|
Lawry, Never has it been so difficult to ask for an unrestricted market where
I can buy a pound of good tomatoes at the lowest price. Good post. I’ll answer below. Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From: Lawrence
deBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Economists are fond of discussing a
‘perfect market’ with ‘perfect information’ and
suchlike. Of course there is no such thing. There is simply the free market - one
hopes with no restrictions - within which the price control mechanism
constantly presses quality up and prices down. The free market is a model of
cooperation. Whether producer or consumer, they all hope and expect to leave
the market with more value than when they arrived. 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. You are doing exactly the
right thing. That is, making sure we mean
the same thing when we use the same words. Unfortunately, we are
talking about two things. I’m talking about the consumers in the market
place. You are talking about the producers supplying the market. The best way for producers
to sell their goods is to provide good value at a good price. You suggest that
they connive in various ways – but to do what? It can only be to sell
their goods by being better and cheaper. That’s a definite advantage to
the consumer. In fact the producers are doing a service to the consumer by out-competing
their competitors. Why are you worried about that? I love it - as do all
consumers and they are all of us – all the 290 million or so. You suggest producers use economic,
cognitive, legal, or political means. Economic would have them
producing better and cheaper. Cognitive means, I suppose, that they are being
clever and skilful. I don’t object to that. It would be to my benefit. Legal and political
suggest privilege and that should be stopped. If you accept privilege and call
it practical, we’ve lost a fighter in the battle for justice (privilege
is, of course, the exact opposite of justice). 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. I am simply bewildered at
how a free market would be inhibited by “social justice” “some
form of parity” “innovation” “the free flow of ideas”
and “etc.” How did these things get
between me and my pound of tomatoes in a free market? 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. The free market is already
a beneficial social goal. It reduces prices which is the same thing as raising
wages. What on earth are these “other beneficial social goals”. I’d
like you to enumerate them while showing how the free market needs to be ‘limited’
in order to attain them. 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? You first have to tell me
what social goals are and how the free market inhibits them. Lawry From: 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
