|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Not all libertarians call for a complete deregulation of business. |
I was looking for a term to describe the agenda that ontheway, visitorq etc often espouse on here about reducing government to only a police and military force. I realize now that libertarian was too all-encompassing as there are many different kinds of libertarians so my bad.
How about describing them as 'minarchists' then?
| Quote: |
| Minarchism refers to the belief in a state limited to police forces, courts, and a military. In minarchism, the state neither regulates nor intervenes in personal choices and business practices, except to protect against aggression, breach of contract, and fraud.[132][133] Both market anarchists and minarchists oppose victimless crimes, the Drug War, compulsory education, and conscription at all levels of government. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Minarchism
BTW- I have some more questions for those who advocate unregulated free markets: What is there to stop companies colluding and fixing prices? What is there to stop a huge corporation with a near-monopoly (like Microsoft) from engaging in anti-competitive activities? |
A better term is Classical Liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
As for your question, this has been explained ad infinitum on this board and else where. If firms collude to fix prices, they must be fixing it above the equilibrium price. If firms do this eventually another firm will come into that market and undercut the price fixers, thus taking that share of the market.
When you think about monopolies you have to do a cost benefit analysis. Will breaking up that monopoly necessarily lead to a better outcome? Some people have an irrational aversion to monopolies in the private sector yet tolerate it in the public sector. The US mail service is a prime example.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/postal-employees-live-it-up
The point is moot anyway, because monopolies can only exist, in the long term, with govt blessing (ie. regulation or direct govt ownership). In a free market monopolies never survive in the long run. It is a mathematical impossibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
No, sorry, I think you missed the tense of my question... I would looking for something in the present tense, not something from a hundred or more years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
No, sorry, I think you missed the tense of my question... I would looking for something in the present tense, not something from a hundred or more years ago. |
How is it not relevant? Nothing in the way an economy fundamentally works has changed during that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
But the United States government did things before 1913 that fall outside of the boundaries of protecting people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
But the United States government did things before 1913 that fall outside of the boundaries of protecting people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. |
Definitely but to a much lesser degree and it was much more difficult for govts to encroach into the private sector.
You can leave that all to one side, though as the most important change after 1913 was the Federal Reserve. This practically nationalized the entire economy! If the medium of exchange is owned by the govt and can be manipulated to serve its own purposes, then what isn't owned by the govt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Not all libertarians call for a complete deregulation of business. |
I was looking for a term to describe the agenda that ontheway, visitorq etc often espouse on here about reducing government to only a police and military force. I realize now that libertarian was too all-encompassing as there are many different kinds of libertarians so my bad.
How about describing them as 'minarchists' then?
| Quote: |
| Minarchism refers to the belief in a state limited to police forces, courts, and a military. In minarchism, the state neither regulates nor intervenes in personal choices and business practices, except to protect against aggression, breach of contract, and fraud.[132][133] Both market anarchists and minarchists oppose victimless crimes, the Drug War, compulsory education, and conscription at all levels of government. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Minarchism
BTW- I have some more questions for those who advocate unregulated free markets: What is there to stop companies colluding and fixing prices? What is there to stop a huge corporation with a near-monopoly (like Microsoft) from engaging in anti-competitive activities? |
A better term is Classical Liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
As for your question, this has been explained ad infinitum on this board and else where. If firms collude to fix prices, they must be fixing it above the equilibrium price. If firms do this eventually another firm will come into that market and undercut the price fixers, thus taking that share of the market.
Not necessarily. If each new company that enters the market can be convinced that it is more profitable to collude in the price fixing rather than try to undercut the opposition the situation could continue indefinitely.
When you think about monopolies you have to do a cost benefit analysis. Will breaking up that monopoly necessarily lead to a better outcome? Some people have an irrational aversion to monopolies in the private sector yet tolerate it in the public sector. The US mail service is a prime example.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/postal-employees-live-it-up
The point is moot anyway, because monopolies can only exist, in the long term, with govt blessing (ie. regulation or direct govt ownership). In a free market monopolies never survive in the long run. It is a mathematical impossibility.
Maybe not complete monopolies but ones that have enough of monopoly that they can engage in anti-competitive practices as Microsoft did, that can quash other companies before they have a chance to compete.
The reason why government monopolies are more tolerable is because there can be checks and balances on their operation. Their main goal is to provide a service rather than simply making a profit for shareholders.
Tranzrail (in NZ) is an excellent example of how private companies will abuse monopolies. It was sold off by the NZ government in the name of 'efficeincy' to an Australian owner who ran it into the ground, investing nothing back into improving the infrastructure (why bother? there was no competition) and ripping all the profits offshore until finally the NZ government was forced to buy it back if rail in NZ was to have any future at all.
Contrast this with NZ post which was held onto by the NZ government, turned into a state-owned enterprise and is now running efficiently and turning a tidy profit that stays within NZ.
This idea that selling everything off to foreign owners will improve our quality of life is such garbage.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Not all libertarians call for a complete deregulation of business. |
I was looking for a term to describe the agenda that ontheway, visitorq etc often espouse on here about reducing government to only a police and military force. I realize now that libertarian was too all-encompassing as there are many different kinds of libertarians so my bad.
How about describing them as 'minarchists' then?
| Quote: |
| Minarchism refers to the belief in a state limited to police forces, courts, and a military. In minarchism, the state neither regulates nor intervenes in personal choices and business practices, except to protect against aggression, breach of contract, and fraud.[132][133] Both market anarchists and minarchists oppose victimless crimes, the Drug War, compulsory education, and conscription at all levels of government. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Minarchism
BTW- I have some more questions for those who advocate unregulated free markets: What is there to stop companies colluding and fixing prices? What is there to stop a huge corporation with a near-monopoly (like Microsoft) from engaging in anti-competitive activities? |
A better term is Classical Liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
As for your question, this has been explained ad infinitum on this board and else where. If firms collude to fix prices, they must be fixing it above the equilibrium price. If firms do this eventually another firm will come into that market and undercut the price fixers, thus taking that share of the market.
Not necessarily. If each new company that enters the market can be convinced that it is more profitable to collude in the price fixing rather than try to undercut the opposition the situation could continue indefinitely.
When you think about monopolies you have to do a cost benefit analysis. Will breaking up that monopoly necessarily lead to a better outcome? Some people have an irrational aversion to monopolies in the private sector yet tolerate it in the public sector. The US mail service is a prime example.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/postal-employees-live-it-up
The point is moot anyway, because monopolies can only exist, in the long term, with govt blessing (ie. regulation or direct govt ownership). In a free market monopolies never survive in the long run. It is a mathematical impossibility.
Maybe not complete monopolies but ones that have enough of monopoly that they can engage in anti-competitive practices as Microsoft did, that can quash other companies before they have a chance to compete.
The reason why government monopolies are more tolerable is because there can be checks and balances on their operation. Their main goal is to provide a service rather than simply making a profit for shareholders.
Tranzrail (in NZ) is an excellent example of how private companies will abuse monopolies. It was sold off by the NZ government in the name of 'efficeincy' to an Australian owner who ran it into the ground, investing nothing back into improving the infrastructure (why bother? there was no competition) and ripping all the profits offshore until finally the NZ government was forced to buy it back if rail in NZ was to have any future at all.
Contrast this with NZ post which was held onto by the NZ government, turned into a state-owned enterprise and is now running efficiently and turning a tidy profit that stays within NZ.
This idea that selling everything off to foreign owners will improve our quality of life is such garbage.
|
|
One success amongst a litany of failures. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
It doesn't detract from the pure and simple fact that the net gain from govt intervention is hopelessly in the red. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
No, sorry, I think you missed the tense of my question... I would looking for something in the present tense, not something from a hundred or more years ago. |
How is it not relevant? Nothing in the way an economy fundamentally works has changed during that time. |
Really, you honestly don't think that the world has changed that much in 100 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. |
Mind showing me a country where that works? |
The United States before 1913.
http://mises.org/daily/3866 |
No, sorry, I think you missed the tense of my question... I would looking for something in the present tense, not something from a hundred or more years ago. |
How is it not relevant? Nothing in the way an economy fundamentally works has changed during that time. |
Really, you honestly don't think that the world has changed that much in 100 years? |
The WORLD has changed a lot. The way an ECONOMY works hasn't changed and it will never change. The laws of economics, the same as the laws of nature are immutable. You can't change them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Not all libertarians call for a complete deregulation of business. |
I was looking for a term to describe the agenda that ontheway, visitorq etc often espouse on here about reducing government to only a police and military force. I realize now that libertarian was too all-encompassing as there are many different kinds of libertarians so my bad.
How about describing them as 'minarchists' then?
| Quote: |
| Minarchism refers to the belief in a state limited to police forces, courts, and a military. In minarchism, the state neither regulates nor intervenes in personal choices and business practices, except to protect against aggression, breach of contract, and fraud.[132][133] Both market anarchists and minarchists oppose victimless crimes, the Drug War, compulsory education, and conscription at all levels of government. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Minarchism
BTW- I have some more questions for those who advocate unregulated free markets: What is there to stop companies colluding and fixing prices? What is there to stop a huge corporation with a near-monopoly (like Microsoft) from engaging in anti-competitive activities? |
A better term is Classical Liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal
As for your question, this has been explained ad infinitum on this board and else where. If firms collude to fix prices, they must be fixing it above the equilibrium price. If firms do this eventually another firm will come into that market and undercut the price fixers, thus taking that share of the market.
Not necessarily. If each new company that enters the market can be convinced that it is more profitable to collude in the price fixing rather than try to undercut the opposition the situation could continue indefinitely.
When you think about monopolies you have to do a cost benefit analysis. Will breaking up that monopoly necessarily lead to a better outcome? Some people have an irrational aversion to monopolies in the private sector yet tolerate it in the public sector. The US mail service is a prime example.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/postal-employees-live-it-up
The point is moot anyway, because monopolies can only exist, in the long term, with govt blessing (ie. regulation or direct govt ownership). In a free market monopolies never survive in the long run. It is a mathematical impossibility.
Maybe not complete monopolies but ones that have enough of monopoly that they can engage in anti-competitive practices as Microsoft did, that can quash other companies before they have a chance to compete.
The reason why government monopolies are more tolerable is because there can be checks and balances on their operation. Their main goal is to provide a service rather than simply making a profit for shareholders.
Tranzrail (in NZ) is an excellent example of how private companies will abuse monopolies. It was sold off by the NZ government in the name of 'efficeincy' to an Australian owner who ran it into the ground, investing nothing back into improving the infrastructure (why bother? there was no competition) and ripping all the profits offshore until finally the NZ government was forced to buy it back if rail in NZ was to have any future at all.
Contrast this with NZ post which was held onto by the NZ government, turned into a state-owned enterprise and is now running efficiently and turning a tidy profit that stays within NZ.
This idea that selling everything off to foreign owners will improve our quality of life is such garbage.
|
|
One success amongst a litany of failures. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
It doesn't detract from the pure and simple fact that the net gain from govt intervention is hopelessly in the red. |
There are other examples of state-run companies that have been successful: In Korea KEPCO the national electricity company has done a good job of keeping electricity prices low.
There are also plenty of examples of how privatization of countries' natural resources has ended up impoverishing them. But the free market ideologues choose to ignore the reality and focus on their wonderful theories that the market will sort everything out.
Your ideology might work if all companies behaved ethically, but the problem is they don't- they collude, they cheat consumers, they engage in insider trading and they quash competition. Without any government regulation these tendencies would only worsen.
Look at the reality- the US government loosened regulation on financial markets and the banks responded by almost destroying the entire system in a mad frenzy of greed and corruption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
There are other examples of state-run companies that have been successful: In Korea KEPCO the national electricity company has done a good job of keeping electricity prices low. |
I know nothing about KEPCO. Since we are sighting random examples without looking at the bigger picture; how do you square the circle that is the US Postal service? It loses billions a year, yet enjoys a state sponsored monopoly. Opponents of the free market have NO right to complain about monopolies in the private sector until they also oppose far more egregious examples in the public sector.
| Quote: |
| There are also plenty of examples of how privatization of countries' natural resources has ended up impoverishing them. But the free market ideologues choose to ignore the reality and focus on their wonderful theories that the market will sort everything out. |
Care to give an example? Any example you give I can probably knock down within the hour.
| Quote: |
Your ideology might work if all companies behaved ethically, but the problem is they don't- they collude, they cheat consumers, they engage in insider trading and they quash competition. Without any government regulation these tendencies would only worsen. |
Companies that act "unethically", as you put it, are usually responding to govt created moral hazard. It's kind of a non-sequiter, anyway, as only people can act unethically.
| Quote: |
| Look at the reality- the US government loosened regulation on financial markets and the banks responded by almost destroying the entire system in a mad frenzy of greed and corruption. |
Bullshit. Once again, corporate entities were only responding to govt created moral hazard. I'm not going to take the time to explain this moral hazard to you, as it has been explained in minute detail by myself and, more ably, by others on this board. If you don't know what I'm referring to by now, you probably never will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
There are other examples of state-run companies that have been successful: In Korea KEPCO the national electricity company has done a good job of keeping electricity prices low.
|
What is their yearly profit before subsidy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| asylum seeker wrote: |
There are other examples of state-run companies that have been successful: In Korea KEPCO the national electricity company has done a good job of keeping electricity prices low.
|
What is their yearly profit before subsidy? |
Surely what should really be considered is how much their subsidy is? Low prices + low subsidy could be a good thing for the people of Korea even if the company didn't turn a pre-subsidy profit. Low prices + high subsidy would be bad for the people even if the company somehow eeked out a profit otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
