The Free Market

[FistFullOfSteel]

Can somebody give me information how it works,any sites etc?

[Misodoctakleidist]

I'm sure el_profe or another LF capitalist will advise you to read Ayn Rand but i wouldn't bother, her theories are incredibly poor and are contructed from obvious lies.

[FistFullOfSteel]

ok...im gonna search for some ayn rand text on the internet

[Monty Cantsin]

Hugo did you even read what he said " read Ayn Rand but i wouldn't bother, her theories are incredibly poor and are contructed from obvious lies."


try Adam smith wealth of nations.

[el_profe]

Well if you dont read AYN rand then how can you say it is all lies, You should read it first then come up with your own answersconclusions.
also go to www.capmag.com (http://www.capmag.com) and www.capitalism.org (http://www.capitalism.org).

I would also tell you to go to: www.capitalismforum.com (http://www.capitalismforum.com)

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 08:29 PM
I'm sure el_profe or another LF capitalist will advise you to read Ayn Rand but i wouldn't bother, her theories are incredibly poor and are contructed from obvious lies.
Ayn Rand is good to read, but I would recommend it. What I would recommend is a couple books:

-" Road to Growth" by Fred McMahon, it is abook that is very practical, it shows you what some gov't did in their policies. It shows some gov't that took a capitalistic approach and it shows you the results. It gives you an idea on how the market works.

- "Economics in One lesson" by Henry Hazlitt

- "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman

- " Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith is also good to read.

There are many other books that are really good, but these would be good to start.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I would recomend "the condition of the english working class" by friedrich engles, it shows the REAL consequences of a (almost, the free-est there has ever been) free market.

[redstar2000]

My recommendation is Debunking Economics; the Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences by Steve Keen.

It's pretty technical (you'll probably have to get it from a university library).

But he rips "the free market" ideologues to shreds!

In fact, he demonstrates mathematically that modern "neo-classical" bourgeois economics is about as "scientific" as the Stalinist "biology" of Lysenko.

(He's very critical of Marx too--but I forgive him.)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Hoppe]

Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org)

Much more interesting than Rand or Friedman, and no mathematical equations.

[Fidelbrand]

http://www.lprc.org/freemkt.htm

www.eurekarecycling.org/PDFs/freebrochure.pdf

:)

[Rastaman]

don't you get it? Free market doesn't work..unless your one of those fat CEOs of some 5billion company..

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 01:18 PM
don't you get it? Free market doesn't work..unless your one of those fat CEOs of some 5billion company..
A centrally planned economy doesn't work. You're mixing things up.

[Rastaman]

actually I'm not.. Free markets won't work because they allow monopolies and other such bullshit.. Rich people get richer, the middle class stays the same and poor people get poorer.. if you think thats "working" you should get help or something.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:25 PM
actually I'm not.. Free markets won't work because they allow monopolies and other such bullshit.. Rich people get richer, the middle class stays the same and poor people get poorer.. if you think thats "working" you should get help or something.
I see you haven&#39;t passed your introduction to economics class yet...... <_<

Free markets don&#39;t "allow" monopolies. Only governments can grant monopoly rights to companies, but if that&#39;s the case there is no free market. The only way a company could have a monopoly in a free market is when all consumers somehow decide that this company makes such a good product that they won&#39;t buy something else.

[suffianr]

The only way a company could have a monopoly in a free market is when all consumers somehow decide that this company makes such a good product that they won&#39;t buy something else.

Say it ain&#39;t so&#33; :lol:

No, really, there are exceptions to this rule:

Advertising agencies usually participate in what is known as &#39;pitching&#39; when vying for corporate jobs.

In this situation, several ad agencies present their proposals for, say, an advertising campaign for Nike. Nike gets to choose from a pool of talent a proposal that best meets it&#39;s marketing objectives. So, everything is peachy, yes?

Well, no. Usually, a company like Nike invites international ad agencies to compete for a campaign. However, it also extends the &#39;pitch&#39; to domestic and associate agencies (local agencies that are subsidiaries of international agencies).

So, in most cases, what happens is you get agencies from the same parent company vying for a job. Leo Burnett, Gray, DDB and a host of others own subsidiaries in many countries, and end up taking a bigger slice of the pie just because they own the best local talent in most foreign countries.

So, regardless of how many companies are competing, in most cases, one of the big three ad agencies will land the job.

In this case, the market isn&#39;t free. How can it be a free market when a company competes with it&#39;s subsidiaries? The money just keeps on rolling for these big agencies...

[Rastaman]

There is basicly no alternative to windows is there? Ok u might say linux or something but who gets the money?

[Hoppe]

That is a crappy example Suffianr and doesn&#39;t prove anything. Besides what do you have to suffer from this?


There is basicly no alternative to windows is there? Ok u might say linux or something but who gets the money?

Oh yes, you&#39;re so right, free markets are failing......... <_<

All of this is pretty lame. You have to come with better examples than your problems with multinationals to prove free markets are failing. (besides, no such thing as free markets exist on this planet).

[Bradyman]

Well how about America in the early 1900s.

That was the most "free" market in the American economy. Dominated by several monopolies such as oil and steel (remember Rockerfeller and Carnegie.) And then what happened a few years later? Bam, the whole market crashed creating the worst depression in American history and it took government intervention with the New Deal to get the economy out of the mess a "free market" brought to them.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:57 PM
Well how about America in the early 1900s.

That was the most "free" market in the American economy. Dominated by several monopolies such as oil and steel (remember Rockerfeller and Carnegie.) And then what happened a few years later? Bam, the whole market crashed creating the worst depression in American history and it took government intervention with the New Deal to get the economy out of the mess a "free market" brought to them.
Nope, wrong again. Government created the mess in the first place. Try harder.

(btw New Deal is extremely overrated, in created more troubles than it solved.)

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:03 PM
There is basicly no alternative to windows is there? Ok u might say linux or something but who gets the money?
That is because the patent for the product is too long, the patent granted by the gov. to protect anyone else from stealing the windows idea is way too long, that is why it creates a monopoly. BLAME THE GOV. Not microsoft.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:57 PM
Well how about America in the early 1900s.

That was the most "free" market in the American economy. Dominated by several monopolies such as oil and steel (remember Rockerfeller and Carnegie.) And then what happened a few years later? Bam, the whole market crashed creating the worst depression in American history and it took government intervention with the New Deal to get the economy out of the mess a "free market" brought to them.
1. You should read Andrew Carnegie and the rise of Big bussiness, or just read any short bio on his life. Carnegie was a very poor immigrant from scotland(if I remembrer corectly he was from scotland)
Anyway he used to work in the mornings to help his parents and in the night he started going to school. He was not always rich, he was poor and worked for his money. As to a monopoly their where many steel companies, his was just the biggest and best.

2. The depression was caused mainly by the actions of the federal reserve. Which is gov. involvment.

[Monty Cantsin]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=ST&f=8&t=20424 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=20424)

[Bradyman]

Sure, Andrew Carnegie worked incredibly hard. But that&#39;s not to say he wasn&#39;t the only one to work hard during that time. There were millions of people, of all ages, who worked long shifts in crappy conditions, and they didn&#39;t move up any social ladder.

In order for there to be one Carnegie or one Rockerfeller, there must be tens of thousands of poor and wretched that move down the social ladder.

And no, the federal reserve was not the cause of the Great Depression. I urge you to read this article. It pinpoints the main cause being the blatant disparity of wealth in America. If you read about American history in the 1920s, you would realize that Coolidge pushed for less government involvement and favored a "free market" system.

Causes of the Great Depression (http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/index.html)

[redstar2000]

If economics is a science, then it more closely resembles physics at the end of the 19th century than physics today. Physics then was cleft between a complacent confidence that it knew almost everything worth knowing, and a mass of astonishing discoveries that called for a revolution in thought.

Steve Keen

Full text...

http://www.debunking-economics.com/Article...on_20010226.htm (http://www.debunking-economics.com/Articles/Eco_revolution_20010226.htm)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 01:43 AM
And no, the federal reserve was not the cause of the Great Depression. I urge you to read this article. It pinpoints the main cause being the blatant disparity of wealth in America. If you read about American history in the 1920s, you would realize that Coolidge pushed for less government involvement and favored a "free market" system.

Causes of the Great Depression (http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/index.html)
Yes, and I can give you tens of articles and books proving that monetary policy of the FED (aka the government) was the fundamental cause of great depression. The money for all this credit for poor people must come from some place.

[Rastaman]

we&#39;re talking about the government too aren&#39;t we? pls give link hoppe...

[Hoppe]

America&#39;s great depression (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf)

On the manipulation of money and credit (http://www.mises.org/manipulation/manipulation.asp)

What has government done to our money (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf)

[Rastaman]

sorry hop.. its just biased bullshit..

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:16 PM
sorry hop.. its just biased bullshit..
I could expect such a comment. But then would you be so kind to tell me:

a) Why this is bullshit?
b) What is your definition of an unbiased source?

[Rastaman]

on the first page of the first link it calls communism evil.. thats biased sorry to tell u.. i&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt that its not bullshit but if anything is biased its that. Ok.. your right hop.. any link i give you will be biased too. There cannot be anything unbiased . but please.. next time u give me a llink make sure the first sentance isn&#39;t like: communism sucks we all saw stalin.. george bush on the other hand is an angel etc.
its stupid...

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:45 PM
on the first page of the first link it calls communism evil.. thats biased sorry to tell u.. i&#39;ll give you the benefit of the doubt that its not bullshit but if anything is biased its that. Ok.. your right hop.. any link i give you will be biased too. There cannot be anything unbiased . but please.. next time u give me a llink make sure the first sentance isn&#39;t like: communism sucks we all saw stalin.. george bush on the other hand is an angel etc.
its stupid...
But he&#39;s an economist so from that point of view he analyses things. And btw, though he is already dead, he would certainly be harder on Bush than you.

Maybe you have heard of the quote from Lord Rothschild: "Give me control over the nation&#39;s currency and I control the nation". Read the third link, it&#39;s not that long and easy to understand, and you&#39;ll see my point of view.

[Rastaman]

i read it but i still think communism works better..
and someone said this:

[ That is because the patent for the product is too long, the patent granted by the gov. to protect anyone else from stealing the windows idea is way too long, that is why it creates a monopoly. BLAME THE GOV. Not microsoft. ]

I am blaming the government.. I&#39;m communist&#33;

[antieverything]

Sigh...Hoppe, Hoppe, Hoppe...yet another in the endless string of ignorant cappies wasting their time trying to push their religion on those of us who have long since liberated our minds from such foolishness.

Nobody takes Mises seriously anymore&#33; Come on&#33; The causes of the Great Deppression were certainly not government policy...let&#39;s look at an overview of the facts:

There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.

The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.

Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed&#39;s inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.

The economy continually sank throughout Hoover&#39;s entire term. Under Roosevelt&#39;s New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.

Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover&#39;s other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.

The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.

Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world&#39;s economies in the six decades that have followed.

[hr]

Let&#39;s get a few things straight. Keynesian policies have become increasingly ineffective in the era of global capital. Liberal social policies do often make things worse...though the capitalist "market" does a much better job at ravaging the poor than any misguided public policy can. Still, altering the structures of capitalism (at least aesthetically) doesn&#39;t do the trick--and it works even less now. The only solution now is a radical restructuring of our society as socialists from Debs to Martin Luther King have pointed out&#33;

[Rastaman]

thx antieverything... your right. capitalism just doesnt work no matter in which package you put it.

[Hoppe]

Nobody takes Mises seriously anymore&#33;

Is it so? Has there been a survey?

I can understand why you don&#39;t take Mises seriously as he was so nice to point out to your predecessors that their understanding of economics was childish, yet I don&#39;t see why suddenly people in general don&#39;t take him serious anymore.


Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world&#39;s economies in the six decades that have followed.

Complete crap. Already in the 70&#39;s Keynesian policies were debunked for not working in practice.


Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny

I am not blaiming big government, only government.

[antieverything]

Keynesian policies have been proven to be increasingly less effective but to say that they never worked is simply an ignorant statement.

You live in the nether-regions of capitalism&#39;s most radical priesthood sect. Wake up...the world knows exactly what these people&#39;s ideas lead to--horrendous amounts of death and suffering&#33;

[Hoppe]

They have proven to be ineffective.


You live in the nether-regions of capitalism&#39;s most radical priesthood sect. Wake up...the world knows exactly what these people&#39;s ideas lead to--horrendous amounts of death and suffering&#33;

:rolleyes:

Well, unfortunately this thread also turns into another bash. Bit of a pity, the world would have been a better place if Marx hadn&#39;t existed. Shame that you cannot distinguish a free market from capitalism.

[James]

I&#39;m interested in your claim that they have been proven inefficient.

Do you have a link or something? Thanks.

It is possible to argue that the Opium war was caused by protectionism. Or on the other hand, it can be blamed on aggressive free trade.
Complex eh.

[antieverything]

Believe me, we&#39;ve all seen you come through in dozens of incarnations spewing the same disproven religious bullshit. We give you dozens of arguments, examples, etc. from various viewpoints and various countries and periods yet you still hold on to your faith in the abstract and impossible ideal of the "free market". Trust me, I have no incentive to even try and reason with you as nothing gets through to the religious fanatic&#33;

[Hoppe]

Why should I? I can just as easily say the same thing about your utopia and the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism.

But if you hold on to the statement that everyone supporting free markets is a neocon puppet we certainly have nothing to discuss.

[antieverything]

Actually, I am a market socialist...I am well aware with the problems of economic calculation in a centrally planned system.

I am also well aware that the Austrian School is a small group of cranks who reject the scientific method (read: proof that they are wrong) in favor of "logical" assumptions using perfect models. It is ignored by serious economists and only exists because it is supported by wealthy ideologues.

[James]

You know, it&#39;s rude to not even address questions

hint hint

[Hoppe]

James,

I will pm you some things this weekend.


I am also well aware that the Austrian School is a small group of cranks who reject the scientific method (read: proof that they are wrong) in favor of "logical" assumptions using perfect models. It is ignored by serious economists and only exists because it is supported by wealthy ideologues

At least they weren&#39;t cranky enough to point out the fallacies in your doctrine (economic calculation, labour theory). Funny that for socialism to work (in theory&#33;) you need to introduce a market, it is still silly. Their contribution to economics is fortunately much bigger, despite the critique you can have on its methodology (though thanks to Keynes we are stuck with just as silly equilibrium models with (im)perfect competition and price taking and other non-realistic models).

Obviously, you&#39;re blinded by your hatred of capitalism and your believe someday a government will actually work for the common good.

[antieverything]

The only real contribution from the Austrian School was the Mises-Lange debates on calculation. The rest of it is bunk.

[antieverything]

Still, I am curious as to how you get off on saying that the coinciding of the era of Keynesian policy and the "Golden Age" of capitalism is some sort of coincidence. Are you saying that Keynsian policies didn&#39;t eliminate the depression? If not, why did it disappear?

[Hoppe]

Which Golden Age of capitalism are you referring to? In my opinion things only got worse after the defacto abolishment of the goldstandard.

Yes, they didn&#39;t eliminate the recession. If it did I assume you&#39;re quite happy with Bush recovery program? I can expect austrian business cycle theory is also bunk in your eyes?

[antieverything]

Rising living standards wouldn&#39;t seem to point to things "getting worse"&#33;

The era of Keynes was the most stablely constant expansionary period in the history of capitalism&#33;

I said "depression" and you say "recession". Come on&#33; They are different things&#33;

[Hoppe]

Rising living standards wouldn&#39;t seem to point to things "getting worse"&#33;

Hmm, it&#39;s a bit hard to guess what it would have been if we hadn&#39;t, isn&#39;t it?


The era of Keynes was the most stablely constant expansionary period in the history of capitalism&#33;

Pls give me dates because in my view Keynes is still very much alive. And I wouldn&#39;t exactly call our fiat money era stable.


I said "depression" and you say "recession". Come on&#33; They are different things&#33;

You&#39;re right, my mistake. I meant depression.

[antieverything]

As I have said. Keynesian measures have become inefficient as the artificial increases in agreggate demand go less and less into the domestic economy.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:39 PM
But if you hold on to the statement that everyone supporting free markets is a neocon puppet we certainly have nothing to discuss.
Yet he probably wants the embargo lifted from cuba, which would allow free-tade with cuba.