politicians to obtain mineral rights to Ecuador's commons, whose fault is it?

 

[bripat9643]

Furthermore, your article says the government of Equador was the primary the primary partner in the consortium that did the drilling. In other words, if anyone is at fault, it's the government of Ecuador.

And if Texaco's capitalists bribed corrupt Ecuadorian politicians to obtain mineral rights to Ecuador's commons, whose fault is it?

The government of Ecuador had the controlling interest in the consortium that did the drilling. Furthermore by 1993 the government of Ecuador was the sole owner.

Why is it that when private corporations bribe government officials that the officials are never to blame? It's the government's fault. In many countries it's impossible to do business without bribing government officials. When you open a business a long line of them will appear at your door with their hands out. Bribery is an intrinsic feature of government.

 

[georgephillip]

There's a lot of other evidence in the article that indicates the people making the charges are a gang of con artists

"An estimated 18 billion gallons of produced water has been diverted into open pits. The produced water contained polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at levels many times higher than permitted in the US, where produced water is typically re-injected underground.[citation needed]

"The plaintiffs maintain that the resulting pollution has caused an increase in cancer rates; Chevron and its supporters maintain that no causal link between the produced water and cancer has been shown and that most of the crude spills occurred after Texaco withdrew."

You swallow every corporate load twice, don't you?

Lago Agrio oil field - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

There's a lot of other evidence in the article that indicates the people making the charges are a gang of con artists

"An estimated 18 billion gallons of produced water has been diverted into open pits. The produced water contained polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at levels many times higher than permitted in the US, where produced water is typically re-injected underground.[citation needed]

"The plaintiffs maintain that the resulting pollution has caused an increase in cancer rates; Chevron and its supporters maintain that no causal link between the produced water and cancer has been shown and that most of the crude spills occurred after Texaco withdrew."

You swallow every corporate load twice, don't you?

Lago Agrio oil field - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You support liars, trimmers and frauds:

Lago Agrio oil field - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Chevron and its supporters maintain that no causal link between the produced water and cancer has been shown and that most of the crude spills occurred after Texaco withdrew.[13]
. . . . . . . .

In 2004, the plaintiffs hired biologist Dr. Charles Calmbacher to study and report on environmental conditions in the field. In 2005 the plaintiffs submitted to the court reports bearing Calmbacher’s signature which said that there were high pollutant concentrations at two sites. Calmbacher, however, disavowed the reports, and said that his signature had been attached to reports which he did not write, and which misrepresented his findings. He actually found that the contaminant levels at the two sites were too low to pose a risk to human health or the environment.[21][22]

In 2007, the Ecuadorean plaintiffs hired consultants Stratus Consulting, of Boulder, Colorado, to study environmental conditions at Lago Agrio. The plaintiffs’ lead US attorney Steven Donziger directed Stratus to write its report as if it were written by the court-appointed expert Richard Cabrera, but not to disclose its authorship of substantial parts of the Cabrera report to anyone, and to take steps to disguise its involvement. When Stratus obtained from a subcontractor a cost of cleanup estimate that Donziger considered too low, Donziger directed Stratus to disregard that estimate.[23] Environmental scientist Ann Maest told Donziger that there was no evidence that groundwater contamination had migrated away from the pits, and also told him that his team was using improper water sampling methodology.[24][25]

In December 2008, Stratus Consulting issued a review of the Cabrera Report, endorsing its methods and conclusions, without disclosing that at least two of the authors of the Stratus review, Douglas Beltman and Ann Maest, had also ghost written substantial parts of the very report they were reviewing.[26]

Chevron accused Stratus Consulting of fraud in its 2011 lawsuit against plaintiff lawyer Steven Donziger and various others. For years, Stratus defended its work, and denied that Stratus employees were the true authors of much of the Cabrera Report. But in April 2013 the company disavowed the reports on environmental conditions at Lago Agrio, and Chevron dropped its lawsuit.[27][28] Two Stratus employees (now ex-employees), Douglas Beltman and Ann Maest, admitted that they had knowingly ghost-written large portions of the Cabrera report, and both signed affidavits saying: "I disavow any and all findings and conclusions in all of my reports and testimony on the Ecuador Project."[29] After settling the lawsuit, Stratus posted a statement on its website denying that the company “falsified its findings,” on the Ecuador project, but noted: “We have taken steps to ensure that a situation such as this will never be repeated.” The firm reports that it has engaged a legal consultant specializing in business ethics, and trained staff in appropriate practices.[30]​

 

[georgephillip]

You support liars, trimmers and frauds:

Have you (and Chevron) stopped poisoning dogs?

"Allegations of attorney misconduct[edit]
In August 2009 a video surfaced showing an alleged member of Ecuador's ruling party, Alianza PAIS, bribing Judge Juan Núñez, who is the presiding judge in the case.[38]

"In the video,[39] the judge agreed to rule against Chevron, to deny Chevron's appeals, and also discusses the allocation of the $3 million bribe between himself, the president, and the plaintiffs.

"The video also shows discussion regarding the awarding of remediation contracts that would result from a ruling against Chevron.

"The judge was forced to resign.[4]

"Chevron claims it had no involvement in the videotaping, however in April 2010 it was found that one of the men involved in the filming was a long-time Chevron contractor, who in turn was later caught on hidden camera saying he 'has enough evidence to ensure a victory by the Amazon communities if Chevron failed to pay him what he was promised'.

"This man was later relocated to the United States with his family at Chevron's expense, where he is also receiving an undisclosed amount of living expenses.

"The other man involved in filming the video is a convicted drug smuggler."

There's no shortage of evidence of corruption on both sides of this matter, but all allegations of misconduct don't negate Texaco/Chevron's environmental destruction of the Amazon.

Lago Agrio oil field - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

You support liars, trimmers and frauds:

Have you (and Chevron) stopped poisoning dogs?

"Allegations of attorney misconduct[edit]
In August 2009 a video surfaced showing an alleged member of Ecuador's ruling party, Alianza PAIS, bribing Judge Juan Núñez, who is the presiding judge in the case.[38]

"In the video,[39] the judge agreed to rule against Chevron, to deny Chevron's appeals, and also discusses the allocation of the $3 million bribe between himself, the president, and the plaintiffs.

"The video also shows discussion regarding the awarding of remediation contracts that would result from a ruling against Chevron.

"The judge was forced to resign.[4]

"Chevron claims it had no involvement in the videotaping, however in April 2010 it was found that one of the men involved in the filming was a long-time Chevron contractor, who in turn was later caught on hidden camera saying he 'has enough evidence to ensure a victory by the Amazon communities if Chevron failed to pay him what he was promised'.

"This man was later relocated to the United States with his family at Chevron's expense, where he is also receiving an undisclosed amount of living expenses.

"The other man involved in filming the video is a convicted drug smuggler."

There's no shortage of evidence of corruption on both sides of this matter, but all allegations of misconduct don't negate Texaco/Chevron's environmental destruction of the Amazon.

Lago Agrio oil field - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You keep forgetting that the government of Ecuador controlled the consortium that drilled this oil field. Chevron pulled out entirely long before any lawsuits were ever filed. Somehow if a private corporation gets within 100 miles of any corruption scandal, they are entirely to blame. On the other hand government officials who are in it up to their eyebrows are the victims.

Don't you think it's time to give up while you're behind?

 

[bripat9643]

You support liars, trimmers and frauds:

Have you (and Chevron) stopped poisoning dogs?

"Allegations of attorney misconduct[edit]
In August 2009 a video surfaced showing an alleged member of Ecuador's ruling party, Alianza PAIS, bribing Judge Juan Núñez, who is the presiding judge in the case.[38]

"In the video,[39] the judge agreed to rule against Chevron, to deny Chevron's appeals, and also discusses the allocation of the $3 million bribe between himself, the president, and the plaintiffs.

"The video also shows discussion regarding the awarding of remediation contracts that would result from a ruling against Chevron.

"The judge was forced to resign.[4]

"Chevron claims it had no involvement in the videotaping, however in April 2010 it was found that one of the men involved in the filming was a long-time Chevron contractor, who in turn was later caught on hidden camera saying he 'has enough evidence to ensure a victory by the Amazon communities if Chevron failed to pay him what he was promised'.

"This man was later relocated to the United States with his family at Chevron's expense, where he is also receiving an undisclosed amount of living expenses.

"The other man involved in filming the video is a convicted drug smuggler."

There's no shortage of evidence of corruption on both sides of this matter, but all allegations of misconduct don't negate Texaco/Chevron's environmental destruction of the Amazon.

Lago Agrio oil field - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BTW, what the man said is pure hearsay. It's not admissible in a court of law. On the other hand, what the judge said is admissible. That would put any judge in the USA away for a long time. Taking bribes is a crime. So is shaking down corporations with phoney evidence. It appears to me that all the people working on the side of the plaintiffs are crooks, as are the plaintiffs themselves.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Somehow if a private corporation gets within 100 miles of any corruption scandal, they are entirely to blame. ?

This is what Karl Marx told the liberal to believe, and he believed it even after Marxism had slowly killed 120 million people. If he had been exposed to rastifarianism as the cure for the world's ills he would have believed that too. Oh well.

 

[ralfy]

The Fed is a private consortium controlled by commercial banks. It also operates independently of the government.

The Fed is intimately connected to government. It's the perfect example of non-free market corporatism, and a direct result of indulging government interference in economic matters.

The Fed works independently of the government. It is the result of free market capitalism, as those in financial power eventually take over. Also, it doesn't work for the government but the other way round.

I actually agree with the characterization that the government works "for" the Federal Reserve. This has long been my point, that the regulatory regime we think of as keeping corporations "in line" actually serves their interests. But business employing government to force it's will on people is not a free market.

That's because of industrialization coupled with free market capitalism, both the result of a free market. In this case, we see robber barons exploiting natural resources, and with support from government, and later the rise of industrialists coupled with financiers, then the takeover of money supply, followed by consumer spending and then financial deregulation.

Again, in order to have anything to 'de-regulate', we first have to indulge their desire to regulate their markets in the first place, and that is our 'original sin'. It took thousands of years, and much unnecessary suffering, but we finally learned our lesson regarding the mixing of government and religion. The only way to keep religion out of government is to keep government out of religion. The same dynamic applies to economic power, and it looks like we're destined to learn the hard way yet again.

Again, modern capitalism coincides with regulation. How do you think property rights and the formation of corporations took place?

 

[ralfy]

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

There is no need to conflate what is actually the same. Also, not just property rights but even the formation of corporations involved such frameworks.

There's a distinct difference between laws that protect the rights of the people, and those that mandate conformity in the name of state "interests". The difference between "regulation" and "legislation" should probably be another thread, but it is very relevant to the idea of a free market. Free markets require laws proscribing theft, fraud and coercion. But they also require freedom from arbitrary rules that dictate our economic decisions in the name of social manipulation.

For this issue, they are the same, as the same people want the right to own property and form businesses.