|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 20, 2024 16:13:22 GMT
No the reverse would happen. If a free market, the properties we do have would be fully utilised. It's the regs that prevent many cases of someone who wants to utilise it but is prevented. This makes the cost of property much higher. There is really no such thing as a Free Market, unless you want to abandon all consumer, environmental, financial, legal and democratic safeguards. Those places that have done all of that tend to be backwater, 3rd world economies, overseen by dictators. Not sure why any sane person would want to turn out country into that to be honest. All The Best Your post is illogical for the following reason. Lets start with the definition of a free market, just so we are all understanding each other.
A free market is called free because the customer is free. This means the customer can buy whatever he wants and there is nothing impeding his buying choice. In order for the customer to be free he must have a choice of product, ideally an infinite set of choices. This means a monopoly can not be free because he only has one supplier to go to and so is constrained. Also a free market is one where there is no coercion, as per some gangster holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy something you don't want to, or equally forcing a trader to supply goods for free, i.e. theft. A further condition is transparency. If you are selling a pint of beer it better bloody well be a pint. The perfect free market is where the customer is equipped with perfect market knowledge. He knows everything about every product on the market. This is facilitated by sellign things honestly, like no deception or selling something with a blonde with her tits out. That's all coercion of one form or another. Finally a free market is one where the state does not intervene by distorting the market. It should not subsidise products or use differential taxation.
Now that we know what a free market is, you can clearly see a country run by a dictator would be the wrong and opposite conditions for a free market. When you say there is no such thing as a free market, you are trying to turn it into a binary issue of either we have a perfect free market or not a free market. Well if you gave it a little thought you would see this is a kind of reductionist framing which is unhelpful. It's a continuum from perfect to totally unfree. Therefore we think in matters of degree. As we make the market more free, so we get a system that has closer characteristics to a free market. As you try and live by the first paragraph you would see shops being utilised to an increasing degree.
Now one final point, just to illustrate a time and situation which sheds some light on the what would happen if you did. In Britain in the 1930s a lot of housing regs were relaxed, and it is believed that because of this, we got a lot more houses built in that period. If you look at the housing market today, you will see one of these houses which is almost a century old now, still fetching high prices, some go for well over a million. Now really that can not be so bad. Where is the dictator in the 1930s Britain?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 20, 2024 17:23:22 GMT
There is really no such thing as a Free Market, unless you want to abandon all consumer, environmental, financial, legal and democratic safeguards. Those places that have done all of that tend to be backwater, 3rd world economies, overseen by dictators. Not sure why any sane person would want to turn out country into that to be honest. All The Best Your post is illogical for the following reason. Lets start with the definition of a free market, just so we are all understanding each other.
A free market is called free because the customer is free. This means the customer can buy whatever he wants and there is nothing impeding his buying choice. In order for the customer to be free he must have a choice of product, ideally an infinite set of choices. This means a monopoly can not be free because he only has one supplier to go to and so is constrained. Also a free market is one where there is no coercion, as per some gangster holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy something you don't want to, or equally forcing a trader to supply goods for free, i.e. theft. A further condition is transparency. If you are selling a pint of beer it better bloody well be a pint. The perfect free market is where the customer is equipped with perfect market knowledge. He knows everything about every product on the market. This is facilitated by sellign things honestly, like no deception or selling something with a blonde with her tits out. That's all coercion of one form or another. Finally a free market is one where the state does not intervene by distorting the market. It should not subsidise products or use differential taxation.
Now that we know what a free market is, you can clearly see a country run by a dictator would be the wrong and opposite conditions for a free market. When you say there is no such thing as a free market, you are trying to turn it into a binary issue of either we have a perfect free market or not a free market. Well if you gave it a little thought you would see this is a kind of reductionist framing which is unhelpful. It's a continuum from perfect to totally unfree. Therefore we think in matters of degree. As we make the market more free, so we get a system that has closer characteristics to a free market. As you try and live by the first paragraph you would see shops being utilised to an increasing degree.
Now one final point, just to illustrate a time and situation which sheds some light on the what would happen if you did. In Britain in the 1930s a lot of housing regs were relaxed, and it is believed that because of this, we got a lot more houses built in that period. If you look at the housing market today, you will see one of these houses which is almost a century old now, still fetching high prices, some go for well over a million. Now really that can not be so bad. Where is the dictator in the 1930s Britain?
And there we have it, you've totally misunderstood the basics. Until you get the basics the rest of the post is meaningless waffle. Then we need to note there is simply NO SUCH THING as the "laws of supply and demand". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 20, 2024 21:17:30 GMT
Then we need to note there is simply NO SUCH THING as the "laws of supply and demand". Really?  |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 21, 2024 0:03:06 GMT
Your post is illogical for the following reason. Lets start with the definition of a free market, just so we are all understanding each other.
A free market is called free because the customer is free. This means the customer can buy whatever he wants and there is nothing impeding his buying choice. In order for the customer to be free he must have a choice of product, ideally an infinite set of choices. This means a monopoly can not be free because he only has one supplier to go to and so is constrained. Also a free market is one where there is no coercion, as per some gangster holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy something you don't want to, or equally forcing a trader to supply goods for free, i.e. theft. A further condition is transparency. If you are selling a pint of beer it better bloody well be a pint. The perfect free market is where the customer is equipped with perfect market knowledge. He knows everything about every product on the market. This is facilitated by sellign things honestly, like no deception or selling something with a blonde with her tits out. That's all coercion of one form or another. Finally a free market is one where the state does not intervene by distorting the market. It should not subsidise products or use differential taxation.
Now that we know what a free market is, you can clearly see a country run by a dictator would be the wrong and opposite conditions for a free market. When you say there is no such thing as a free market, you are trying to turn it into a binary issue of either we have a perfect free market or not a free market. Well if you gave it a little thought you would see this is a kind of reductionist framing which is unhelpful. It's a continuum from perfect to totally unfree. Therefore we think in matters of degree. As we make the market more free, so we get a system that has closer characteristics to a free market. As you try and live by the first paragraph you would see shops being utilised to an increasing degree.
Now one final point, just to illustrate a time and situation which sheds some light on the what would happen if you did. In Britain in the 1930s a lot of housing regs were relaxed, and it is believed that because of this, we got a lot more houses built in that period. If you look at the housing market today, you will see one of these houses which is almost a century old now, still fetching high prices, some go for well over a million. Now really that can not be so bad. Where is the dictator in the 1930s Britain?
And there we have it, you've totally misunderstood the basics. Until you get the basics the rest of the post is meaningless waffle. Then we need to note there is simply NO SUCH THING as the "laws of supply and demand". All The Best Well at least I had the intelligence to type that description out myself rather than go running to Google to look it up. I know perfectly well what one is. I noticed you did not, so I was trying to educate you. Your definition is just a concise version of my own. Once you remove government intervention and cheating then the only regulation you have is supply and demand. It's a self-optimising system. Everyone would strive to be more efficient, much like it is in China. They have a huge market so it's close to the infinite sellers and buyers, and your perfect knowledge comes via the internet. Chinese are good at giving good descriptions of products, much better than the Brits who are some of the worst. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 1:37:37 GMT
And there we have it, you've totally misunderstood the basics. Until you get the basics the rest of the post is meaningless waffle. Then we need to note there is simply NO SUCH THING as the "laws of supply and demand". All The Best Well at least I had the intelligence to type that description out myself rather than go running to Google to look it up. I know perfectly well what one is. I noticed you did not, so I was trying to educate you. Your definition is just a concise version of my own. Once you remove government intervention and cheating then the only regulation you have is supply and demand. It's a self-optimising system. Everyone would strive to be more efficient, much like it is in China. They have a huge market so it's close to the infinite sellers and buyers, and your perfect knowledge comes via the internet. Chinese are good at giving good descriptions of products, much better than the Brits who are some of the worst. You are talking about customers being free to buy from whomever. That is NOT the same as a "market free of regulation". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 1:44:04 GMT
Then we need to note there is simply NO SUCH THING as the "laws of supply and demand". Really? Yes. There is absolutely no reason at all that a product costing £10 to produce should be sold for £15 when only a few people want it, but for £100 when lots of people want it. Well, there is one reason - Greed. The laughable idea, that has no basis in fact, of the "law of supply and demand" is nothing more than a smokescreen for unbridled greed. In fact there are no "economic laws" at all, Economics is NOT a science, it is a by product of Politics (which is also not a science). So called "Market Forces" do NOT exist independently of the desired goals of the people that make decisions about how, and in whose interests, the "market" functions. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 21, 2024 7:03:23 GMT
Really? Yes. There is absolutely no reason at all that a product costing £10 to produce should be sold for £15 when only a few people want it, but for £100 when lots of people want it. Well, there is one reason - Greed. So what method are you going to use to ration goods? - if you have a 100 widgets and there are a 150 people who want to buy a widget you need some mechanism to determine who gets one - price is usually the easiest and fairest. Same applies when you have a 100 widgets and only 50 people want one - at the price you are asking. So you either keep 50 unsold widgets in the back bedroom or reduce the price to attract more buyers. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 21, 2024 9:12:15 GMT
Yes. There is absolutely no reason at all that a product costing £10 to produce should be sold for £15 when only a few people want it, but for £100 when lots of people want it. Well, there is one reason - Greed. So what method are you going to use to ration goods? - if you have a 100 widgets and there are a 150 people who want to buy a widget you need some mechanism to determine who gets one - price is usually the easiest and fairest. Same applies when you have a 100 widgets and only 50 people want one - at the price you are asking. So you either keep 50 unsold widgets in the back bedroom or reduce the price to attract more buyers. I think the fundamental flaw in your argument comes when the 'good' in question is not 'the latest large screen home theatre TV' but 'a loaf of bread' Now I'm all in favour of allowing your idea of the market to reduce the surplus population,after all is that not how they do it in the other third world countries that mirror the UK population today, but that's because I'm in the 40% tax bracket and letting some of the freeloaders die of starvation will reduce the pressure on my tax take. But I sense I wouldn't have many keen to openly join me on this podium ... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 21, 2024 9:54:20 GMT
Same principle applies - if you only have a 100 loaves and you have 150 people wanting to buy them so the price rises then other producers see this and increase production to take advantage of these higher prices - then the price/supply equilibrium kicks in.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 9:59:39 GMT
Yes. There is absolutely no reason at all that a product costing £10 to produce should be sold for £15 when only a few people want it, but for £100 when lots of people want it. Well, there is one reason - Greed. So what method are you going to use to ration goods? - if you have a 100 widgets and there are a 150 people who want to buy a widget you need some mechanism to determine who gets one - price is usually the easiest and fairest. Same applies when you have a 100 widgets and only 50 people want one - at the price you are asking. So you either keep 50 unsold widgets in the back bedroom or reduce the price to attract more buyers. Why are there only 100 widgets when 150 are needed? 99.9% of the time it is because the manufacturer keeps supply below demand to artificially drive up prices. This is exactly how Opec works. Easiest and fairest mechanism to see who gets one is, and always has been, first come first served. Then some greedy capitalist invented the myth of the "law of supply and demand" and rest is history. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 21, 2024 10:34:06 GMT
Well at least I had the intelligence to type that description out myself rather than go running to Google to look it up. I know perfectly well what one is. I noticed you did not, so I was trying to educate you. Your definition is just a concise version of my own. Once you remove government intervention and cheating then the only regulation you have is supply and demand. It's a self-optimising system. Everyone would strive to be more efficient, much like it is in China. They have a huge market so it's close to the infinite sellers and buyers, and your perfect knowledge comes via the internet. Chinese are good at giving good descriptions of products, much better than the Brits who are some of the worst. You are talking about customers being free to buy from whomever. That is NOT the same as a "market free of regulation". All The Best It depends on how you define market regulation. If the regulation interferes with the customer's freedom to chose the best option then the regulation is anticompetitive and anti-free market. Do bear in mind with a free market the producers will produce the best options for their customers. It is an iterative process of successive approximation. A factory produces model A and model B, finds out later on no one wants model B because of an issue, then that will be fed back into the design of future models. It is a self-optimising system chasing the goal of customer satisfaction, and that even includes the satisfaction of the likes of you. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 10:47:35 GMT
You are talking about customers being free to buy from whomever. That is NOT the same as a "market free of regulation". All The Best It depends on how you define market regulation. If the regulation interferes with the customer's freedom to chose the best option then the regulation is anticompetitive and anti-free market. Do bear in mind with a free market the producers will produce the best options for their customers. It is an iterative process of successive approximation. A factory produces model A and model B, finds out later on no one wants model B because of an issue, then that will be fed back into the design of future models. It is a self-optimising system chasing the goal of customer satisfaction, and that even includes the satisfaction of the likes of you. You still seem to think the market exists FOR the customer. The thing that would benefit the Customer most is getting what they need for free. The Market is there to support the supplier, NOT the Customer. Also, remember that a significant portion of market regulation is to prevent monopolies, because genuine free markets ALWAYS lead to monopolies. Monopolies are the least beneficial thing to the Customer imaginable. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 21, 2024 11:27:21 GMT
The free market is a theory that does not work in practise.
Even worse in global markets and then you have import taxes and VAT which means knowing the price of anything is not straightforward.
Then you have discounting and subsidising.
you do have consumer groups like Which who will for a fee do provide comparison prices and claimed performances on a range of goods.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 21, 2024 11:40:14 GMT
It depends on how you define market regulation. If the regulation interferes with the customer's freedom to chose the best option then the regulation is anticompetitive and anti-free market. Do bear in mind with a free market the producers will produce the best options for their customers. It is an iterative process of successive approximation. A factory produces model A and model B, finds out later on no one wants model B because of an issue, then that will be fed back into the design of future models. It is a self-optimising system chasing the goal of customer satisfaction, and that even includes the satisfaction of the likes of you. You still seem to think the market exists FOR the customer. The thing that would benefit the Customer most is getting what they need for free. . All The Best Well that would be a hippy commune.
It depends again on what you mean by market. Sometimes market is used as a synonym for free market, as in the term 'market economy' much used as the official phrase in China incidently. In the West we use the word market to describe the system of commerce we run by. This means market can be anything from free market to say a criminal gang running a market. For this reason it is undefined in relation to who it supports. If by support you mean who does it benefit, then for a free market, it benefits every market participant, and many of these will be both buyers and sellers. By being a self-optimising system it raises everyone's wealth.
If we take an example of an unfree market we can see that there are markets that benefit the supplier. In the American market the suppliers are big contributors to party funds, so they pressure politicians to pass protectionist legislation to benefit the suppler at the expense of the customer. This makes the market unfree. In China they simply do not have such a system. If you arse caught bribing a politician you get a long stretch of porridge ('pea soup' in Chinese) for your efforts, so it is a big no no. So there you have a more democratic market even though the political system is not a 'representative democracy' as they call it in the conventional euphemism.
Genuine free markets don't always lead to monopolies. The main problem for a free market, given that you follow the rules precisely is if the product the market produces has a strong positive economy of scale. A typical type of business is where your marginal costs are near zero. Software is a product of near zero marginal cost, so you pay almost as much to produce a program for one user as you would for a billion. Steel production is known to have a strong positive economy of scale, and an example of one with a negative economy of scale is a restaurant. I've heard form many in the business that a chain restaurant will never be as good as a family-run single restaurant. Interestingly ask yourself who is best known for the huge international chains of burger vendors and whether any can be described as being as good as a typical English family-run restaurant. The other problematic area for free markets is infrastructure networks, such as telephone, gas, electricity, water, railways, roads. If a road is a product it very much depends on other roads in the market as to how valuable it is. recall the gauge problem with railways and the American railroad gangsters too. Networks are a thing probably best done by the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 12:16:09 GMT
A Free market has no Rules.
Free Market economies are populated by companies whose prime goal is to make profit.
The best way to maximise profit is to have a product that you sell to the most peope possible.
There are two ways to achieve that:
1) Spend time and money developing a superior product and couple that with top notch customer service.
2) Be the ONLY seller of any given product.
1) Cost lots of money, constantly as the competition constantly strives to catch up to you.
2) Costs lots of money, once.
The reason that so much regulation is there to prevent monopolies is precisely because the natural tendency of profit driven trade is to create monopolies.
Companies maximise profit for the least effort by ensuring they have no competition.
All The Best
|
|
