jonquil wrote:Lol. More free market lies. Tell these stories to the millions of consumers screwed by monopolies these days.
Don't worry, though. All news and propaganda will be sifted through monopolistic media outlets, so you're crazed views are safe.
Without government, ordinary people would be much more powerful than they are today.
Myth: In a free market, wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people
jonquil wrote:What we have today is freemarket corporate fascism. It is a sociopathic politico-economic system based on self-interested greed and looting.
phyllo wrote:I wonder how relevant a "dramatic-documentary-musical" film is to the real world.
iambiguous wrote:How about this myth: that free market capitalism exist at all.
phyllo wrote:Eran wrote:Without government, ordinary people would be much more powerful than they are today.
Given that no nation can exist without a government, this statement is fairly pointless.
phyllo wrote:Eran wrote:Myth: In a free market, wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people
Not a myth. Let me give a personal example....
jonquil wrote:What we have today is freemarket corporate fascism. It is a sociopathic politico-economic system based on self-interested greed and looting.
Eran wrote:Myth: In a free market, wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people
Truth: The cumulative purchasing power of the middle-class far exceeds that of the wealthy. Most large corporations exist by catering to the needs and desired of lower and middle class people.
In fact, it is government that gives power to the wealthy.
Ganapati wrote:Eran wrote:Myth: In a free market, wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people
Truth: The cumulative purchasing power of the middle-class far exceeds that of the wealthy. Most large corporations exist by catering to the needs and desired of lower and middle class people.
The power a weathy man holds is direct. The power a less wealthy person holds is indirect in the sense that if his wants are constantly ignored by some, eventually someone else will take notice and offer a better product/service. The latter kind of power is not something anyone can sense or feel comfortable about when a more direct power is visible around.
Ganapati wrote:Eran wrote:In fact, it is government that gives power to the wealthy.
Perhaps a very good reason why you will never see governments disappear. While the threat of competition is good for the consumer, it is not good for the currently wealthy. So if a government doesn't exist, one will be created by the wealthy (they can afford to pay for it) to ensure competition doesn't come up i.e. kill free market. The way to prevent it would be for the rest to pay to set up a competing government to prevent the one owned by the wealthy from being successful. So you will need a government to protect the free market unless somehow killing the free market for personal benefit becomes an unthinkable idea.
Eran wrote:I don't see the difference in principle. A wealthy person has more money, but money is only a mean, rather than an end. Both rich and poor need somebody to provide them with what they actually want in exchange for the money. Poor people are much more numerous than rich people, and are thus much more likely to find somebody to satisfy their needs.
Perhaps. However, raw power is not the only determining factor. Ideology matters. A lot. So while I recognize that getting rid of government is an uphill battle, this battle is not an impossible one to win. The battleground is neither the physical world (as violent so-called anarchists believe) nor the ballot box (as the various Libertarian Parties seem to think) but rather people's hearts and minds. It is a battle of ideas. If the idea of liberty (in the form I am advocating) takes root, the wealthy will have as little ability to resist the forces calling for abolishing their special rights as did the French aristocracy of the 18th century.
Eran wrote:Myth: Capitalism naturally leads to monopolies which act to the detriment of the consumer.
Eran wrote:Myth: In a free market, wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people.
Eran wrote:Free market capitalism is an ideal. It is like health or peace or a lawful society - none of them exist in their perfect form, but we can still view them as worthy goals, and consider both the historic and the prospective impact of having relatively more or less of each.
Eran wrote: Where I differ from many other contributors here is that I believe what we need to get rid of is state power, rather than private ownership.
Eran wrote:When advocating scaling back state power and allowing private ownership to flourish, two of the most common concerns are the rise of monopolies (which counter the positive impact of competition) and the increased power of the rich. Hence the OP.
phyllo wrote:It's possible to say that a large group of people each with a miniscule amount of power collectively have more power than a small group of wealthy people each people with a great deal of power. However, it is much easier for the small group to organize and use their power. A handful of people can quickly agree and act. Trying too get a million people to agree and act is considerably more difficult and time consuming. It is easier for the wealthy to wield power.
phyllo wrote:I wonder how the idea of 'no government' would work in the case of essential needs such as water, electricity and heating fuel. What is to prevent a company from doubling the price of heating fuel during the winter and giving the consumer a choice of pay or freeze? Exorbitant prices for water? Why not? It's not easy for consumer to switch to another company, even assuming that there is another company able to supply your needs. Maybe the company already has a monopoly in the area. The problem is exasperated when private companies own everything, including the water and gas pipes going to your house.
iambiguous wrote:Look at the dreadful consequences of the business cycle and the manner in which some capitalists treat employees as interchangable [and clearly expendable] spokes on a wheel.
iambiguous wrote:One need but Google the Industrial Revolution to note why unions and communism became so popular. Capitalism is notorious for creating the very conditions that preciptate the politcial and economic interests that oppose it.
iambiguous wrote:As with capitalism itself, "the state" or "the government" is always in the mind of the beholder. It's size is good or bad depending on how you fit it into your political [or ideological] lexicon; or on what you get out of it.
And, again, out in the real world, it is never reducible down to only one thing or the other.
iambiguous wrote:The concern I always have is the manner in which capitalism and the government are just two ways of saying the same thing. At least here in the US of A.
Xunzian wrote:Basic game theory argues against the former assertion (see: coordination games). Furthermore, while it is true that no true laissez-faire system has ever existed, it is also worth noting that governments which favor a laissez-faire approach do see a greater development of monopolies than those which do not. Theoretically speaking, I see no reason why this trend would alter itself after a certain threshold was crossed.
Xunzian wrote:As for the second myth, there are two avenues one could pursue in their objection. The first is about the degree of power any given individual has within the system (see: the argument against voting thread). That argument holds some weight, though a more potent objection lies in modern media culture and the consumer culture. Demand doesn't stand on its own as an independent entity but rather it is created. While all classes are subject to this process, access to the media outlets used to create this demand is restricted to the wealthier segments.
Ganapati wrote:Individual liberty of the kind you are advocating is an idea, not an ideology
Ganapati wrote:It needs another vehicle to survive. The vehicle you choose is that it will lead to higher level of prosperity for all in the long run. Or you are trying to convince the listener that it will lead to a higher level of prosperity for him.
Ganapati wrote:Try convincing someone that the idea itself is worth it regardless of consequences, higher or lower prosperity for one or all short or long term, and see how many will be convinced. That alone will tell you if it can take root.
Silhouette wrote:Eran wrote:Myth: Capitalism naturally leads to monopolies which act to the detriment of the consumer.
To address the first half of this first, due to things like (a) imperfect mobility and (b) natural inequality between humans and imperfect information, free-market Capitalism necessarily tends towards some businesses becoming larger than others, tending towards monopoly:
Silhouette wrote:Eran wrote:Myth: In a free market, wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people.
It is one thing to say that wealthy people and ordinary people both have power in a free market, and another entirely to claim that they have equal power.
Can an ordinary person buy the best products, no matter how expensive? No.
Can a wealthy person buy the best products as well as the worst? Yes.
Clearly purchasing power is in favour of the wealthy people. Of course wealthy people would have more power than ordinary people.
Do ordinary people have NO power? Of course not.
Silouhette wrote:This is inherently going to happen over and over and over again in a free market.
For every period of growth, the growth must be undone at every recession or depression.
This would be a lot clearer and extreme without any government "interference".
Silouette wrote:Let it not be forgotten that governments resort to tactics like running the printing presses to create the illusion of more money... to continue the imaginary appearance of growth. This is only needed when an economy requires this illusion.
Silouhette wrote:Employees maintaining a similar or increasing standard of living while money flows away from them is a symptom of products becoming cheaper as new, more valuable ones replace older versions - not of wealth flowing towards employees. This is why wealth flowing away from employees isn't so clear.
Silouhette wrote:(WHY DO WE NEED THESE BOOMS AND BUSTS FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS TO BE CREATED?!!!)
Silouhette wrote:The greater power is in the hands of the wealthy who the wealth flows towards during boom periods, and who have exclusive access to be most advanced technologies and products. The wealthy investors are in charge of when to withdraw their investments to get them through a bust period.
The lesser power is in the hands of the ordinary employees who wealth flows away from, and who are left with nothing to see them through each bust period - all the while having no access to anything but out of date technologies and poorer quality products.
Eran wrote:Ganapati wrote:Individual liberty of the kind you are advocating is an idea, not an ideology
I am not sure I understand the difference. I advocate a complete ideology based in several ideas, the value of individual freedom being one, but not the only one.Ganapati wrote:It needs another vehicle to survive. The vehicle you choose is that it will lead to higher level of prosperity for all in the long run. Or you are trying to convince the listener that it will lead to a higher level of prosperity for him.
You seem to claim that people can only be swayed by selfish, individual motivation. This is patently false. Consider the millions of people that willingly sacrificed their lives, throughout history, for a variety of motives. By definition, they were working for an ideal beyond their own personal lives.
However, with the exception of a narrow class of pure exploiters who benefit directly from government (political and business elites), I do believe that the benefit of reducing government intervention will be both short-term and universal.
Consider how quickly scaling down communist regimes resulted in increased prosperity for virtually all members of society.
The elites I mentioned above, however, control society. They obviously control the power centres such as the army and the police. Much more importantly, however, they control the agenda-setting and ideology producing sections of society, including academia, education and the media. That's why the battle is an up-hill one.
Ganapati wrote:Try convincing someone that the idea itself is worth it regardless of consequences, higher or lower prosperity for one or all short or long term, and see how many will be convinced. That alone will tell you if it can take root.
Do you honestly believe the American Revolution was the result of people being persuaded that independence from Great Britain will result in short-term prosperity? Or was it motivated by the idea (or ideology) of freedom and independence?
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users