juan's vision of free market WAS Snowden on the Twitters
1. How do you distribute goods (food, shelter, shiny J-Pads, money? etc)
free market
What is a sound definition of free market? In particular: 1. How does the ``free market'' prevents _cartels_ and stays free? 2. In a stateless free market, what happens to orphans, physically/mentally impaired people and the like? IMHO realworld implementation of ``free market'' is the law of the jungle played with (virtual) money/goods on a Ponzi scheme playground (check the thread about the usa debt).
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:51:58 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
1. How do you distribute goods (food, shelter, shiny J-Pads, money? etc)
free market
What is a sound definition of free market?
Georgi, if you are really interested in the topic, do your own homework. http://jim.com/Molinari.htm If on the other hand you think that your questions are rhetorical questions that somehow prove anything, don't waste your time. And mine. The comments I made about statism have not been refuted - at all. And what is the political system you advocate? How do you YOU justify it?
In particular:
1. How does the ``free market'' prevents _cartels_ and stays free? 2. In a stateless free market, what happens to orphans, physically/mentally impaired people and the like?
They are sold as cat and dog food for the pets of the rich people.
IMHO realworld implementation of ``free market'' is the law of the jungle played with (virtual) money/goods on a Ponzi scheme playground (check the thread about the usa debt).
That is, you don't know what "free market" means and yet you are wasting time discussing it and apparently trying to refute something you don't have a clue about it.
Dnia niedziela, 4 października 2015 16:08:55 Juan pisze:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:51:58 +0300
Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
1. How do you distribute goods (food, shelter, shiny J-Pads, money? etc)
free market
What is a sound definition of free market?
Georgi, if you are really interested in the topic, do your own homework.
But you do realise that there are different views on what a "truly free market" is, right? Is it the one where is the least regulation? Is that the one where the better offer always wins? These are not necessarily the same, as cartels and monopolies strive in a "free market without regulation". So, which is it for you? Tell me, and *then* I can do my research. Being vague is a very good way to not go into a true discussion. If that's what you're after, good going. :)
(...)
In particular:
1. How does the ``free market'' prevents _cartels_ and stays free? 2. In a stateless free market, what happens to orphans, physically/mentally impaired people and the like?
They are sold as cat and dog food for the pets of the rich people.
Well, at least we're clear.
IMHO realworld implementation of ``free market'' is the law of the jungle played with (virtual) money/goods on a Ponzi scheme playground (check the thread about the usa debt).
That is, you don't know what "free market" means and yet you are wasting time discussing it and apparently trying to refute something you don't have a clue about it.
So which version of the "free market" you propose? There are many. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On 10/05/2015 02:33 AM, rysiek wrote:
But you do realise that there are different views on what a "truly free market" is, right? Is it the one where is the least regulation? Is that the one where the better offer always wins? These are not necessarily the same, as cartels and monopolies strive in a "free market without regulation".
State monopoly or private is of no significance. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. They exist in CORNERED markets which typically occur because someone played with a loophole in the REGULATIONS of that market, giving them an advantage, and allowing them to corner it. Ask the Hunt boys how that worked out for them in Silver...
Dnia poniedziałek, 5 października 2015 10:21:31 Razer pisze:
On 10/05/2015 02:33 AM, rysiek wrote:
But you do realise that there are different views on what a "truly free market" is, right? Is it the one where is the least regulation? Is that the one where the better offer always wins? These are not necessarily the same, as cartels and monopolies strive in a "free market without regulation".
State monopoly or private is of no significance. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. They exist in CORNERED markets which typically occur because someone played with a loophole in the REGULATIONS of that market, giving them an advantage, and allowing them to corner it.
Ask the Hunt boys how that worked out for them in Silver...
Ah, so the assumption is: "had there been no regulation, we would not get monopolies"? Am I getting that right? -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On 10/06/2015 03:26 PM, rysiek wrote:
Dnia poniedziałek, 5 października 2015 10:21:31 Razer pisze:
On 10/05/2015 02:33 AM, rysiek wrote:
But you do realise that there are different views on what a "truly free market" is, right? Is it the one where is the least regulation? Is that the one where the better offer always wins? These are not necessarily the same, as cartels and monopolies strive in a "free market without regulation". State monopoly or private is of no significance. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. They exist in CORNERED markets which typically occur because someone played with a loophole in the REGULATIONS of that market, giving them an advantage, and allowing them to corner it.
Ask the Hunt boys how that worked out for them in Silver... Ah, so the assumption is: "had there been no regulation, we would not get monopolies"?
Am I getting that right?
Without regulation you OWN your OWN 'monopoly' in whatever you accumulate and so does everyone else. The Hunts cornered the silver market in a REGULATED market, which, for economic reasons better left to others to explain, cause the price of silver to decline dramatically and then stabilize and stay at that level for years . In a free market they'd just be sitting on a bunch of silver they couldn't sell and anyone else with silver would go on trading with others on a more equilateral basis. Of course I'm making the assumption that really free markets can only exist in fully decentralized societies that would eschew centralized trading AND the middlemen necessary for it's operation.
Dnia środa, 7 października 2015 09:53:09 Razer pisze:
Ah, so the assumption is: "had there been no regulation, we would not get monopolies"?
Am I getting that right?
Without regulation you OWN your OWN 'monopoly' in whatever you accumulate and so does everyone else.
The Hunts cornered the silver market in a REGULATED market, which, for economic reasons better left to others to explain, cause the price of silver to decline dramatically and then stabilize and stay at that level for years .
In a free market they'd just be sitting on a bunch of silver they couldn't sell and anyone else with silver would go on trading with others on a more equilateral basis.
What if they *owned* all silver? For instance, by buying out all competition?
Of course I'm making the assumption that really free markets can only exist in fully decentralized societies that would eschew centralized trading AND the middlemen necessary for it's operation.
Can we assume that there was a time in the history of humankind (very, very early on) when this was the case? Or is that assumption to strong? -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On 10/08/2015 09:15 AM, rysiek wrote:
Dnia środa, 7 października 2015 09:53:09 Razer pisze:
Ah, so the assumption is: "had there been no regulation, we would not get monopolies"?
Am I getting that right? Without regulation you OWN your OWN 'monopoly' in whatever you accumulate and so does everyone else.
The Hunts cornered the silver market in a REGULATED market, which, for economic reasons better left to others to explain, cause the price of silver to decline dramatically and then stabilize and stay at that level for years .
In a free market they'd just be sitting on a bunch of silver they couldn't sell and anyone else with silver would go on trading with others on a more equilateral basis.
What if they *owned* all silver? For instance, by buying out all competition?
Unless it was something indispensable, they'd be sitting on something worthless. That's why, until the industrial age, almost all wars were over WATER rights., Not extractive resource rights (currently thinking of DRC, pretty much the sole source for the tantalum for your smartphone's touchy-feelie screen and micro-capacitors) By extension, cornering the market in silver, or tantalum, or any industrially-used extractive resource brings the industrial age one step closer to extinction (snigger...)
Of course I'm making the assumption that really free markets can only exist in fully decentralized societies that would eschew centralized trading AND the middlemen necessary for it's operation.
Can we assume that there was a time in the history of humankind (very, very early on) when this was the case? Or is that assumption to strong?
Before nation-states and city states it was most likely THE way of life for humans ... Until the industrial revolution it still existed in many tribal-based hunter-gatherer and agrarian cultures. Even today the Zapatistas have a slogan that spells out the cultural mindset: "Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves" Communities based on getting for oneself so one can 'give' to others is sickness. In healthy cultures one works for the community so the fruits of one's labor comes to all who participate. W. Edward Deming knew that was the way things should work, and so does every industrialist on the planet. But it doesn't maximize THEIR profit. Admittedly, like databases, 'scaling' can be a bit of a problem. RR Ps. Elective watchings: A 13 minute exposition on How Class Works (101) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euH3pAuLuko
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:33:45 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia niedziela, 4 października 2015 16:08:55 Juan pisze:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:51:58 +0300
Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
1. How do you distribute goods (food, shelter, shiny J-Pads, money? etc)
free market
What is a sound definition of free market?
Georgi, if you are really interested in the topic, do your own homework.
But you do realise that there are different views on what a "truly free market" is, right?
Wrong. Did you even bother to skim the text I linked to?
Is it the one where is the least regulation?
There's no 'regulation' in a free market. Your question shows that you don't what a free market is.
Is that the one where the better offer always wins?
Better offer of what? A free market isn't defined by outcomes.
These are not necessarily the same, as cartels and monopolies strive in a "free market without regulation".
LMAO! Sure. Competition leads to monopoly and 'free' actually means regulated.
So, which is it for you? Tell me, and *then* I can do my research.
It's quite clear that you don't have a clue rysiek. FIRST you do your research about liberalism and THEN you try to come up with something that at least looks like criticism.
Being vague is a very good way to not go into a true discussion. If that's what you're after, good going. :)
I wasn't vague at all. Check the literature I linked. But you're right about something. I don't want to waste time with people who only have knee-jerk reactions and dismiss something they don't even know what it is.
(...)
In particular:
1. How does the ``free market'' prevents _cartels_ and stays free? 2. In a stateless free market, what happens to orphans, physically/mentally impaired people and the like?
They are sold as cat and dog food for the pets of the rich people.
Well, at least we're clear.
We've been clear all the time. I know that you don't have a clue and only parrot establishment propaganda.
IMHO realworld implementation of ``free market'' is the law of the jungle played with (virtual) money/goods on a Ponzi scheme playground (check the thread about the usa debt).
That is, you don't know what "free market" means and yet you are wasting time discussing it and apparently trying to refute something you don't have a clue about it.
So which version of the "free market" you propose? There are many.
Drop the bluffing rysiek. I know that you don't know what you're talking about.
By the way Georgi, first you called me an 'utopian'. I hope you know what that means. It means the system I advocate is not possible and obviously doesn't exist. And now you are saying that "free market" is the same thing as (american) corporatism. Well, at least it's a utopia eh?
IMHO realworld implementation of ``free market'' is the law of the jungle played with (virtual) money/goods on a Ponzi scheme playground (check the thread about the usa debt).
By the way Georgi, first you called me an 'utopian'. I hope you know what that means. It means the system I advocate is not possible and obviously doesn't exist. And now you are saying that "free market" is the same thing as (american) corporatism. Well, at least the 'free market' it's NOT a utopia after all eh?
IMHO realworld implementation of ``free market'' is the law of the jungle played with (virtual) money/goods on a Ponzi scheme playground (check the thread about the usa debt).
participants (4)
-
Georgi Guninski -
Juan -
Razer -
rysiek