|
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 |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Umm...there were governments, even monarchies, taxes and regulations in the 19th century as well...I even bet there were government run corporations and corporations that acted as governments...
And, I'm sorry but you are going to have to explain who enacts and enforces these laws of free markets and what laws they would be. It does not sound like a "free market" to me.
And, what about people who "choose" not to have taxes, regulations and government, are they not "free" to choose this? And, who would stop them from choosing it? A government? A vigilante army? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And I forgot, there was slavery in the 19th century as well. It is hard to call that a free market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| And I forgot, there was slavery in the 19th century as well. It is hard to call that a free market. |
Yes, slavery was a government-sanctioned institution. The government also cleared native Americans off their land and stuck them onto reservations. Basically the crimes of government are endless.
That aside, the 19th century came closer to a free market than any other time. Had slavery been peacefully abolished in the South (which it inevitably would have been eventually, as with everywhere else in Europe and North America), the US truly would have been as close to a truly free market as it gets. Of course this all came crashing down with Lincoln (who cared nothing about freeing slaves, and even said so) invading the South, waging total war against the population, and using it to centralize power into the hands of the federal government. From there the country became steadily more imperialist, corporatist, and corrupt. The rest is history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are just cherry picking your answers and changing the subject. Your idealization of the 19th century is suspect. In what way were the markets free?
Though, I guess it is good to know what you really believe. You would like to turn the world back to the 19th century. 19th Century where and who might be a better question? There was a lot of suffering in that century. Who and where would you want to be? It would make a huge difference. Of course, it would be similar in the 21st Century except that while still not perfect, there is a lot more freedom today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Army genocide for a reason. For profit. Certain companies in collusion with the Indonesian government instigated this genocide and benefited from it. |
I'm afraid it's just yet another shameful chapter in the history of government mass murder.
Are you one of those who believes that, when cooperation between business and government produces benevolent consequences, all the credit goes to the government (but when cooperation between business and government produces malevolent consequences, all the blame goes to 'capitalism', the 'free market' and the profit motive)?
Nothing could be more laughable than the fallacies of the left.
| Privateer wrote: |
| Interesting link, and it strongly supports my point that capitalism thrives in the Third World |
It shows that every American job-creating entity of note has, at some point, employed foreigners over Americans. And yet, these same individuals who decry the "outsourcing of America", such as Lou Dobbs and yourself, are also those who cherish high taxes, public services and unions, seemingly oblivious to even the mere possibility of a causal relationship. Some people are just so dogmatic and impervious to logic that they are incapable of self-blame, it would seem - not unlike children. Or is it your position, Privateer, that we can attribute benevolent outcomes, such as higher wages, solely to unions and the left, but malevolent outcomes, such as when Western businesses flee the West (in search of lower wages), not to unions and the left but rather to greedy, evil capitalism?
| Privateer wrote: |
| U.S. agriculture is heavily subsidized to the point that it's impossible for small farmers in any country to compete, however efficient they are |
Sorry, I don't understand. I thought your political lobby believed in protecting domestic industries? Isn't the US government serving the Common Good by keeping its farmers employed? Why, if these are your views (and I'm very confident indeed that they are), are you now complaining that US agriculture is heavily subsidized, inevitably meaning that Third World nations find it more difficult to sell their agricultural products in rich nations? If the US government abolished subsidies for agriculture, and businesses began purchasing the labors not of American farmers, but of Third World farmers, what would your position be?
| Privateer wrote: |
| In the Third World we see capitalism unchecked, and, if capitalism is unchecked here, we will start to see the Third World here too. |
I hope you're right. Third World conditions would be precisely what the vulgar Western rabble deserves. The thought of lefties working until the very moment they die of old age (because there aren't any jobs or public services in the West any longer) makes me joyous. And if they're tofu-eating hippies who live til they're 98, all the better! And if the proles wake up one day and find they are unable to nourish themselves, that is an expected outcome of coercing those who create opportunities for workers into providing one free lunch too many. Unsurprisingly, businesses are fleeing this unabashedly parasitical environment in favor of nations where they can pay labor its true market value.
Such is the nugatory, expendable, disposable nature of the laborer. So long as there are paupers in foreign lands prepared to work for pennies for doing the same job as a fat Western prole, many will prefer the cheaper option any day. And why not? Would you buy a laptop that cost $2,000, just to keep British workers in Bovril, as opposed to a $300 laptop assembled in the sweatshops of China?
Capitalism thrives in the Third World in the same way that Privateer thrives when he discovers a grocery store whose low prices enable him to make substantial savings. You think you're saying something earth-shattering, when really it is a triviality: everyone relishes spending less and having more left over. Again, similar to the left's view that the rich should pay for a safety net for the rabble but shouldn't be permitted to have one for themselves, the surprising thing is not that businesses don't like to spend more unnecessarily (which is incredibly unsurprising), but that there are people who think that there should be one rule for the rabble and one rule for businesses. But why, when we all the same human animal, driven by the same instincts and needs (namely, ruthless self-interest)?
The central theme permeating your views, Privateer, is that your particular class of person is owed a living and entitled to receive things regardless of whether others wish to provide them. This, not unlike geocentrism, wishfully puts your particular social class at the center of the universe, oblivious to its rightful position - that of irrelevance.
| Privateer wrote: |
| It's precisely because employees have such relatively high pay over here that the employers are looking to the Third World where pay and conditions are so much worse and, correspondingly, profits so much higher |
How do foreign companies attract labor? By offering, by local standards, higher wages than would otherwise be available.
Would you rather the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich?
| Unposter wrote: |
The closest we have ever come to a free market is hunting and gathering. So, what free markets are you talking about that have brought prosperity?
Go ahead - try to create the absence of "government."
As my friend used to say, "The problem with anarchy is there is nothing to enforce it."
How do you enforce free markets? |
It's been explained to you several times previously that free market economics has nothing to do with anarchism. The fact that you are incapable of grasping the distinction does not mean that no such distinction exists. For the record, I do actually have a great deal of sympathy with anarchism, especially morally and socially. But classical liberalism, or libertarianism as it's now known, puts law & order and the state at its core.
Oh, and by the way, hunter-gatherer society was characterized by egalitarian social structures and share-and-share-alike, in clear contrast to the Class System, inequality, competition and unabashed selfishness of free market capitalism. But you knew that, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question with regards to 19th century America being a free market. There was a lot of collusion amongst companies in certain industries to fix prices, hand out territory and to keep new and small players out of the market. Railroad companies, banking, etc.
As a result, the Sherman Anti trust act as well as other similar legislation was enacted.
Is the free market also the right to collude with your competitors to make certain industries an oligarchy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| You are just cherry picking your answers and changing the subject. |
No, I'm not. No idea why you think so.
| Quote: |
| Your idealization of the 19th century is suspect. In what way were the markets free? |
Look up "laissez-faire" and get back to me.
| Quote: |
| Though, I guess it is good to know what you really believe. |
What I "really" believe is precisely what I've said in this and other threads.
| Quote: |
| You would like to turn the world back to the 19th century. |
Wrong! Nice try. Nowhere did I say or even hint at this.
| Quote: |
| 19th Century where and who might be a better question? |
N/A
| Quote: |
| There was a lot of suffering in that century. |
Not as much as in the century that succeeded it.
| Quote: |
| Who and where would you want to be? |
Here and now, just minus all the government corruption, waste, lies, oppression, and tyranny.
The technology we have today has improved our lives beyond what people in the 19th century could even have imagined. This is in spite of government theft of our money, corruption, flawed regulatory policies, and massive misallocations of resources etc. Without the government holding society back (and inflicting evils like inflation and income tax onto the public) we would have a far, far better standard of living than we do presently.
| Quote: |
| It would make a huge difference. Of course, it would be similar in the 21st Century except that while still not perfect, there is a lot more freedom today! |
There most certainly is not a lot more freedom today (unless you're a criminal banker looting the public perhaps). If you think you're so free, try not paying your taxes to our loving and benevolent government and see what happens (chances are a loving and benevolent SWAT team will show up at your front door)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| I have a question with regards to 19th century America being a free market. There was a lot of collusion amongst companies in certain industries to fix prices, hand out territory and to keep new and small players out of the market. Railroad companies, banking, etc. |
You misunderstand. It is not collusion between companies that is a problem - it's collusion between companies and the government. This is what we call "corporatism" (which in the US traces its roots as far back as the major railroads, some of which lobbied the government to become monopolies - incidentally Lincoln was a big shot railway lawyer who worked for these corporations before becoming president). Corporatism is basically another word for fascism (Mussolini even referred to it as such).
| Quote: |
| As a result, the Sherman Anti trust act as well as other similar legislation was enacted. |
"Standard Oil did not restrain trade; it went out to the ends of the earth to make a market. Can the corporations be said to have "restrained trade" when the trade they cater to had no existence until they produced and sold the goods? Were the motor car manufacturers restraining trade during the period in which they made and sold fifty million cars, where there had been no cars before� Surely� nothing more preposterous could have been imagined than to fix upon the American corporations, which have created and carried on, in ever-increasing magnitude, a volume and variety of trade so vast that it makes all previous production and exchange look like a rural roadside stand, and call this performance "restraint of trade," further stigmatizing it as a crime!" (pg. 172)
[...]
"Government cannot "restore competition" or "ensure" it. Government is monopoly; and all it can do is to impose restrictions which may issue in monopoly, when they go so far as to require permission for the individual to engage in production. This is the essence of the Society-of-Status. The reversion to status law in the antitrust legislation went unnoticed� the politicians� had secured a law under which it was impossible for the citizen to know beforehand what constituted a crime, and which therefore made all productive effort liable to prosecution if not to certain conviction." (pg. 176-77)
Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine.
| Quote: |
| Is the free market also the right to collude with your competitors to make certain industries an oligarchy? |
Monopolies can only be formed with government backing. In a free market, it is possible for a company to take a near full share of a market, but competition will always erode this over time (like Standard Oil, which had lost much of it's market share by the time it was broken up by anti-trust laws).
Moreover, in a free market, if a certain company does take over most of the market due to fairly outperforming its competition and providing better products/services at cheaper prices, the this can only be lauded. The minute they stop doing so, competition will come in and take over their market share. The general effect is that prices drop and quality increases. It is fantastic for consumers and greatly increases peoples' standard of living. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
VisitorQ,
You are still side-stepping my questions. And, loading us down with a lot of meaningless (or seemingly meaningless quotes - you don't really explain them) to make you seem more scholarly than you are, I assume.
You said that freemarkets have created a lot of wealth. I want to know what freemarkets you are talking about. All you said is the 19th century. Again, I want to know how you define a free market. What (and where - the U.S.? Uk? Indo-China? the World?) are you talking about? Slow down and have a real discussion.
Sergio,
I have no idea what you are going on about. All I want to know is what are these free markets visitorq is talking about - not abstractly but concretely.
And, your ideas about the freedom to have a class based society is interesting. What do you mean by a class based society? Are these just economic inequalities or are they privileges of birth (sp?) or I guess both? Are you talking 19th Century British Monarchy or what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
VisitorQ,
You are still side-stepping my questions. |
What questions? It seems to me that you are the one who side stepped my questions and avoided addressing the points I made earlier.
| Quote: |
| And, loading us down with a lot of meaningless (or seemingly meaningless quotes - you don't really explain them) to make you seem more scholarly than you are, I assume. |
Just because you are incapable of understanding those quotes (like you are seemingly incapable of understanding even basic concepts, like the difference between free market capitalism and state-run capitalism) does not make them meaningless. Nor do I pretend to be more scholarly than I am. Try again.
| Quote: |
| You said that freemarkets have created a lot of wealth. I want to know what freemarkets you are talking about. All you said is the 19th century. Again, I want to know how you define a free market. What (and where - the U.S.? Uk? Indo-China? the World?) are you talking about? Slow down and have a real discussion. |
Obviously I was referring mainly to the US (since I mentioned "the US government" repeatedly). As for "which free markets", this little trap you think you've set up (trying to say, I take it, that there have never been "truly" free markets, so how could I possibly use it as a historical example?) doesn't work. Because it's not a question of either/or. Markets do not have to be 100% free or not free to have this discussion - rather, there is a matter of degree. The freer the markets are, the more prosperous the society. The more the government interferes, the worse off the economy gets. Pretty much without exception (I would challenge you to come with any, but I wouldn't hold my breath).
This is all very self-evident. In the 19th century, markets in the US were generally freer than they are today, and growth was much higher. The US did not even have a central bank from the time that Jackson killed it, up until 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. On the other hand, there were plenty of tariffs internationally at that time, which limited free trade among nations (separate issue). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| either way, the point still stands that both these countries - and the majority of countries in the world - are capitalist. |
| Privateer wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Hell, if you want to get technical, Stalin's genocide of Ukrainian peasants could probably be blamed on "capitalism" too. |
How so? |
Because all those communist (and fascist) countries had state-capitalism. They had a government controlled central bank, just like Western countries. They imposed it at the barrel of a gun, just like the West. |
I would agree with that to an extent and also that state-capitalism is what we have in the West too. It doesn't mean that government per se is bad, but that it takes continual struggle to get it to represent the public interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
visitorg,
Okay, I want to understand your response correctly. The various trusts of the 19th century had government backing and approval? Also, that its okay for companies to collude to fix prices, etc. as long as the government is not involved? The Sherman anti trust act was set up by the government but it was formed to fight the same trusts that the government were a party to originally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
visitorg,
Okay, I want to understand your response correctly. The various trusts of the 19th century had government backing and approval? |
It depends - if by "trusts" you simply mean large companies, then some of them did, many did not. In the case of railroads, which were the first big corporations, some received very large land grants (often resulting in natives being cleared off land) and government subsidies (such as the Illinois Central, which Lincoln worked for, and later the Union Pacific, which Lincoln approved).
Other highly successful railroads were built up entirely through private investment and entrepreneurial excellence, without the involvement from government. For example, James J. Hill (who started out his career with nothing, packing groceries for $4 a month at age 14) went on work in the railroad industry, learning everything about it, saving his money, and eventually went on to buy out the government subsidized Northern Pacific railroad when it went bankrupt. He then transformed it into the best run, most profitable rail network in the country, all without government assistance.
Other so-called monopolies of that era (at the end of the 19th century) like Standard Oil, were not monopolies at all. They did not receive government subsidies; rather they achieved dominance through superior performance, lowering prices through efficiency and economies of scale, greatly increasing the overall market and benefiting consumers immensely. Of course, Standard Oil was broken up ostensibly through anti-trust legislation (although Rockefeller maintained ownership through a myriad of shell companies), and later went on join forces with the government and become a real monopoly, when the government became the oil industry's largest customer during World War I (which it has remained to this day).
| Quote: |
| Also, that its okay for companies to collude to fix prices, etc. as long as the government is not involved? |
Absolutely. In the first place, it is impossible for private companies to "fix" prices in the sense you mean. Because in a free market, there is nothing stopping outside competition from moving in and selling it a cheaper price. Cartels nearly always break up on their own (since the temptation to slash prices to increase one's market share is too great), unless they are government regulated. Beyond that, companies pooling their resources and capital can only be beneficial and lead to better things for the consumer.
Real price fixing comes from government-sanctioned monopolies (which are the only true monopolies there are). In this case, outside competition either cannot come into the market and sell products cheaper, or will not since government legislation has given unfair advantages to an existing cartel. The government sells it as though they are "regulating" the market and fixing the prices low - when in fact prices are usually fixed higher, and it usually leads to the companies becoming inefficient, often requiring government subsidies (tax dollars). The quality of goods/services invariably goes down as well.
| Quote: |
| The Sherman anti trust act was set up by the government but it was formed to fight the same trusts that the government were a party to originally? |
The Sherman anti-trust act was supposed to keep monopolies from driving down competition. In reality, there is was not a single case of that legislation being used against a private company that was stifling competition. Apparently the government considers fairly "outperforming" competition to be the same as stifling it...
The best way for the government to ensure there is competition in the market is to simply keep the market free (ie. make sure everyone plays by the rules and don't commit fraud or other crimes), and otherwise keep its hands off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess part of my confusion was cleared up. Earlier you said "free markets" but now you have changed your mind and said it was "freer" markets that you meant. There is a difference and if you don't know the difference, than you are not as smart as you purport yourself to be.
The problem is you still have not defined what you mean by "freer." You just leave it our as some kind of axiom which we all are supposed to accept as "truth." If I did not know better, and I realize you don't think it is the case, but you act like it is some kind of religion, at least an ideology that does not have to be explained or tested by logic and science.
Whose markets are freer? To what extent is the market freer? If there have never been free markets, how do we know that there isn't at some point a negative contribution to free markets. Now, you might say that theoretically, free markets are freer but until it is truly demonstrated in reality, this is only theory. Now, you may not care about this but it does make a difference. If I were to say, that in theory global warming is correct and a serious threat. You would probably complain and say that those scientists haven't proven anything yet. But, you don't see your own blind faith in free markets.
Now, you brought up the 19th century. You said it was an example of a time in which markets were free. You specified that especially the U.S. had free markets. You even said that the lack of a federal central bank (federal reserve) was your evidence.
But, it was also a time of slavery and jim crow. It was a time when the Federal Government forcibly "reconstructed" southern states. It was a time when businesses forcibly made their workers work at the nose of a gun and locking doors so they could not leave. It was a time when Jews, Irish and others need not apply. It was the time of the company store and "workers" were forced to buy products at company stores at prices higher than their wages in order to keep them in defacto slavery. It was a time of monoploy and anit-trust. It was a time when the government gave large tacks of land and mineral rights to large businesses for nothing or near nothing. It was a time when large U.S. businesses went to Central and South America and set up their own governments and used near slave labor. And, don't forget there were still taxes and regulations!
And, you call this a freer market than we have today? I am not saying that you are necessarilly wrong, I just don't understand. Please explain.
You also said that there was a very high rate of growth in the U.S. in the 19th Century. Something I wholeheartedly agree with. But, you seem to think (and correct me if I am wrong) that it was the "freer" market of the time that created it. But, you do not seem to give credit to the fact that religion had finally allowed logic and science a chance in the 18th century and the 19th century was the first century to take advantage of this increase in technology (one that continues to pay even more impressive dividends today), that the U.S. was a developing country with a developing country growth pattern and that unlike other developing countries the U.S. had to be litterally built from scratch creating never before seen economic opportunities. To give credit to the free market for these unleashed forces is to be purposefully misleading.
And, what is your explination for the fact that the three largest economies in the world: the U.S., China and Japan are highly mixed economies with strong federal governments and strong regulations? How do you explain the large amount of "socialism" found in all of the top 20 largest economies of the world? Please explain. Please help me to understand. I would be most grateful at your explaination.
And, I am still curious what you think a free country should do if people in said country used their freedom to go against the free market, a scenario very similar to what happened in 19th Century America? Would said free country forecebly stop those people or would they let them to freely choose not to have free markets? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
By trusts I mean oligarchies. Maybe my history got it wrong but I was always taught that the largest companies in the same industries would get together to fix prices, keep out new and smaller competitors, etc.
You keep mentioning Standard Oil. Maybe they were or weren't a true monopoly. I didn't mention them in my posts.
Your responses seem to indicate there was collusion in the 19th century but it was wtih the blessing of the government. You pointed out a case in which that was the case but I've (and most Americans) were always taught that there were collusion without government blessing amongst companies in certain industries.
Since the Sherman Anti trust act and subsequent acts enacted to expand or strenghten it, there have been cases of companies colluding secretly to do all manner of things like rotating biddings, fix prices, etc.
This is in response to the free market theory. In a purely free market, is it or isn't it possible for companies to collude to run a certain industry by fixing prices, establishing territories, undercutting the prices, even at a loss, from new or smaller competitors. Toyota was accused of that at one point. In a free market wouldn't that be allowable, since they are allowed to act in any way?
Also, when the markets were freer, companies would dump harmful chemicals rivers, employ children, etc. Laws were made to stop that but a free market without any interference would have seen those acts continue wouldn't they?
Just like most Americans I like to see a competitive economic environment where companies can grow and prosper. I guess what I am trying to ascertain is how free is the free in market? |
|
| 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
