|
Ah, okay. Harry, I think I see where the
disconnect is. By ‘free market’ I think you
mean a system where there are ‘pure’ producers and consumers, and
where neither interferes with the free actions and range of choices of the
other. By free market, I mean a system where
these actors are free to do what ever they can to gain competitive action over
each other, including attempts – economic, cognitive, legal, or political
– to limit the free actions and range of choices of the other. If this is a correct differentiation, then
I think your definition may be more idealistic and mine more realistic. Under either definition, though, I do not
believe that ‘free markets’ can reflect the full range of values
that inform a society. Your worry, as I then understand it, is that
attempts by society to reflect these other values (such as social justice, some
form of parity, innovation, the free flow of ideas, etc.) would so inhibit the ‘free
market’ that its basic beneficial functioning is impaired. I would
agree that this happens, but not because the goal is wrong but because its
implementation is faulty. If you want to define ‘free markets’
in its ideal sense, then we should compare it to the ideal of modifying or
limiting the degree of freedom of ‘free markets’ so as to pursue
other beneficial social goals. If we are to focus on the less-than-ideal
problems of implementing such social goals, than we need to focus on the
less-than-ideal realities of ‘free markets’ as you define it. What do you think? Lawry From: Harry Pollard
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Lawry, I just love your final paragraph. I happily deserved it. I’m a little bewildered by your assertion that a government
program that prevents competition is part of the free market. You seem to be
asserting that people would stop production without the Patent Office. Then you say the “REAL
‘free-market’ allows these monopolistic activities”. I’m not sure what you mean by the
REAL free market, but the essential conditions of a true free market is that
there be no restrictions on production and no restrictions on movement of goods
to market. This is necessary for price mechanism control to work at its best. It may be difficult to achieve perfection
– but we can get as close as we can. However, to suggest that the patent system with
all its crookedness and savage enforcement is part of the free market beggars
the imagination. It is used to stop people producing – and to turn a $50
idea into a $50,000 idea Privilege is the opposite of justice - and
the free market is just. I have no idea why you feel I shrug at
monopolies. Perhaps your rhetorical flourishes generously exceed your logic
– or something. I am and have been consistent. I oppose all
privileges (private laws that benefit some at the expense of others). Both patents and import tariffs are
privileges. I’m agin ’em. You do point out that by keeping out
foreign goods the monopolists ‘screw’ the people. So, that’s
a movement in the right direction. Harry ******************************** of 818 352-4141 ******************************** From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of The problem with this analysis, Harry, is
that patents ARE controlled by the ‘free market’, that is, by
companies who assert the very patent right as a condition of their release of
the product. Further, it is those very companies that lobby The REAL ‘free-market’ allows
these monopolistic activities. I don’t think you can have your cake
(low prices, good quality) and eat it (shrug at the reality of monopolies),
too. As for your question about my support for
monopolies, I will suggest that your rhetorical flourishes generously exceed
your logic. Colourful, but not enlightening. Cheers, Lawry From: Lawry, old lad, Almost always a critique of the free market process uses an example
that is as far from being a market as you can get. The drug monopoly simply wallows in government privileges. Patents come first and the drug companies patent practically every
combination of chemicals they can – in case something useful will be
found for it. (Patents are not completely necessary. Even when a patent
finishes, it is possible to tie up competing generic production using
government regulations.) Imports of competing drugs are kept out of the country and away from
the market. The cost of putting a new drug through the FDA system is so high (some
hundreds of thousand of dollars) that small firms cannot afford it, so they
have to go through the big companies. Bush will manage to reduce drug prices with his upcoming policy.
He’ll do it by using our tax money to subsidize the high cost. In this
way we’ll get “cheaper” drugs, while the drug companies will
get their outrageous monopoly prices. Taking profits and losses into account, this is why the top ten drug
companies in the Fortune 500 make more profit than the other 490 companies
combined. This is why they fight against a free market. And why I welcome you to the advocacy of a free market – the best
way to cut these damned monopolies down to size. Or, are you on the side of the monopolists? Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From: Lawrence
deBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nonsense, Harry. You said: You mean the
market simply obeyed the instructions of the people. The people didn’t
want the things you think they should want (and would force them to if you
could). You should come to the Lawry: For example: |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
