Defence and the Free Market

[Forty Two]

Discuss the topic or fuck the fuck off.

You don't get to misrepresent people and then get all shouty at them for calling you on it. Stop continually committing logical fallacies like the Strawman and tu quoque repeatedly across the forum. You do it in basically every thread you take part in.

Stop it with the "calling you out on it." You're the one getting called out on your bullshit. Your usual tactic isn't going to work.

The strawman you create is to point out a tariff and say "see, free market doesn't work."

I see the problem. You have absolutely no idea what a strawman is. A strawman is when you falsely attribute an argument or point of view to someone else. Me talking about my own understanding of free markets, is categorically NOT attributing an argument to someone else.

No, your argument was a straw man argument. Your problem is that you don't understand how a logical fallacy works. And, if you create a straw man, then knock it down and declare that free markets don't work, then you've committed a straw man fallacy.

Black is white! You really are a piece of work. I never said anyone else made the argument that a tariff means it's not a free market. To be a strawman I have to attribute the argument to SOMEONE ELSE. Where the fuck did I do that? And even if I did, which I didn't, it STILL WOULDN'T BE A STRAWMAN, as "tariffs" ISN'T an argument or a point of view. Tariffs are conceptually real things that occur in the world. I literally can't have invented them, as they existed before I was born.

Not at all. Nothing I said comes close to calling black white. Your argument above speaks for itself. I'm not repeating myself, and I'm not getting drawn into your usual horseshit revisionism. I never said you invented tariffs, liar. I said you created a strawman argument against the free market, and you did. See above.

that's an extra step. I could argue that a market requires redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor as they don't function fairly and properly when wealth inequality gets too large. Can you see that they are the same thing? The government stepping in to punish "winners".

They aren't the same thing. Because there is a difference between punishing winners in an operating, functioning market where the "information" created by market forces operates to set prices, etc, and punishing an anticompetitive monopolist who has individual control over supply and price, and can Talethereby set prices at a level different than that which would be set by a competitive market.

can you translate that first part to English? You seem to be saying that a person with great wealth holds no power advantage over an average or poor person in influencing the conditions of a marketplace. THAT would be absurd if you were saying that.

If you took Economics 101, you'd understand. Buy Economics for Dummies, or something.

Someone is getting petulant...

You're just up to your old game. It's tiresome. You're disingenuous in the extreme.

If you think that I just "seemed to be saying that person with great wealth holds no power advantgage over an average or poor person..." then you either have deficient cognitive abilities or you're a dishonest fuck.

Sorry bro, you've hit the limit on personal attacks I am willing to take from you in the last few weeks. This one and everyone from now on is going on report.

Stop it "bro." You're nobody to talk about personal attacks. I've called a spade a spade. You're lying about what I said, and trying to use your typical deflection tactics. Not going to happen.

Since when does economics or a free market require that one person have no power advantage over another? What the fuck are you on about?

Because that's COERCION.

No it isn't. What the fuck are you talking about? Someone being richer or wealthier than someone else in a business deal is coercion?

What's the difference between a single person (or a group of wealthy people) distorting the market and a single company distorting its market?

Dude - I mean - wut? Really? You've asked this question? Ummm... a monopoly sets prices because it controls supply and price. A market of various people of various strengths, weaknesses, wealth, skills, smarts, whatever, operate collectively in accordance with market forces. Nobody in their right mind expects a market to include only actors who are of exactly the same power. A guy who is running a $50 million company has different strengths, and weaknesses, than a startup in the same industry. What the fuck? That's your idea of a "distortion of the market?" Christ....

The difference is - in a monopoly there isn't a "market," there is one supplier setting prices with no competition. With a bunch of competitors, there are competitive forces setting prices based on supply and demand.

Of course people have power advantages over others. Rich people can finance stuff easier and buy more things. Strong people can lift more stuff. Smart people and savvy people can get things done easier. Good talkers can persuade people better. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Better companies can do things easier over lesser companies and become effective monopolies. What the fuck is the difference? Stop frothing and start thinking.

Sure, and if they become a monopoly controlling the supply and setting prices without competition, then it's no longer a market. Fuck. Being a more effective competitor doesn't mean a company becomes a monopoly. However, if it does become a monopoly then the environment is clearly different than if there are many competitors vying for customers.

You have to be doing this on purpose.

[pErvinalia]

The strawman you create is to point out a tariff and say "see, free market doesn't work."

I see the problem. You have absolutely no idea what a strawman is. A strawman is when you falsely attribute an argument or point of view to someone else. Me talking about my own understanding of free markets, is categorically NOT attributing an argument to someone else.

No, your argument was a straw man argument. Your problem is that you don't understand how a logical fallacy works. And, if you create a straw man, then knock it down and declare that free markets don't work, then you've committed a straw man fallacy.

Black is white! You really are a piece of work. I never said anyone else made the argument that a tariff means it's not a free market. To be a strawman I have to attribute the argument to SOMEONE ELSE. Where the fuck did I do that? And even if I did, which I didn't, it STILL WOULDN'T BE A STRAWMAN, as "tariffs" ISN'T an argument or a point of view. Tariffs are conceptually real things that occur in the world. I literally can't have invented them, as they existed before I was born.

Not at all. Nothing I said comes close to calling black white. Your argument above speaks for itself. I'm not repeating myself, and I'm not getting drawn into your usual horseshit revisionism. I never said you invented tariffs, liar. I said you created a strawman argument against the free market, and you did. See above.

You really have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, do you? You said: "The strawman you create is to point out a tariff..". You are claiming that pointing out a tariff is a strawman. The bit following that ("therefore markets don't work") is not part of the strawman, it's part of the alleged knocking down. Oh, and reported for the personal attack.

They aren't the same thing. Because there is a difference between punishing winners in an operating, functioning market where the "information" created by market forces operates to set prices, etc, and punishing an anticompetitive monopolist who has individual control over supply and price, and can Talethereby set prices at a level different than that which would be set by a competitive market.

can you translate that first part to English? You seem to be saying that a person with great wealth holds no power advantage over an average or poor person in influencing the conditions of a marketplace. THAT would be absurd if you were saying that.

If you took Economics 101, you'd understand. Buy Economics for Dummies, or something.

Someone is getting petulant...

You're just up to your old game. It's tiresome. You're disingenuous in the extreme.

No, you are just refusing to answer the question I have asked you a couple of times already.

If you think that I just "seemed to be saying that person with great wealth holds no power advantgage over an average or poor person..." then you either have deficient cognitive abilities or you're a dishonest fuck.

Sorry bro, you've hit the limit on personal attacks I am willing to take from you in the last few weeks. This one and everyone from now on is going on report.

Stop it "bro." You're nobody to talk about personal attacks. I've called a spade a spade. You're lying about what I said, and trying to use your typical deflection tactics. Not going to happen.

Tell your story to the mods.

Since when does economics or a free market require that one person have no power advantage over another? What the fuck are you on about?

Because that's COERCION.

No it isn't. What the fuck are you talking about? Someone being richer or wealthier than someone else in a business deal is coercion?

What the fuck am I talking about? You only had to read the next sentence to find out.

What's the difference between a single person (or a group of wealthy people) distorting the market and a single company distorting its market?

Dude - I mean - wut? Really?

Yes really. And despite you being the apparent expert on markets and me never having formerly studied economics, I'm about to explain to you that you don't even know what the relevant terms mean.

You've asked this question? Ummm... a monopoly sets prices because it controls supply and price. A market of various people of various strengths, weaknesses, wealth, skills, smarts, whatever, operate collectively in accordance with market forces. Nobody in their right mind expects a market to include only actors who are of exactly the same power. A guy who is running a $50 million company has different strengths, and weaknesses, than a startup in the same industry. What the fuck? That's your idea of a "distortion of the market?" Christ....

The difference is - in a monopoly there isn't a "market," there is one supplier setting prices with no competition.

Umm, wrong, Milton Friedman. Anti-trust laws kick in well before there is only a single monopoly. In economics a "monopoly" refers to an effective monopoly. That is, a market where one company owns enough share of the market that it makes it too difficult for others to compete on a level footing. That will include markets with a literal monopoly, but also includes others with multiple participants.

So my question regarding the difference between personal markets and corporate markets remains relevant.

Of course people have power advantages over others. Rich people can finance stuff easier and buy more things. Strong people can lift more stuff. Smart people and savvy people can get things done easier. Good talkers can persuade people better. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Better companies can do things easier over lesser companies and become effective monopolies. What the fuck is the difference? Stop frothing and start thinking.

Sure, and if they become a monopoly controlling the supply and setting prices without competition, then it's no longer a market. Fuck. Being a more effective competitor doesn't mean a company becomes a monopoly. However, if it does become a monopoly then the environment is clearly different than if there are many competitors vying for customers.

You seem to have no idea how anti-trust works in the real world.

You have to be doing this on purpose.

Yep, I am purposely pointing out where your "arguments" are full of holes, and you are using fallacious and dishonest debating techniques, as per usual.

[Forty Two]

Dude - I'm about done with your nonsense. I never opined as to when antitrust laws kick in. I was addressing what you said, not antitrust law in general. You have no idea what you're talking about. You asked a specific question, and I answered it. This debate has become an exercise in you trolling - as is your usual pattern of behavior. Enjoy yourself.

[pErvinalia]

Lol, again black is white. You got the practical definition of "monopoly" wrong. And now it's my fault.

The question still stands, and it's a relevant one. If it's considered against free trade principles for a company to get too dominant in a marketplace, then why is it not considered likewise for individuals (and collections of individuals)?

[Forty Two]

[Seth]

[quote="eRv"]How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that you are erecting strawmen?

How many times does it need to be pointed out that you're the King of Strawmen and are just trolling by being deliberately and willfully obtuse, recondite and mendacious?

I'm done discussing this with you.

[pErvinalia]

I was never discussing this with you. I've been discussing it with 42. And by "discussing" I mean trying to explain things to a brick wall...

[Seth]

Are you going to address this - http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1665998 ?

No.

[Seth]

I was never discussing this with you. I've been discussing it with 42.

Nonetheless...

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

If goods are manufactured in one market, which has little to no regulation of its workplaces, little to no tax, little to no minimum wage, and then sold into a market where manufacturers are subjected to heavy regulatory burdens, high taxes, high minimum wages, etc., then it is not "a" free market. It's one foreign market with one set of rules and regs and costs, selling into another market with a different set. This means that the basic, foundational principle of a free market - equal treatment under the law - does not exist. So, it's not "a" free market. It's two different markets.

Big corporations in the first world, shining examples of the capitalist ethos are falling over themselves in their eagerness to sign contracts with third world entrepreneurs who own factories, so that they can get a stream of t-shirts and running shoes at next to nothing, and flog them to their customers at a huge profit.

These actual capitalists, as opposed to armchair supporters seem to have no problem with this as a market opportunity...

[Brian Peacock]

Why is the free market not good enough for the defence of the nation. Why is defence socialised? If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Maximising choice maximises freedom and opportunity, promotes competition, stinulatws economies, and reduces costs. Therefore the defence of the nation should be put out to tender. To stand against this is to stand against freedom and Liberty.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

If goods are manufactured in one market, which has little to no regulation of its workplaces, little to no tax, little to no minimum wage, and then sold into a market where manufacturers are subjected to heavy regulatory burdens, high taxes, high minimum wages, etc., then it is not "a" free market. It's one foreign market with one set of rules and regs and costs, selling into another market with a different set. This means that the basic, foundational principle of a free market - equal treatment under the law - does not exist. So, it's not "a" free market. It's two different markets.

Big corporations in the first world, shining examples of the capitalist ethos are falling over themselves in their eagerness to sign contracts with third world entrepreneurs who own factories, so that they can get a stream of t-shirts and running shoes at next to nothing, and flog them to their customers at a huge profit.

These actual capitalists, as opposed to armchair supporters seem to have no problem with this as a market opportunity...

Indeed. Anyone able to take advantage of the disparities between two markets has a distinct advantage. This is precisely what I was talking about. This is precisely what I'm arguing against. Just because a business is in favor of having an advantage like that doesn't mean that two foreign markets operating under completely different rules and laws are a single free market, or that said advantage to SOME businesses is consistent with free market capitalism.

[Forty Two]

Why is the free market not good enough for the defence of the nation. Why is defence socialised? If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Maximising choice maximises freedom and opportunity, promotes competition, stinulatws economies, and reduces costs. Therefore the defence of the nation should be put out to tender. To stand against this is to stand against freedom and Liberty.

It's because there is no real "market" for national defense. There is a market for individual security services (and that is a vibrant free market). However, a public good or national interest cannot be sold to individual market participants.

Key terms - public good, positive and negative externalities, the free rider problem, nonexclusivity, and nonrivalrous.

[Brian Peacock]

Why is the free market not good enough for the defence of the nation. Why is defence socialised? If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Maximising choice maximises freedom and opportunity, promotes competition, stinulatws economies, and reduces costs. Therefore the defence of the nation should be put out to tender. To stand against this is to stand against freedom and Liberty.

It's because there is no real "market" for national defense. There is a market for individual security services (and that is a vibrant free market). However, a public good or national interest cannot be sold to individual market participants.

Key terms - public good, positive and negative externalities, the free rider problem, nonexclusivity, and nonrivalrous.

Why do you hate freedom and Liberty? The government puts the building and running of social goods such as roads, hospitals, schools, law-and-order services, and infrastructure out to tender. If the Chinese or whoever can defend the nation to the same extent for a lower cost the government have a duty to outsource that public service to reduce the burden on the taxpayer - which in the US is considerable.

[Seth]

Why is the free market not good enough for the defence of the nation. Why is defence socialised? If the free market leads to the best outcomes and the most efficiency of spending, then why are our militaries and their spending under a command economy? If the free market isn't good enough for defence, then why is it allegedly good enough for things like health, education and science?

Maximising choice maximises freedom and opportunity, promotes competition, stinulatws economies, and reduces costs. Therefore the defence of the nation should be put out to tender. To stand against this is to stand against freedom and Liberty.

It's because there is no real "market" for national defense. There is a market for individual security services (and that is a vibrant free market). However, a public good or national interest cannot be sold to individual market participants.

Key terms - public good, positive and negative externalities, the free rider problem, nonexclusivity, and nonrivalrous.

Why do you hate freedom and Liberty? The government puts the building and running of social goods such as roads, hospitals, schools, law-and-order services, and infrastructure out to tender. If the Chinese or whoever can defend the nation to the same extent for a lower cost the government have a duty to outsource that public service to reduce the burden on the taxpayer - which in the US is considerable.

As he said, "externalities." There's a difference between farming out your production of plastic laundry baskets and farming out your military. If you cannot understand the difference you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the decision making.