It's Not Your Imagination, You Really Are Working Harder For Less Money.

[Stars]

You have the peculiar notion than people are prevented from bartering. There is nothing to stop you from offering whatever you want to someone in exchange for goods and services.

In the uk you have to pay taxes on barter

[Guest Steve Cook]

Because it's all big and scaaaaaary without Mommy to tell us all what to do.

Adding to the debate as usual with your deeply considered, and well reasoned arguments I see.

Pathetic.

[Guest Steve Cook]

So, at the 'scale of nations', people have to be stopped from giving each other what they like?

Why?

At the scale of "nations" free markets don't exist. Such a scale is the antithesis of free markets by its very nature. The only substantial question that remains is how much you want a free market. Fine, if you are prepared to see a return to a hunter-gatherer existence for humanity. If not, then the sheer complexity of operations at the industrial/global scale means that the implications and consequences of any given trade become opaque instead of utterly transparent, which is what is required for a free market to work at all. In other words, it is at this scale that deception and coercion becomes possible to enact anonymously and at a distance for agents who are sufficiently high up in the economic food-chain. It is at this point that a "free-market" goes utterly out of the window. The paradox is that it is at this point that one is forced to use market regulations in order to maintain some semblance of freedom within that market for all economic participants.

This is the massive paradox at the heart of the case that you extreme free-marketeers attempt to put. You appear to want the modern world. You just don't want all of those pesky regulations and macro-organisational structures that, of necessity, must come along with it.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Steve Cook

[bogbrush]

Adding to the debate as usual with your deeply considered, and well reasoned arguments I see.

Pathetic.

I thought it was a succinct summary of your position.

I agree it's pathetic.

[PopGun]

sit on the fence to long and the pale will go up your arsee.

my problem is with the general sexist undertone I find on this website.

"Mrs OH is nagging me to buy, but I am cleverer than her, etc.... "

Stop talking down to me, and your wives. How would you feel if your wife got paid less than any of the men at her job because she was a woman? or your daughter?

What if you got paid less than a woman who was less qualified tha you? or even another man?

I've never, ever worked anywhere where were women are automatically payed less. Only the part-time ones as funnily enough, they've worked less hours (but earned the same pro-rata).

I'm sure even if you were born with a d1ck, you'd find another excuse for your lack of career progression, as anyone working for an employer knowingly for less due to their gender needs their head checking anyway.

Edited August 17, 2009 by PopGun

[bogbrush]

nope

At the scale of "nations" free markets don't exist. Such a scale is the antithesis of free markets by its very nature. The only substantial question that remains is how much you want a free market. Fine, if you are prepared to see a return to a hunter-gatherer existence for humanity. If not, then the sheer complexity of operations at the industrial/global scale means that the implications and consequences of any given trade become opaque instead of utterly transparent, which is what is required for a free market to work at all. In other words, it is at this scale that deception and coercion becomes possible to enact anonymously and at a distance. It is at this point that a "free-market" goes utterly out of the window. The paradox is that it is at this point that one is forced to use market regulations in order to maintain some semblance of freedom within that market.

This is the massive paradox at the heart of the case that you extreme free-marketeers attempt to put. You appear to want the modern world. You just don't want all of those pesky regulations and macro-organisational structures that, of necessity, must come along with it.

Where did this come from?

And in any case, you're suggesting government interventions make everything clear and remove deception? Seriously?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Where did this come from?

And in any case, you're suggesting government interventions make everything clear and remove deception? Seriously?

Nope.

I'm suggesting "Government", as it currently stands, is merely the "front" for those economic agents at the top of the food chain. In other words, we do not currently have a free market.

However, if we have no government to oversee and enforce all of those pesky, but unfortunately rather necessary, macro-level organsational, transportation and market regulations, we will not have any market at all on a modern, global-industrial scale.

It's a conundrum innit.....

Unless you are thinking about this issue at a very simplistic and immediately self-interested level. In which case, I dare say, you might be forgiven for thinking it's rather simple....

Edited August 17, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Stars]

At the scale of "nations" free markets don't exist. Such a scale is the antithesis of free markets by its very nature. The only substantial question that remains is how much you want a free market. Fine, if you are prepared to see a return to a hunter-gatherer existence for humanity. If not, then the sheer complexity of operations at the industrial/global scale means that the implications and consequences of any given trade become opaque instead of utterly transparent, which is what is required for a free market to work at all.

I don't agree. I don't think a free market needs utter transparency to work at all. I do think people need to be free to avoid opaqueness and costs, though.

In other words, it is at this scale that deception and coercion becomes possible to enact anonymously and at a distance for agents who are sufficiently high up in the economic food-chain. It is at this point that a "free-market" goes utterly out of the window. The paradox is that it is at this point that one is forced to use market regulations in order to maintain some semblance of freedom within that market for all economic participants.

It is hard to judge this because i'm not sure what sort of behaviour you are pointing to.

Could you give an example?

[Injin]

Nope.

I'm suggesting "Government", as it currently stands, is merely the "front" for those economic agents at the top of the food chain. In other words, we do not currently have a free market.

However, if we have no government to oversee and enforce all of those pesky, but unfortunately rather necessary, macro-level organsational, transportation and market regulations, we will not have any market at all on a modern, global-industrial scale.

It's a conundrum innit.....

Unless you are thinking about this issue at a very simplistic and immediately self-interested level. In which case, I dare say, you might be forgiven for thinking it's rather simple....

Problem -

The government is a voluntary organistion internally.

No one has to join it.

So this organisation you say is essential is a free market instituion itself, the key thing being it doesn't extend the courtesy to those it victimizes.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I don't agree. I don't think a free market needs utter transparency to work at all. I do think people need to be free to avoid opaqueness and costs, though.

That's the point. At the evel of economic comlexity required for a civilisation to exist, the inevitable and unnavoidable disparity of market knoweldge between participants means that opaqueness cannot be avoided by some.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I don't agree. I don't think a free market needs utter transparency to work at all. I do think people need to be free to avoid opaqueness and costs, though.

That's the point. At the evel of economic comlexity required for a civilisation to exist, the inevitable and unnavoidable disparity of market knoweldge between participants means that opaqueness cannot be avoided by some.

[bogbrush]

Nope.

I'm suggesting "Government", as it currently stands, is merely the "front" for those economic agents at the top of the food chain. In other words, we do not currently have a free market.

However, if we have no government to oversee the necessary macro-level organsational, transportation and market operations, we will not have any market at all on a modern, global-industrial scale

It's a conundrum innit.....

Unless you are thinking about this issue at a very simplistic and immediately self-interested level. In which case, I dare say, you might be forgiven for thinking it's rather simple....

You'll have to explain the contribution that can uniquely come from a group of people called a "government" over any other group of people. "Overseeing" means you want to create a monopoly, hardly much of a route to a free market.

[Injin]

That's the point. At the evel of economic comlexity required for a civilisation to exist, the inevitable and unnavoidable disparity of market knoweldge between participants means that opaqueness cannot be avoided by some.

False comparison.

You are assuming a platonic level of knowledge and then sayiong reality isn't matching it.

This is bobbins, because free markets a product of human interaction and therefore don't need to measure any concepts - in fact the concept free market is an observation at heart, not a prescription for action.

[Stars]

That's the point. At the evel of economic comlexity required for a civilisation to exist, the inevitable and unnavoidable disparity of market knoweldge between participants means that opaqueness cannot be avoided by some.

If people are still free to choose transparency and want transparency, then somebody will provide it for them as an alternative.

[Guest Steve Cook]

You'll have to explain the contribution that can uniquely come from a group of people called a "government" over any other group of people. "Overseeing" means you want to create a monopoly, hardly much of a route to a free market.

It's not a route to a fully free market. However, if you want to continue to enjoy the material benefits of the modern industrial world, you have no choice but to accept that a centralised organisational structure is an inevitable necessity. If it is functioning well, then the freedom such a system affords some people to coerce and decive will be curtailed, thus enableing the freedom of the majority to be maintained to some degree. It's called a trade-off.

On the other hand, if it is functioning badly, then it will serve the interests of only a few.

The alternative is that to get the free-market you so dream of, you will need to be prepared to see a massive contraction of the industrial way of life I am sure you are otherwise very happy to partake of.

[Guest Steve Cook]

If people are still free to choose transparency and want transparency, then somebody will provide it for them as an alternative.

If a marekt is rigged, as you are only too aware of, perhaps you might like to explain how that alternative is provided?

[Injin]

If a marekt is rigged, as you are only too aware of, perhaps you might like to explain how that alternative is provided?

Profit motive.

All cartels collapse.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Profit motive.

All cartels collapse.

Yes Yes.....we've all heard the soundbites a million times injin

Now perhaps you might care to explain precisely how the above is achieved in a forcibly rigged market?

[Stars]

If a marekt is rigged, as you are only too aware of, perhaps you might like to explain how that alternative is provided?

Lets leave land aside - because my position is that land is a state intervention and of course, there is no alternative to it.

With anything else, an alternative to an opaque, beffuddling option can be provided by someone else.

Two traders are selling you burgers, one trader wont tell you what is in the burger or give you any gaurantees, the other lists his ingredients and names the chef and the butcher. Which would you choose?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Profit motive.

All cartels collapse.

Yes Yes.....we've all heard the soundbites a million times injin

Now perhaps you might care to explain precisely how the above is achieved in a forcibly rigged market?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Lets leave land aside - because my position is that land is a state intervention and of course, there is no alternative to it.

With anything else, an alternative to an opaque, beffuddling option can be provided by someone else.

Two traders are selling you burgers, one trader wont tell you what is in the burger or give you any gaurantees, the other lists his ingredients and names the chef and the butcher. Which would you choose?

Land and energy. And, in the end, land alone.

All else is details. All else follows from the above.

And you know it.....

Edited August 17, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

Yes Yes.....we've all heard the soundbites a million times injin

Now perhaps you might care to explain precisely how the above is achieved in a forcibly rigged market?

The force expands until ti kills it's host, then the market returns.

Completely inevitable.

[Injin]

Land and energy. And, in the end, land alone.

All else is details.

And you know it.....

People.

[Stars]

Double post

Edited August 17, 2009 by Stars

[bogbrush]

Steve, I'm still waiting to hear how a body composed of regulators can provide transparancy to anything. Not that transparency matters at all - all that matters is freedom to say no thanks to anything offered.

A body composed of people with no motive to serving the interests of customers is never going to solve anything.