0
The Real Discussion Begins: A Liberal and a Libertarian discuss Free Market Economics Part 4
Posted by
CommunitarianKevin
,
in
Free Market Discussion
30 August 2012
·
480 views
ANTHONY:
"Since this is a discussion between friends and not a debate in debate class, I reserve the right to reverse my decision in the light of new knowledge. None of this “well you already accepted the premise” BS." I would NEVER attempt to tie you up in a rationalization trap just so I can get the "win." I'm not trying to win an argument, brother, I'm trying to seek out truth. If you come up with a valid, logical argument that contradicts my worldview, I will be forced to change my view. I hope you would do the same. If I am pressing each issue it is only so you can understand the more complex ones that are sure to follow.
"Would this argument be the same if I changed the word “government” [to] “corporation?” In a FME what is to stop the all powerful corporation artificially inflating prices or coercing people into the illusion of choice?" YES. Absolutely the argument would be the same, and you're getting to the other side of TRUE free market economics. Let me ask you this though? When in the history of man has a corporation or business ever forced someone to buy their product at gun point EXCEPT with help from their government? Free Market Economics abhores when government interferes with business, but it is even more terrified of when corporations and governments ally. The system of "capitalism" in the U.S. is this kind of capitalism, and it is an embarrassment to the title. Free Market Economists call this kind of capitalism "Crony Capitalism" because the government picks the winners and losers not the people themselves, and it enforces these choices with aggression and coercion. This idea of bailing out companies or even subsidizing them is 100% against free market principles.
But to answer your question more specifically, I'll reiterate: Yes, if a corporation ever forced people at gunpoint to buy one product and not another, their ought to be, in a just society, real tangible repercussions for that act of aggression. It is just that I cannot think of one example where this has occured. Capitalism is BASED around the idea of voluntary action. If you don't want someone's product or services, you go somewhere else. If a potential customer went somewhere else instead of choosing your product or service, you either improve your business model or die out. In this way, voluntary action allows only the best corporations or businesses to remain. If a company becomes corrupt, boycot them. In a free market (I.e. without government assistance) boycots are far more effective than they are now.
Me:
Okay now we are getting somewhere and there are a few points we agree but this is where many of my problems start.
To start, I agree that this “Crony Capitalism” is a bad thing. It has done, and is doing many bad things to this country. I do not think a government should be there to pick and choose for the people. When I talk about government involvement I am talking about regulation. This regulation is not for the benefit of the consumer but rather the benefit of the workers. We need regulation to protect basic human rights. We need things like a minimum wage and labor unions to protect people. Earlier in American history workers were treated like garbage and some were essentially slaves. This happens because keeping poor conditions and paying workers low wages saves money which in-turn makes for a cheaper product. It makes perfect sense from a profit point of view but not from a moral point of view. This is the type of government intervention we need. They need to act like the police of corporations because corporations will not police themselves. They will turn into you “government” view above.
You do make the point that we have never seen an example in history of the corporations playing this role but to be fair we have never seen a true FME. The closest examples we have seen used slavery and took advantage of other people and countries. Slavery and horrid working conditions drove the Industrial Revolution and devastated countries so bad that we still see the effects today. I think to best predict what a true FME would look like we should put all of the evidence together. We have seen what corporations have done to people and countries in the name of profit. We both understand human nature, which is self-interests. This is the point I always feel they miss. They seem to think that corporations have people’s best interests in mind…but they do not. They are only concerned about profit…because they are self-interested. If there is no one to police them or make rules and regulations there is no reason to believe they will do what is morally right. They will do what is required to make profit. That is why they outsource. Why pay American workers a minimum wage and maintain human rights standards when they can just go to China and pay them less? We lose jobs here in America and give jobs to people in other countries, as well as pump money into their economy because it means profit for them. The argument is that if they can produce a product at a lower price, the consumers can get it at a lower price…but at what cost? The cost of unemployment? The cost of pumping money into other countries? The cost of treating people like human beings? I mean here is an idea…how about keep the jobs in America and charge the same price for the item. It would be best for our economy and our people but then it goes against their model of “profit at all costs.”
Things like boycotts may be effective at first. I think a FME can work great in a new society where land and resources are “free” (Like when America was “discovered”) but not in an established society. Those corporations that already exist will snuff out any new businesses with their wealth. It’s called a monopoly and there is nothing to stop it from happening. We do have examples in history of that happening. A monopoly or oligopoly eliminates competition which is what FME relies on. Without competition the corporation can now play the role of all powerful government and set prices to whatever they please. Sure there is not a gun to anyone’s head but they can bury you in debt so bad that you are reduced to a slave (once again we have seen this in American history with the steel industry.) I see the most likely outcome of FME to look similar to the guilds in medieval Europe (once again, historical examples.)
On a final note…Should the American auto industry have died out? At the time I said yes. We can buy the Jap cars or the European cars. But what would that have done to our economy? I do not see how it could have helped it. I mean we lost over 500 jobs in Minnesota when the Ford plant shut down. How many jobs were SAVED because of government intervention? Without the government there would NOT be an American auto industry.
So my question is…what am I missing?
"Since this is a discussion between friends and not a debate in debate class, I reserve the right to reverse my decision in the light of new knowledge. None of this “well you already accepted the premise” BS." I would NEVER attempt to tie you up in a rationalization trap just so I can get the "win." I'm not trying to win an argument, brother, I'm trying to seek out truth. If you come up with a valid, logical argument that contradicts my worldview, I will be forced to change my view. I hope you would do the same. If I am pressing each issue it is only so you can understand the more complex ones that are sure to follow.
"Would this argument be the same if I changed the word “government” [to] “corporation?” In a FME what is to stop the all powerful corporation artificially inflating prices or coercing people into the illusion of choice?" YES. Absolutely the argument would be the same, and you're getting to the other side of TRUE free market economics. Let me ask you this though? When in the history of man has a corporation or business ever forced someone to buy their product at gun point EXCEPT with help from their government? Free Market Economics abhores when government interferes with business, but it is even more terrified of when corporations and governments ally. The system of "capitalism" in the U.S. is this kind of capitalism, and it is an embarrassment to the title. Free Market Economists call this kind of capitalism "Crony Capitalism" because the government picks the winners and losers not the people themselves, and it enforces these choices with aggression and coercion. This idea of bailing out companies or even subsidizing them is 100% against free market principles.
But to answer your question more specifically, I'll reiterate: Yes, if a corporation ever forced people at gunpoint to buy one product and not another, their ought to be, in a just society, real tangible repercussions for that act of aggression. It is just that I cannot think of one example where this has occured. Capitalism is BASED around the idea of voluntary action. If you don't want someone's product or services, you go somewhere else. If a potential customer went somewhere else instead of choosing your product or service, you either improve your business model or die out. In this way, voluntary action allows only the best corporations or businesses to remain. If a company becomes corrupt, boycot them. In a free market (I.e. without government assistance) boycots are far more effective than they are now.
Me:
Okay now we are getting somewhere and there are a few points we agree but this is where many of my problems start.
To start, I agree that this “Crony Capitalism” is a bad thing. It has done, and is doing many bad things to this country. I do not think a government should be there to pick and choose for the people. When I talk about government involvement I am talking about regulation. This regulation is not for the benefit of the consumer but rather the benefit of the workers. We need regulation to protect basic human rights. We need things like a minimum wage and labor unions to protect people. Earlier in American history workers were treated like garbage and some were essentially slaves. This happens because keeping poor conditions and paying workers low wages saves money which in-turn makes for a cheaper product. It makes perfect sense from a profit point of view but not from a moral point of view. This is the type of government intervention we need. They need to act like the police of corporations because corporations will not police themselves. They will turn into you “government” view above.
You do make the point that we have never seen an example in history of the corporations playing this role but to be fair we have never seen a true FME. The closest examples we have seen used slavery and took advantage of other people and countries. Slavery and horrid working conditions drove the Industrial Revolution and devastated countries so bad that we still see the effects today. I think to best predict what a true FME would look like we should put all of the evidence together. We have seen what corporations have done to people and countries in the name of profit. We both understand human nature, which is self-interests. This is the point I always feel they miss. They seem to think that corporations have people’s best interests in mind…but they do not. They are only concerned about profit…because they are self-interested. If there is no one to police them or make rules and regulations there is no reason to believe they will do what is morally right. They will do what is required to make profit. That is why they outsource. Why pay American workers a minimum wage and maintain human rights standards when they can just go to China and pay them less? We lose jobs here in America and give jobs to people in other countries, as well as pump money into their economy because it means profit for them. The argument is that if they can produce a product at a lower price, the consumers can get it at a lower price…but at what cost? The cost of unemployment? The cost of pumping money into other countries? The cost of treating people like human beings? I mean here is an idea…how about keep the jobs in America and charge the same price for the item. It would be best for our economy and our people but then it goes against their model of “profit at all costs.”
Things like boycotts may be effective at first. I think a FME can work great in a new society where land and resources are “free” (Like when America was “discovered”) but not in an established society. Those corporations that already exist will snuff out any new businesses with their wealth. It’s called a monopoly and there is nothing to stop it from happening. We do have examples in history of that happening. A monopoly or oligopoly eliminates competition which is what FME relies on. Without competition the corporation can now play the role of all powerful government and set prices to whatever they please. Sure there is not a gun to anyone’s head but they can bury you in debt so bad that you are reduced to a slave (once again we have seen this in American history with the steel industry.) I see the most likely outcome of FME to look similar to the guilds in medieval Europe (once again, historical examples.)
On a final note…Should the American auto industry have died out? At the time I said yes. We can buy the Jap cars or the European cars. But what would that have done to our economy? I do not see how it could have helped it. I mean we lost over 500 jobs in Minnesota when the Ford plant shut down. How many jobs were SAVED because of government intervention? Without the government there would NOT be an American auto industry.
So my question is…what am I missing?
