What is a libertarian?

[Schneibster]

How about: The Diet Pepsi Freedom Way Which Cures Cancer Just By Driving On It.

Caveat emptor.

 

[CaptainManacles]

No, a profit motive has shown that the person exhibiting it is available for sale to the highest bidder without notice. At least with a government functionary there's some sort of chance that they might refuse the bribe.

I see no reason to believe government functionality decreases the chance of bribery. It only makes it worse.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Only when linked to competition. The profit motive linked to monopoly has been proven, time and time again, to screw the consumer.

So, when we have something that, by it's nature, must be a monopoly, and we decide to turn that thing over to private actors, we have to introduce regulation to provide an artificial profit motive for the private actor to do the job the way we want it done. Otherwise, the motive is to do the job as cheaply as possible, and keep as much of the money as possible.

I don't have any problem looking to private entities to do things for the public good, but simply holding to the religion of government-bad-private-company-good gets you Halliburton in Iraq.

And monopolies, throughout history, have almost always been the result of government coercing. And monopoies don't have as much power as you might think if you cut out subsidies and acknowledge that life is not a zero sum game.

 

[NeoRicen]

I see no reason to believe government functionality decreases the chance of bribery. It only makes it worse.

It's easier to detect, unless you have a lot of government inquiries into corporate affairs to spot the bribes. Either way you need Government.

 

[Schneibster]

I see no reason to believe government functionality decreases the chance of bribery. It only makes it worse.

Worse than what? Than someone who has openly declared that they're in it for profit? Just because you're incapable of imagining someone doing a job to improve the society they live in, doesn't mean there are no such people- it just tells something important about the way you are likely to behave.

 

[Michael Redman]

And monopolies, throughout history, have almost always been the result of government coercing.

Popular libertarian mythology. Monopolies are the natural result of an unregulated free market. No one competes if they have the power to stop competition.

And monopoies don't have as much power as you might think if you cut out subsidies and acknowledge that life is not a zero sum game.

Tell that to the warlords.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Worse than what? Than someone who has openly declared that they're in it for profit? Just because you're incapable of imagining someone doing a job to improve the society they live in, doesn't mean there are no such people- it just tells something important about the way you are likely to behave.

Just because you live in some fantasy land where the majority of politicians are in it for the good of humanity doesn't make it so, but it does say something about your reasoning skills.

A company's profits go to shareholders. Any particular employee at a company is going to have the exact same motive for good or evil as any particular politician.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Popular libertarian mythology. Monopolies are the natural result of an unregulated free market. No one competes if they have the power to stop competition.



Tell that to the warlords.

I guess the irony that you disprove you first statement with your second is lost on you. Monopolies don't exist unless you're a warlord, that is, you're allowed to use force to get what you want.

 

[Schneibster]

Just because you live in some fantasy land where the majority of politicians are in it for the good of humanity doesn't make it so, but it does say something about your reasoning skills.

Strawman much? I'd settle for any of them- which I sure as hell ain't gonna get from a profit-motivated corporation. BTW, speaking of reasoning skills, shall we discuss logical fallacies like a strawman for a little while? My experience is, people who use logical fallacies do so because they are short on facts. I think you'll find that most people on this site agree with that assessment.

A company's profits go to shareholders. Any particular employee at a company is going to have the exact same motive for good or evil as any particular politician.

Wow, talk about mythology, that's a doozie there, friend. Any employee who thinks they are doing anything but serving at the will of whoever's running the company needs to beg, borrow, or steal a clue. The mantra goes, "**** you, I got mine," IIRC. Anybody who thinks different is making free contributions to other peoples' wealth. Rich people's wealth, to be specific.

Some people get into politics because they want to do some good. You clearly don't know any politicians, or much about politics, either. Of course, reading what you've written so far, I guess that was already pretty plain.

 

[Darat]

choice. Ultimately your vote buys you one of two canidates who are likely equally incompetent. A profit motive has been shown time and time again to work far better. And it's not like transparency has to be the sole dominion of government.

The profit motive has time and time been shown to do one thing - increase profit, not quality of goods, not quality of service and so on. Again I suggest reading up on what consumerism in an unregulated industrial society was actually like. An example timespan to investigate would be from say 1800-1900 for the UK, that period shows that the "free market" did not provide the solutions many of its supporters claim it will do.

 

[Michael Redman]

I guess the irony that you disprove you first statement with your second is lost on you. Monopolies don't exist unless you're a warlord, that is, you're allowed to use force to get what you want.

Are you claiming that the oil trusts, AT&T, Microsoft, and Walmart have all used force to consolidate marketshare?

Any rational actor in the market is going to prefer to do business without competition, and the more successful a business becomes, the more economic power that business will have to drive out the competition. Monopoly is the natural result of capitalism, and will occur in almost every market without regulation to prohibit it.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Only when linked to competition. The profit motive linked to monopoly has been proven, time and time again, to screw the consumer.

So, when we have something that, by it's nature, must be a monopoly, and we decide to turn that thing over to private actors, we have to introduce regulation to provide an artificial profit motive for the private actor to do the job the way we want it done. Otherwise, the motive is to do the job as cheaply as possible, and keep as much of the money as possible.

I don't have any problem looking to private entities to do things for the public good, but simply holding to the religion of government-bad-private-company-good gets you Halliburton in Iraq.

Why would it be a monopoly by its nature? As a consumer I'd be choosing the products with the safety certification I trust most, wouldn't they be in competition to prove they do the best job of inspecting?

 

[Michael Redman]

Why would it be a monopoly by its nature? As a consumer I'd be choosing the products with the safety certification I trust most, wouldn't they be in competition to prove they do the best job of inspecting?

In nearly every industry, a larger company is going to be able to do the same job for less cost per unit. It's going to be nearly impossible for a startup to come into the market with a product that is superior to the established market leader, and, if they do, the leader has many economic tools to prevent the startup from fairly competing with their product. For example, national banks buy out local banks that provide better service, microsoft bundles its inferior web browser with windows, walmart sells products at retail for less than smaller stores can buy them at wholesale, etc.

The bigger they get, the more power they get, and the more monopoly profit they get. Monopoly profits are economically inefficient. Competition is better for the market. And it requires regulation to sustain.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Are you claiming that the oil trusts, AT&T, Microsoft, and Walmart have all used force to consolidate marketshare?

Any rational actor in the market is going to prefer to do business without competition, and the more successful a business becomes, the more economic power that business will have to drive out the competition. Monopoly is the natural result of capitalism, and will occur in almost every market without regulation to prohibit it.

Oil trusts, definately. Walmart hardly has a monopoly. Large chunk of the market? Sure. But they are more efficient then the competition, so, that's a good thing. Microsoft still has competion from Apple, Unix, Linux, Mozzila. They certainly take up nearly all the market share, but can you imagine what it would be like if there were 3 or 4 different operating systems on the market? A certainly lack of quality and price is the trade off for homogony. As always, the market goes towards what is most efficient.

 

[CaptainManacles]

In nearly every industry, a larger company is going to be able to do the same job for less cost per unit.

Well then we want larger companies doing the job, right?

For example, national banks buy out local banks that provide better service,

But this doesn't happen by magic. They actually have to use capital to buy out these companies, capital that represents products and services that have been provided to the community without any receprication. That is, in order for them to buy out a company, they have to provide more to the community, free of charge, outweighing anything the bought out company ever would have produced. The problem you seem to have is that we tend to prefer cheap products over customer service. This isn't always the case for everyone, which is why local banks still exist.

Microsoft bundles its inferior web browser with windows

And for most people, they would rather just have a crap browser that works sitting on their machine and ready to go when they buy it then to have to hunt around comparison shopping for a product that is better in ways that is barely noticeable to them. This is their choice and they end up bearing the consequences of it. I prefer other browsers so I use other browsers. My work uses IE so I suck it up and deal with it. Welcome to life. You can hardly fix this problem by appointing some warlord to force your economic decisions on other people (and force his economic decisions on you)

walmart sells products at retail for less than smaller stores can buy them at wholesale, etc.

Personally, I like being able to get a haircut and a swimming suit and instant miso in the same store. And I like that instead of charging a ridiculous $3 for what amounts to 15 cents worth of miso and tofu, they charge a dollar. Walmart is competition at it’s best.

 

[Michael Redman]

Walmart is a monopoly in some markets, and it would be in more, if it were allowed to operate as it wished. There are many aspects of Walmart's operation that do not provide optimal utility to the consumer.

Yes, a lack of quality and price is a trade off for hegemony. And it's bad. Bad for the consumer, bad for the economy. And it gets worse with a monopoly. Much worse.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Walmart is a monopoly in some markets, and it would be in more, if it were allowed to operate as it wished.

And thus the absurdity of the monopoly arguement slowly becomes more transparent. You can continually shrink the frame of reference until any business can be labeled a "monopoly". "The local store has a monopoly on a 5 block radius, and stupid libertarian arguements about free market ignore the increased cost of transport forced on consumers who wish to go to other stores" The reality is, unless a business is capable of owning all goods and services that anyone wants, it is always subject to competition. And still, this ignores the ability of people to produce value on their own, and the ability for future innovation to produce new markets. Again, monopolies only harm the economy when they are set up by force or when the subsidizing of higher priority goods gives their product an undeserved value within the economy.

There are many aspects of Walmart's operation that do not provide optimal utility to the consumer.

Speaking as if consumers are some seperate entity from producers is absurd, you cannot ignore the utility that one gains in your roll as a producer, and encouraging consumption of scarce resources should not be the goal of an economy. Encouraging production of things people want should be the goal of an economy. Even if your statement was true, how is that not beneficial to the economy. It encourages investment in production and research, while discouraging buying useless trinkets you don't need.

It's a common myth among supporters of such authoritarianism that all the profits from companies go into the hands of fat rich thieves who do nothing valuable for society. The reality is that money goes into the hands of people saying for their children's education and little old ladies saving for retirement. It's the people who have the foresight to invest in good businesses, directly or indirectly, that end up on top. In your ideal world it's the angry irrational mob that ends up on top.

 

[Michael Redman]

Free and fair competition in the market is the bet possible mechanism for providing the goods and services people want, for the best possible price.

Systems lacking free and fair competition are inefficient at providing goods and services at the best possible price. This inefficiency is economic waste.

Monopolies are, by definition, a lack of competition.

Monopolies hurt the economy.

OK?

Now here's the issue:

Competition decreases profits.

Sellers in the market are rational actors.

Sellers will try to reduce competition.

The more successful a seller is at reducing competition, the worse the efficiency of the market. This inefficiency becomes, in part, monopoly profits, providing further incentive, and power, for the seller to eliminate competition.

The natural end of any unregulated market is monopoly, and an inefficient economy.

There is no market incentive to protect competition.

There can be no such thing as an unregulated free market.