Free Market Enthusiasts

[mu4]

No, actually you are wrong. Firstly, I never said, "Fruitful research can not be determined by profitability in the same way as business enterprises." I said, "Funding scientific research that is unfruitful (unprofitable) is a waste of resources." At some point, a business is forced to innovate because profits in any given market tend towards an equilibrium with cost over the long term as firms enter and exit the market. Research and development are key to maintaining profitability in the long run. Turning science into technology may be an extremely long process in the current environment, but it doesn't have to be. The market cannot "price truth," but it can put a price on the production of scientific goods and the lengthy production process simply means a heavier reliance on society wide conditions. Obviously, the profit generated from opening a new market is significant and then it's just a matter of matching the potential profits to risk.

You have provided no evidence that markets avoid long term investments like scientific research. You are reciting the tired old mantra of academic patronage.

This has nothing to do with academic patronage, in fact many of the technological advancements in the world were neither done under business or under academia, but simply by truth seekers in private.

Business aren't "forced" to innovate. Business have the same mechanism as government, as do individuals, it can force others into slavery. Just because it's morally wrong doesn't mean business can't do this, and it will as has been seen thru-out history. When business face the conundrum of innovation/tyranny/death it often picks tyranny. In fact, in history tyranny is extremely common. How's that for evidence? In fact there hasn't been a society in history that hasn't had businesses pick corruption and tyranny when faced with stagnation How about you provide evidence that everytime a business is faced with a crisis of innovate or death that it picks to do long term investment and innovate. I'm afraid you'll find business pick many methods and not of them particularly nice. I don't care if they avoid them or not, that's hopefully determined by the individuals running the businesses, but I trust them no more than the people running governments. They're all potentially corrupt or potentially fair.

You offer market economy as a panacea for problems for which there are likely no cures like a religious nut, you need to wake up and stop drinking the kool-aid.

No, the process of research requires resources and time. Therefore, opportunity costs. If you want to define fruitful research as research that discovers some new information, fine, but if it is incredibly wasteful and unnecessary than to me it is not fruitful.

No, the process of producing informational goods has costs. The costs of producing the good today may be too onerous compared to other things that may be done today. Value is judged by individuals, some people may not desire the information or are apathetic about it. The usefulness of undiscovered knowledge will be uncertain, but so what? Businesses can contract with autonomous research and development/science groups and fund them in exchange for the "fruits" of their research. Guess what? This is already a thing.

A pricing mechanism facilitates the production of technology. I would argue that to coordinate the production of technology at our current "level" of technological progress, a pricing mechanism is "necessary."

Well since we can't determine the cost of something in resources/time does that mean it's not worth pursuing? For business that answer would be no right? As I have proved before, business don't have to always follow your fantasy world solution to its problems, it can always take a real world solution, brutality.

The pricing mechanism doesn't have to be a "free" market, not that such a thing will ever exists. I believe the market is a natural pricing mechanism, but that doesn't mean it's a "good" pricing mechanism. The market itself is a human technology which can be innovated and improved.

As far as pricing truth, there are plenty of people trying to "price" truth, especially people trying to patent your DNA. There are many reasons why patenting and monetizing scientific discoveries can lead to moral and ethical problems. Intrinsically information is very easy to transport, and the only way many scientific truth can be "milked" for the initial investment by business is if they attain a monopoly on the product.

You aren't getting it man. I'm arguing that scientists use resources that can be used for other things. You need some sort of mechanism to determine when to use stuff for the production of scientific research and when to use it for other things. The best mechanism is the market because it takes into account far more information about the current state of the world, than a government bureaucracy ever can.

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Like what? The western world is plentiful and wealthy, people already live pretty great. Anyways stop linking from crackpots, it's annoying. And you keep saying "best", prove that, puhleeezeeeee, stop drinking the kool-aid.

I have no problem with using the market as a pricing mechanism for most things, but as I said, the market always lags reality and cannot react as fast as reality, the information it knows is incomplete compare to the whole of society. The whole society is not the market nor the government, plenty of information is exchange for free, plenty of discussions are had by people for pleasure and plenty of innovations and advancement come from people who simply want to do it.

I think you don't understand that the market thru history has been just as oppressive a force as government to the people, and if you want to live a truly free life, you position yourself outside of both market forces and government forces so you can be secure against both. The market is heartless, you don't want it to dictate your life.

I find it funny you are so similar to the communist teachers I had as a child, always with the "best", "free", etc, etc etc. Best and free are for propaganda and marketing.

Anyways the only way to respect the individuals is to let people pick, government, market, religion, academia, self, it doesn't matter, everyone can pick the tool they want to use, and these are all potential tools available in society. Ideologues in the past have tried to force whole societies down one path or another, generally to great folly and brutality.

[InvisibleJim]

I think you don't understand that the market thru history has been just as oppressive a force as government to the people, and if you want to live a truly free life, you position yourself outside of both market forces and government forces so you can be secure against both. The market is heartless, you don't want it to dictate your life.

Incorrect, I want the market to give me a warm, loving hug. Because it makes my life richer, longer, freer, less painful and best of all happier.

[mu4]

Incorrect, I want the market to give me a warm, loving hug. Because it makes my life richer, longer, freer, less painful and better of all happier.

Well, you probably would be the type to love a real-doll too, at least it isn't much of a gold digger...^_^

The market is just a tool but I don't want it to tell me what to do as an individual.

Also since you're relatively young, you're a product of socialism as well, since you probably got healthcare, didn't have to work in a sweatshop. It's not like you were born in the 1900's and had to be a chimney sweep.

[InvisibleJim]

Well, you probably would be the type to love a real-doll too, at least it isn't much of a gold digger...^_^

The market is just a tool but I don't want it to tell me what to do as an individual.

Careful now, the market is the amalgamation of billions of souls individual choices and needs. If you truly care for your fellow man then you should provide them what they need and acquire surplus as you go. What is an individual when compared to the amalgamation of individuals and what is a command based system judged by only a 'few' compared to the collective decision making of the entire of humanity? This also makes life sense too: if you work to live, rather than waste your time living to work, you'll optimise the income of your work and therefore enjoy a better standard of living.

[mu4]

Careful now, the market is the amalgamation of billions of souls individual choices and needs. If you truly care for your fellow man then you should provide them what they need and acquire surplus as you go. What is an individual when compared to the amalgamation of individuals and what is a command based system judged by only a 'few' compared to the collective decision making of the entire of humanity? This also makes life sense too: if you work to live, rather than waste your time living to work, you'll optimise the income of your work and therefore enjoy a better standard of living.

I'm pretty sure most business organizations are command based system and not democratic societies. Most business people just want to have their own command base system which they control instead of being under someone else's. Seems reasonable.

As I said it's a useful tool and I use tools when I need to, but when I don't, I use something else. I just need a wrench.

But it sounds like you want this tool to "penetrate" you or some sort of intercourse... I think that's a unhealthy fetish.

[InvisibleJim]

I'm pretty sure most business organizations are command based system and not democratic societies. Most business people just want to have their own command base system which they control instead of being under someone else's. Seems reasonable.

Which answer to the market, or they go bust. Let the market take you Hkkmr, take you up and away from your unhealthy envy of wealth.

[mu4]

Which answer to the market, or they go bust. Let the market take you Hkkmr, take you up and away from your unhealthy envy of wealth.

Sometimes businesses don't answer to the market, sometimes they are a cancer to the market, sometimes they answer with guns. Sometimes people organize something else to make business pay for their crimes. It's kinda of like a cycle of life thing. I don't envy the wealth, since I intend to be well off, then I would have to envy myself. It's good to learn how to use a tool, but using it inappropriately can be bad for you and can also cause problems for people who use this tool later. So please, do not stick that tool where I think you want to stick it. I don't want to have to sterilize it.

[mu4]

A common misconception

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_roslin...ever_seen.html

The free market has hugely improved the wealth and living standards of the victorian concept of 'poor countries'

He never gave credit to market economies, in fact he gave more credit to HEALTH and the improved health of these countries.

"It seems you can move much faster if you're healthy first than if you're wealthy first."

Also it seems the specifics of government doesn't matter so much in the third world since there are many forms of government and some of the are developing irregardless of governing philosophy, and that peace, stability and health, generally good governance is of a much higher effect. And that's really revealing. It matters very little what political ideology you follow, good governance can bring good results. Of course you need a market, but what kind of market doesn't matter so much.



Hans's not exactly know to be a shrill for free market economics. Here he is giving props on about Dilma Rouseff.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_roslin...on_growth.html

And here's a good reason for some level of wealth redistribution... let's raise the standard of living of the poor so we can check population control...

The truth is that what is proposed as "free" market is basically unnecessary for development, all you need is a market, willing trading partners, a relatively fair system of justice, a way to manage production and distribute wealth so that people are looked after, educated, and kept healthy. How you accomplish this is a pretty diverse and interesting task, and it's also a daunting and monumental task, good thing humanity has some experience.

[FDG]

Oh please. Hans Rosling is just a covincing evangelist with very shaky theoretical and emprical backings. There are so many statistical mistakes in the presentation linked by IJ, makes my brain hurt after 1 minute.

[Pa3s]

Well, I don't know. The fundamental problem being, that people don't have work, or that they don't have money?

Actually, my OP was more about the system itself rather than the people. As I see it, our economy will never be able to create an egalitarian society, because there will always be masters and slaves. And because the abundance we now live in is only possible with constant growth (which will not always be possible imo) it is bound to fail.

The people need neither money nor work. They need food, shelter, clothes, ect.

[FDG]

Well, technically work is always present in a thermodynamic sense in procuring food, shelter, clothes - literally someone or something has to expend the energy to procure them, and the "price" of something can be thougth about as the ratio between the total energy expended to produce the two "goods". (a nice treatment of the matter is provided by Nicholas Georgescu-Rögen, albeit with a imho excessively negative final perspective)

Even with a fully automatized process, an infinitely-lived technological mechanism would only keep on infinitely wor with an infinitely-lived source of energy. A completely free-market perspective suffers from the problems you mention - which are only partially remedied by the presence of a financial market - whereas a fully planned economy suffers from the lack of economic calculation, as von Mises proved. Thus, my impression is - until we discover a completely renewable, infinitely-lived source of energy which all humans are willing to share, we're kind of forced to choose a mechanism to allocate "scarce" resources?

[Pa3s]

Yes, I agree. There's no doubt that our resources are "scarce" even if we believe we have plenty of it (like drinking water for example) just because they aren't unlimited. I realize that a free market offers possibilities of economic calculation. In the end, every company has to plan their production, but the market provides data which enables them to estimate the optimum output.

It's also true that the consumer can affect the market by choosing what to buy, whereas the centrally planned economy simply dictates the consumer what they need and produces according to its estimated average consumption. A centrally planned economy would not be a suitable replacement for the market system.

However, I see a true alternative in the decentralized production according to need. There mustn't be a central authority which regulates the whole production of the country. This system has to work in very small scaled networks, which eventually link up with larger ones. The people assess what they need, produce accordingly, exchange the products and consume locally. In that way, we still allocate scarce resources, but it works in a different way and with different goals and priorities than on the free market.

[InvisibleJim]

However, I see a true alternative in the decentralized production according to need. There mustn't be a central authority which regulates the whole production of the country. This system has to work in very small scaled networks, which eventually link up with larger ones. The people assess what they need, produce accordingly, exchange the products and consume locally. In that way, we still allocate scarce resources, but it works in a different way and with different goals and priorities than on the free market.

Then you lose the economies of scale that have made us fabulously wealthy and by decentralizing industry into smaller portions you could reduce industrial safety: Not every town can refine fuel or manufacture pharmaceuticals and even the experts blow themselves up occasionally. Two 'great examples' of wrecking bread basket countries this way are Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

It also doesn't consider that it is the nature of our resources for them to be distributed somewhat irregularly.

Are you aware of how fantastically cheap transporting bulk material actually is? The US expends orders of magnitudes more $ on people travelling single person by car to supermarkets and malls than it does on transporting goods to and from China and Saudi.

t16t cuckoo economic policy: a still in every yard, a beaker in every kitchen

[FDG]

IJ, I don't think the matter of the dispute are transportation costs, but rather the effects of cheap produce worldwide produce on inland prices (and consequent downward pressure on wages). Obviously there can be much to be gained from this phenomenon, but there is an equal negative influence on the disappearance of local producs viz. large-scale ones.

(and consider that once a given "tradition" has gone out of business for a while, it's generally hard to resurrect, even if people may change their mind and eventually think "oh what we had before was actually pretty good")

[InvisibleJim]

IJ, I don't think the matter of the dispute are transportation costs, but rather the effects of cheap produce worldwide produce on inland prices (and consequent downward pressure on wages). Obviously there can be much to be gained from this phenomenon, but there is an equal negative influence on the disappearance of local producs viz. large-scale ones.

(and consider that once a given "tradition" has gone out of business for a while, it's generally hard to resurrect, even if people may change their mind and eventually think "oh what we had before was actually pretty good")

The difficulty is that the 'tradition' although it may have perceived cultural value wasn't actually worth the price of the tradition. Effectively, insufficient people considered it to be worth the cost.

[FDG]

The difficulty is that the 'tradition' although it may have perceived cultural value wasn't actually worth the price of the tradition. Effectively, insufficient people considered it to be worth the cost.

Yes, of course. But it takes very little time to shut something off due to cost-effectivness reasons, whereas people may easily change their minds in 6-7 years' time, and regret what happened. I don't have a final solution to the problem, but I do see it happening plenty of times.

[Pa3s]

Then you lose the economies of scale that have made us fabulously wealthy and by decentralizing industry into smaller portions you could reduce industrial safety: Not every town can refine fuel or manufacture pharmaceuticals and even the experts blow themselves up occasionally. Two 'great examples' of wrecking bread basket countries this way are Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

It also doesn't consider that it is the nature of our resources for them to be distributed somewhat irregularly.

The goal is to meet the needs of the people. I believe that we do not have an unlimited demand and that our consumption is indeed limited. Whereas "wealth" does not have any limits. Theoretically, it can grow forever. If you say the primal goal is to become "wealthy", then there will also be rivalry instead of cooperation. Rivalry forces people to be "economical" and this leads to centralization of production, centralization leads to less and less autonomy and this leads to an ever growing dependence. We just can't all win in an economy that is based on competition. Sooner or later, there will always be a "winner" and the losers get the short end of the stick.

It's also not my goal to have an oil refinery, foundry or chemical plant in every little town. Obviously, there are industries which can be decentralized more easily than others (food production for example). And I'm also aware that resources are not spread equally all across the globe. That's when the higher-level networks come into play.

[Esaman]

Of course not, but the alternatives are worse.

System employing collective conscious decisions to seek and enforce common interest is worse than people going for just the personal or group interests inevitably coming in to the conflict with each other?

People may live longer. Population may increase. The human body may be altered with technology. Different people want different amounts of different things.
Just because production and communication became fast, does not mean they cannot or will not be made faster. People have to work to build the faster machines.

None of this increases amount human work needed per human existing.
...Faster production means fewer machines and people are needed to satisfy particular need...
...If you haven't noticed, we use machines to build machines...
Nature of knowledge, technology, specialization and centralization is reduction of human work. Even counting all jobs in the design, resource processing, manufacturing, installation and maintenance the sum will be less than number of people needed to be employed to do the same work without those things. Of course actual material productivity has grown, but it cannot continue growing because of limited resources AND needs. All the new developments in the material goods are not going require more hands or heads working.

Human creativity will not stop because of a lack of economic profit, but it will suffer.

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Haven't looked in to it but it seams to be not relevant to my position. Regulation of market I am proponent of does not equate total calculated control of production, but just limitation and direction of marked forces to be in accordance with public interest.

Then the human race will die off. Continual production and expansion are necessary to combat existential threats. I'm not megalomaniacal, I just value life and freedom.

You need to forever run towards horizon so that philosophical questions don't kill you?=)))
Well, for your information, while you can choose ignorance that does not really save you from philosophical and social questions. Also, humanity might metastasize from Earth someday, but that doesn't mean population of earth is going anywhere except maybe oblivion. Adjusting for stable sustainable existence is the condition of survival.

PS. ohh I guess I missinterpreted what is meant by "existential threat". But that didn't prevent me from answering your point in the last 2 sentences.

[ArchonAlarion]

blah

I'm not arguing anything about morality, nor am I arguing in favor of patents. There is one simple point I'm making: The market is the optimal way to coordinate the production of scientific goods. A bureaucracy is a less effective means of doing this, in fact it is impossible for a bureaucracy to do this unless it can observe market-based production as an example.

Anyways the only way to respect the individuals is to let people pick, government, market, religion, academia, self, it doesn't matter, everyone can pick the tool they want to use, and these are all potential tools available in society. Ideologues in the past have tried to force whole societies down one path or another, generally to great folly and brutality.

This really highlights your insanity. The government is a compulsory "option" because the funding of state-subsidized scientific research is levied through taxation. If individuals truly had a choice, then they could CHOOSE not to fund government scientific research, DUH. But then, the government would be just another private institution operating WITHIN the market.

You are saying, "People should be free to choose, but btw you should not actually be free to choose."

[ArchonAlarion]

System employing collective conscious decisions to seek and enforce common interest is worse than people going for just the personal or group interests inevitably coming in to the conflict with each other?

Haven't looked in to it but it seams to be not relevant to my position.

I would highly suggest looking into it. It is entirely relevant to the discussion. It is relevant whenever a socialist or techno-communist opens their mouth.

[mu4]

The market is the optimal way to coordinate the production of scientific goods.

The market is a human technology, and as such there is such thing is optimal, technology is something that evolves and changes thru time and exists as pragmatic implementations dependent on the environment that it exists in, molded by human choices. A obsolete implementation of a market is just as uncompetitive as a obsolete state. When you talk about the market like an ideal it's meaningless. It's only when you talk pragmatics of market implementations that you deal with effective policy making and escape your religious evangelism.

This really highlights your insanity. The government is a compulsory "option" because the funding of state-subsidized scientific research is levied through taxation. If individuals truly had a choice, then they could CHOOSE not to fund government scientific research, DUH. But then, the government would be just another private institution operating WITHIN the market.

You are saying, "People should be free to choose, but btw you should not actually be free to choose."

Well being born isn't a compulsory option either, people don't choose birth. People don't choose to shop at supermarket either, because that's the only place that sells food in certain places. How many "compulsory" things are mere environmental anomalies that we're born into?
You're living in a fantasy world, where you think that somehow the "market" is somehow totally voluntary, the idea is to make these all entities that we can limit our engagement with by our own choosing. You can work to minimize your taxes, you can choose to buy less things, you can choose to not have religion, you can choose many things within a range of options but the fact remains you're bound by reality and what has happened before you were born. Now you might wish to expand certain choices in preference for others, but don't be surprised if other individuals may not agree with you.

Because people live in in social agreement with each other based on the choices made by the generations before us, you exist in a world where government, market and many other entities exist. You're not a island and if you think you can be, good luck with that.

There are people that believe in government in the world and they believe that it's a useful tool to manage the world, especially when force and compulsory action needs to taken internally and externally. Al-through you might think this is "morally" wrong or somehow sub-optimal, there are people who don't care about that and you will find that in some situations force, brutality and tyranny are profitable options, just not for everyone.

There are other people that believe everything should be under the jurisdiction of God, or some godly organization and that everything must be divinely anointed, while others choose economics as the sole determinate of power. However, the moment you tell any of these groups that they have no power and that their vehicle for power is meaningless and illegal, there will be conflict and brutality between humans.

How much compulsion do you think money has on a person, how much force does this thing exert on people. Do you really think someone struggling to survive in a market economy is not compelled by his wages?

With immigration, government is not a totally compulsory option, you have a range of choices. You can also literally choose to live on a island if you have enough resources or build your own, but you'll find that most people won't choose these options, because the expense and challenges are just as onerous as taxation, the opinions of the people around you, and the inefficiencies of the existing systems.

You talk about government as a compulsory option as if you are not trying to make the "market" the only option, and in a sense the compulsory option. You're the one who wants to force a certain form of existence on everyone around you, in order to escape another set of circumstances that you were born into. You can pretend that you're not trying to force this, but in the end you propose despotism of your opinion and the tyranny of your idealized fantasy market.

[Absurd]

[krieger]

never seen a damned free market in my goddamned life

[Absurd]

never seen a damned free market in my goddamned life

Neither. Looks like those free markets are deeply rooted in members of this site brains.

[ArchonAlarion]

"I've never seen a free market in my life, so I'll continue to support state intervention in the economy."

LOJEK

You talk about government as a compulsory option as if you are not trying to make the "market" the only option, and in a sense the compulsory option. You're the one who wants to force a certain form of existence on everyone around you, in order to escape another set of circumstances that you were born into. You can pretend that you're not trying to force this, but in the end you propose despotism of your opinion and the tyranny of your idealized fantasy market.

[krieger]

you just made my head asplode with derp.

[InvisibleJim]

archon just made my head explode with win

[mu4]

"I've never seen a free market in my life, so I'll continue to support state intervention in the economy."

LOJEK

No, you can leave. I don't have to, unless you know a bunch of right wing fascists took over and start a purge. Then you might want to leave as well.

But I don't see see your fantasy "free market" coming into existence....

As long as it's a democratic first world country, it's pretty much a cakewalk to live there, that's not changing too much in my life time.

[ArchonAlarion]

As long as it's a democratic first world country, it's pretty much a cakewalk to live there, that's not changing too much in my life time.

This country exists because conspiracy theorists drummed up enough clamor to get a minority of the colonists to desire independence from Great Britain due to its mercantilist policies. I'm not interested in decaying mediocrity.

[mu4]

This country exists because conspiracy theorists drummed up enough clamor to get a minority of the colonists to desire independence from Great Britain due to its mercantilist policies. I'm not interested in decaying mediocrity.

America is the land of opportunity, which basically means where mediocre people go to rob and build a empire thru slavery and genocide. Let's not forget the very quiet dead people who were bulldozed for this country. America has rarely been a place for the elite, all the aristocracy is in the old world still with their old money, refinement, art, food, wine. You know, the good stuff.

America's progress has largely been the immigration of various individuals as the old world disintegrated in the last 200 years. It's great advancements a product of the influx of various individuals from all walks of life into American culture, adding diversity and character. Stop riding the coat tails of hard working immigrants like myself, because the only mediocrity I see is the backwards mediocre natives who seem to think they deserve credit for everything for the mere act of being born here.

The way you think, talk and evangelize is indicative of your mediocre backwards values, still boasting about old glories.

[ArchonAlarion]

America is the land of opportunity, which basically means where mediocre people go to rob and build a empire thru slavery and genocide. Let's not forget the very quiet dead people who were bulldozed for this country. America has rarely been a place for the elite, all the aristocracy is in the old world still with their old money, refinement, art, food, wine. You know, the good stuff.

America's progress has largely been the immigration of various individuals as the old world disintegrated in the last 200 years. It's great advancements a product of the influx of various individuals from all walks of life into American culture, adding diversity and character. Stop riding the coat tails of hard working immigrants like myself, because the only mediocrity I see is the backwards mediocre natives who seem to think they deserve credit for everything for the mere act of being born here.

The way you think, talk and evangelize is indicative of your mediocre backwards values, still boasting about old glories.

You have cooked up quite a feast of words, but I don't appreciate you stuffing them in my mouth.

[InvisibleJim]

You have cooked up quite a feast of words, but I don't appreciate you stuffing them in my mouth.

Hkkmr is a bit of a retard when it comes to basic human dignity and liberty.

[mu4]

Hkkmr is a bit of a retard when it comes to basic human dignity and liberty.

Coming from you, that must mean I'm pretty great.