Snowden on the Twitters

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 10/8/15, Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:30:07 -0700
> Razer <Rayzer at riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 10/08/2015 09:20 AM, rysiek wrote:
>> > But wait, if we *do* get a truly decentralized market with no
>> > middlemen, where individuals do not have to cooperate with would-be
>> > middlemen, are you saying that individuals would not at all
>> > co-operate with each other in order to *become* middlement and
>> > shaft everybody else?

I.e. (I think is your question) "what's to stop cartels"?

OPEC, an international (unregulated) price fixing cartel gets created,
i.e. they turned themselves into middle men, consumers get shafted
since price gets maximised as a result.


>> Show me the advantage over cooperating with others equilaterally.

"The market decides" - oil over $100/barrel, and shale oil became
profitable. The price did not come down, but we could also say shale
oil producers had yet to get going.

The Saudis (OPEC) halved the price of crude to target and eliminate
the US shale oil producers. This 'price war' is not yet over.

This has also been called a market share war with OPEC, Russia and USA
competing - the shale producers had caused USA to become an oil
exporting nation for the first time in yonks (official term for 'quite
a long time').

OPEC recently invited Russia to join (they've been 'observer' for
ages). Putin is holding onto his cards, not in any rush to make oil
price fixing decisions right at this particular moment in time.

This all looks like factional wars, rather than 'free' market.


> 	There's no inherent problem with middlemen. If they are not
> 	actually useful, then people won't hire them. And if their
> 	usefulness is debatable, then people who don't like middlemen
> 	don't have to hire them anyway.

And if the (rigged) price goes high enough, this will encourage new
and more efficient players.

Then the incumbent(s) band together to destroy the newcomer(s).

Regulation -against- monopoly incumbents is sometimes then 'enforced'.


> 	It's quite funny how statists whine about 'monopolies' in the
> 	free-market while trying to hide the fact that they are
> 	advocates of the only actual monopoly that matters : the state.
> 	Which, go figure, is the ARMED MONOPOLY that grants PRIVILEGES
> 	to its friends allowing them to get rid of the competition and
> 	abuse consumers...thus creating 'economic' monopolies.

I agree that the state is the primary creator of monopolies even if
the state sometimes handles the problem of monopolies.

Example state created monopolies:
- copyright
- trademarks
- patents
- licenses
- ripping up functional train and tram networks to help boost the car industry

Example types of licenses (you can't do this unless you're licensed,
only so many licenses are handed out, or the licenses are unduly
expensive thereby locking out small players):
- manufacturing
- operating
- usage
- service/repair

The question is, what's to stop OPEC like cartels in all industries?
Perhaps it doesn't matter - if bullies get too strong, the market for
assassins would presumably grow, to handle the bullies, and shit,
perhaps at some point we might even see humans being nice to each
other.


> 	So what propagandists do is try to scare people  whith
> 	tales about how dangerous freedom is and how people starve if
> 	left alone - who will feed the children bla bla bla - and how
> 	their altruistic friends from the state and the 'NGOs' (the
> 	state) save everybody, and at no cost!
>
> 	Isn't the state amazing rysiek? It provides endless benefits
> 	and, it is FREE.
>
> 	https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html
> 	
> 	"defending the nation"
>
> 	Oops. Looks like the retard is both a left-wing AND a
> 	RIGHT-wing american fascist...

Thanks to the Greeks and their dang black and white stones, we have
quite a long history of "democracy", and so most people might, just
might, be a little fearful of the unknown - in this case market
freedom.

Might be RMS has never properly researched (or understood) political
anarchy - he takes a few days to reply, but he generally answers a
polite and direct question.

I have found RMS to be consistently forthright, including when he does
not know something - he's so direct that unedumacated folk have often
said he is rude, not realising that directness is so far from rude
it's not funny.

Regards
Z