----- Original Message ----- > From: Simon Wise <[email protected]> > To: Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:41 AM > Subject: [PD] [OT] Re: expr alternative > > On 26/10/11 12:26, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: >> Le 2011-10-26 à 10:32:00, Simon Wise a écrit : >> >>> Their corporate strategy regarding creating and maintaining a monopoly > on as >>> many technologies as they can, and taking a percentage of every > transaction >>> within those monopoly platforms is very sensible and reasonable way to >>> maximise profits if you have the resources and embrace free market > principles. >> >> A monopoly is not a free market. >> >> Laissez-faire doesn't make a market free either. >> >> What do you mean by « free market » ??? > > <** off-topic warning - stop reading immediately if you are not interested > **> > > By "free market" in that context I am talking about the grab-bag of > ideas that are promoted under that label by a very noisy and influential > section > of the press and economics commentators (especially but not only in the > English > speaking parts of the press) and are embraced as some kind of axiomatic > "good thing" by many voters in this part of the world (Australia). > > I mean the underlying assertions that the best way to manage the allocation > of > resources across society is allowing everything to be bought and sold for a > dollar price, and that the best decisions for a society are made when > responding > to the so-called invisible hand of the market. > > I mean the assertion that the profit motive and 'success' in this market > is the only workable way to decide what activities should receive funding and > resources in our society. > > I mean the assertion that to ensure the best management of the facilities and > services that we all rely on for a decent life these should be sold into > private > ownership and the management disciplined by this free market. And yes, this > does > often lead to monopolies, and yes - the profit motive (seen as pure and fair > and > not tainted by other inappropriate motivations by many free market advocates) > combined with a minimally regulated market and the potential for a monopoly > means that corporations big enough to do so will of course put a lot of > effort > into achieving such profitable monopolies within this market. Those, like > Apple, > that do achieve this position are then lauded as examples of the positive and > profitable outcomes achievable by such market based policies.
>From the context, I thought it was clear that this is what you meant when you >used the term (people also call this "free market fundamentalism"). It's not a set of principles, but a rhetorical technique that company A uses to publicly rail against regulation X, which doesn't benefit them, while quietly lobbying for regulation Y, which does. It's more persuasive than saying, "One dollar one vote." > > Clearly from my tone above I do not believe that this "free market" is > a fair or decent way to organise society, though it is probably a reasonable > way > to deal with the distribution of the kind of goods and services that are not > basic things expected by everyone, and that can be readily bought and sold in > a > shop or such. > > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
