Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 It would work perfectly if every government was clean of market rigging I agree. But then communism as an ideal would work as well. The real world obviously isn't ideal, and I just don't see how you'll ever have governments free from rigging I'm afraid. Has it ever happened? I can't think of a "clean government" and certainly America's is probably the dirtiest (going right back 100 years to the banana wars). Yes governments are corrupt and there's no such thing as a perfectly free market. But some markets are more free than others and some government policy can promote a freer market. Confusing the issue by saying government rigging is an example of the free market in action is damaging, because the result will be more government control with which they have proven to be untrustworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 With cartels and monopolies there is always a chance of an outsider coming in and shaking the market up. There's been numerous examples of that throughout history. With government rigging there's no chance of that as everyone has to follow their laws. So of the two I'd say government rigging is far worse. Given the current government rigging seems to be all about propping up the cartels and monopolies I'd say they were inextricably interlinked, but in any case any market controlled by a cartel or monopoly would ipso facto not be a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) Yes governments are corrupt and there's no such thing as a perfectly free market. But some markets are more free than others and some government policy can promote a freer market. Confusing the issue by saying government rigging is an example of the free market in action is damaging, because the result will be more government control with which they have proven to be untrustworthy. Obvious contradiction here (I'm sure you're aware of):If government policy can promote a freer market, how do we get go that point without allowing them a degree of control to inact said policy? My wordings clumsy, but I'm sure you see the point. It's little wonder the world is so muddled. Edited May 22, 2014 by byron78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Obvious contradiction here (I'm sure you're aware of): If government policy can promote a freer market, how do we get go that point without allowing them a degree of control to inact said policy? My wordings clumsy, but I'm sure you see the point. It's little wonder the world is so muddled. A government must want to voluntarily give up control and return it to the free market. It happens rarely, I believe Canada in the 90s cut spending and liberalised their economy. They've had the highest growth in the G20 since. There are talks about market reforms in France as well, but whether they happen is another thing entirely. What you need is someone to come in and make sweeping changes to the way the state works against all the vested interests. A bit like Thatcher managed to do in 1979 in fact, although obviously the problems are different these days. In general though the leaders just want more power for themselves and more favours for their mates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Given the current government rigging seems to be all about propping up the cartels and monopolies I'd say they were inextricably interlinked, but in any case any market controlled by a cartel or monopoly would ipso facto not be a free market. Yes yes there's no such thing as a free market etc. But if as you say the government is assisting cartels and monopolies then they haven't got a good excuse to get involved to the extent that they are. They are doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do. You basically need someone to come in, identify what the problems are and fight tooth and nail to get the reforms through against all the vested interests. No I'm not very optimistic either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 What you need is someone to come in and make sweeping changes to the way the state works against all the vested interests. A bit like Thatcher managed to do in 1979 in fact, although obviously the problems are different these days.In general though the leaders just want more power for themselves and more favours for their mates. Didn't Thatcher actually make sweeping changes to the way the state worked for the benefit of all the vested interests in the city? From the perspective of hindsight it seems like it wasn't so much about going against vested interests, as choosing whose vested interests to best represent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Didn't Thatcher actually make sweeping changes to the way the state worked for the benefit of all the vested interests in the city? From the perspective of hindsight it seems like it wasn't so much about going against vested interests, as choosing whose vested interests to best represent. I thought the "big bang" was breaking up the old boys club and opening it up to more ordinary people to work there. I think a lot of the really bad legislation was brought in by Brown after he removed the old regulatory system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Yes yes there's no such thing as a free market etc. But if as you say the government is assisting cartels and monopolies then they haven't got a good excuse to get involved to the extent that they are. They are doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do. You basically need someone to come in, identify what the problems are and fight tooth and nail to get the reforms through against all the vested interests. No I'm not very optimistic either. I think there can be such a thing as free market, or at least a market that could operate freely, but it would require a skeleton of regulation thats sole purpose was to keep the market free by preventing cartels, monopolies and any government intervention beyond the direct enforcement of a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 ... Serious question: has government ever got significantly smaller in a free market country? There is no such thing as a free market. There are no free market countries. Markets cannot by definition be free of interference. When you ask about the size of a government what exactly do you mean? Less MPs or less spending? You can reduce the spending of a highly interventionist government to a tiny fraction of the spending of a non-interventionist one. The critical issue is what is the role of the government exactly. In the 1970s the UK government though having a car industry was a strategic requirement for a country so we had British Leyland. Now we have a government that thinks privatisation is wonderful and governments have no role in industry whatsoever. Nevertheless the UK government spends a huge sum on nuclear weapons because it believes they are a strategic requirement. Government spending as a % of GDP or as a total amount of dosh is determined by what the electorate believe government should spend money on. Since the electorate don't much agree with one another then we don't agree what should or should not constitute government spending. The Thatcher administration was highly interventionist contrary to popular myth. Much of that is what we would now see as left wing. The massive spending on job related intervention for example - YTS, Enterprise Allowance Scheme and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I think there can be such a thing as free market, or at least a market that could operate freely, but it would require a skeleton of regulation thats sole purpose was to keep the market free by preventing cartels, monopolies and any government intervention beyond the direct enforcement of a free market. Yes I would agree with this. This is a goal that would be possible for a government determined to reform the system. But the problem is that the term "free market" has been associated with the gradual corporatisation of the government, so it is unlikely that anyone would get in on the back of that promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I thought the "big bang" was breaking up the old boys club and opening it up to more ordinary people to work there. I think a lot of the really bad legislation was brought in by Brown after he removed the old regulatory system. It certainly seemed to open the city up for a boom, as did Brown's additional de-regulation, thus setting us up for the mother of all busts. Bankers seem to make money on the way up and the way down as far as I can see, so they have a vested interest in a heightened boom-bust cycle regardless of their background, it's only the rest of us that have to actually deal with the fall out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 There is no such thing as a free market. There are no free market countries. Markets cannot by definition be free of interference. So what? You can still aim to have a market as free as possible where appropriate. For example allowing more self-building would make the market freer and be a good thing. The fact that a theoretical perfectly free market might not exist doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Yes I would agree with this. This is a goal that would be possible for a government determined to reform the system. But the problem is that the term "free market" has been associated with the gradual corporatisation of the government, so it is unlikely that anyone would get in on the back of that promise. Absolutely, corporatists have entirely high-jacked the term. I think it would be fairly easy to run on a "cartel and monopoly free" ticket though. When your own terms are taken up by others and successfully twisted into different meanings that actually directly oppose you I think the best thing to do strategically is just use a different term or phrase thats meaning has not yet been corrupted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 It certainly seemed to open the city up for a boom, as did Brown's additional de-regulation, thus setting us up for the mother of all busts. Bankers seem to make money on the way up and the way down as far as I can see, so they have a vested interest in a heightened boom-bust cycle regardless of their background, it's only the rest of us that have to actually deal with the fall out. I seem to remember banks going bust under the Tories instead of being bailed out and the world kept turning. There's probably a point where the amount of regulation for a banking system is perfect but unfortunately I've no idea what exactly that is. Some deregulation is fine and too much is not. What we're suffering from now is both too much deregulation and more importantly the bailout allowing them to carry on without any pain on their side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I think there can be such a thing as free market, or at least a market that could operate freely, but it would require a skeleton of regulation thats sole purpose was to keep the market free by preventing cartels, monopolies and any government intervention beyond the direct enforcement of a free market. You can't enforce a free market. If you place a limit or a regulation on the market it is by definition not free. Cartels and monoploies are the natural order of capitalism. In a truly "free" (i.e. unregulated) market you would end up with just one big company doing everything. Free markets is a daydream - a lie if you prefer, a nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 In the 1970s the UK government though having a car industry was a strategic requirement for a country so we had British Leyland. Now we have a government that thinks privatisation is wonderful and governments have no role in industry whatsoever. Nevertheless the UK government spends a huge sum on nuclear weapons because it believes they are a strategic requirement. Does that mean in 40 years time the government will think that privatisation is wonderful and governments have no role in nuclear weapons whatsoever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I seem to remember banks going bust under the Tories instead of being bailed out and the world kept turning. There's probably a point where the amount of regulation for a banking system is perfect but unfortunately I've no idea what exactly that is. Some deregulation is fine and too much is not. What we're suffering from now is both too much deregulation and more importantly the bailout allowing them to carry on without any pain on their side. Did they? I'm too young to remember that. Which banks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 You can't enforce a free market. If you place a limit or a regulation on the market it is by definition not free. Cartels and monoploies are the natural order of capitalism. In a truly "free" (i.e. unregulated) market you would end up with just one big company doing everything. Free markets is a daydream - a lie if you prefer, a nonsense. Why would cartels and monopolies be the natural order of things? There's pretty much a free market in internet forums and I don't notice everyone using the same one. Cartels seem to be worse when government restricts the market to a select few. No one is arguing for a perfectly free market anyway. Just an optimally free one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 The fact that a theoretical perfectly free market might not exist doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. The fact time travel doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not a good idea. We will achieve time travel 2.3million years before we ever see a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Did they? I'm too young to remember that. Which banks? Barings and BCCI if I recall correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 The fact time travel doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not a good idea. We will achieve time travel 2.3million years before we ever see a free market. So you're not at all interested in my point that a freer market in land would be a good thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 You can't enforce a free market. If you place a limit or a regulation on the market it is by definition not free. Cartels and monoploies are the natural order of capitalism. In a truly "free" (i.e. unregulated) market you would end up with just one big company doing everything. Free markets is a daydream - a lie if you prefer, a nonsense. I think you missed the bit where I said "or at least a market that could operate freely". I'm no more advocating unbridled capitalism than I am all pervading socialism, I'm just saying that where a market exists we should do our best to ensure it's not rigged in any particular direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Why would cartels and monopolies be the natural order of things? There's pretty much a free market in internet forums and I don't notice everyone using the same one. Cartels seem to be worse when government restricts the market to a select few. No one is arguing for a perfectly free market anyway. Just an optimally free one. Monopolies give the monopolist the entire revenue stream - the bigger a company gets the more power it has to buy it's competitors. It's how business works. It's why Pfizer want to buy Astra Zenica. I don't know what an "optimally" free market is. It sounds like being nearly a virgin. Markets are regulated - they are not free in any meaningful sense of the word that I understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 The fact time travel doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not a good idea. We will achieve time travel 2.3million years before we ever see a free market. Time travel exists! I'm currently travelling forward in time at a rate of one second per second! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 So you're not at all interested in my point that a freer market in land would be a good thing? Yes of course I am. The land market is as free as you want it to be. You are free to buy land from anyone that wants to sell it to you (assuming you have the wodge). How do you propose to improve upon this perfectly functioning market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.