The free market is central planning.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 72

I’m sick of this glorification of government or the deionization of it. The free market and government central planning are basically the same and identical with some minor exceptions. The government is a hierarchical system and every part of the free market is composed of hierarchical systems its basically debating centralized planning VS distributed centralized planning. Its not that if you put this magical sticker and name the same hierarchical system a free enterprise the magical unicorn of capitalism is going to spawn and use capitalist magic to make everything better.

Resident Joined: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 360 Location: USA

The free market is non coercive, whereas the government is.

The two are entirely at odds with one another, as a truly free market cannot exist with a government.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 72

Well hi.
I don’t understand the word “coercive” and can you explain how this can effect any thing ?
And I didn’t ask if the free market can exist with the government I’m telling you the free market and the government running of everything are the same thing !

The free market = government central planning 2.0

Let me elaborate did you worth a program or take class where they explained how firms work ?
So lets analyze how a firm creates something in a free market and the government central planning.

Free market a group of special people gather and decide what to produce we name them the CEO’s.

Government a group of special people gather and decide what to produce we name them the government officials.

Free market the plan is analyzed and perfected via the employed scientists , engineers , architects.

Government the plan is analyzed and perfected via the employed scientists , engineers , architects.

And the product is produced in a factory that works the same.

Seriously where is the difference ? If I make subsidiary government own firms that are rated and need to compete agents itch other with more then one product do I have a government own free market Very Happy

?
You have now all the wonders of market , market selection and elimination of bad products and the government owns everything. With some minor modifications I created government distributed central planning and it haze the same property like our modern markets.

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:58 pm

Here is one big difference: there are competing firms in a free market. They have to constantly try to be better than the other so they are constantly upgrading and bettering their products. The government, on the other hand, has little incentive to build a better mouse trap, so to speak. The difference between the free market and the government is competition. There is competition between government branches, but this is more often than not unproductive because it is internal. In a private business, there is less competition between different parts (that is not to say different employees).

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 72

Cygnus wrote:

Here is one big difference: there are competing firms in a free market. They have to constantly try to be better than the other so they are constantly upgrading and bettering their products. The government, on the other hand, has little incentive to build a better mouse trap, so to speak. The difference between the free market and the government is competition. There is competition between government branches, but this is more often than not unproductive because it is internal. In a private business, there is less competition between different parts (that is not to say different employees).

Not if it’s a monopoly.
Now I’m telling you to try to emulate competition in a government owned firms to create distributed central planning ,

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 72

BUMP why I’ not getting a response if I say something smart and the discussion suddenly stops ? You know I’m able to admit defeat and a error if I make one I have demonstrated this on this forums.

So don’t be afraid I’m not here to perched and show my example of the ultimate truth.

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

carx wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

Here is one big difference: there are competing firms in a free market. They have to constantly try to be better than the other so they are constantly upgrading and bettering their products. The government, on the other hand, has little incentive to build a better mouse trap, so to speak. The difference between the free market and the government is competition. There is competition between government branches, but this is more often than not unproductive because it is internal. In a private business, there is less competition between different parts (that is not to say different employees).

Not if it’s a monopoly.
Now I’m telling you to try to emulate competition in a government owned firms to create distributed central planning ,

Monopolies fundamentally come into existence through the intereaction with the state via rent seeking(lobbying) or other forms of regulatory interference. Also if you analyze this as a through the prism of public choice economics then state and business become an abuse of language and we are only talking abou institutions. This being the case the governmetn fits the criteria of a monopoly.

Also remember Markets ahve a profit loss system. Firms must remain profitable. The government does not need to be profitable as it can print more money( a subtle way to tax) or it can tax directly. In this case governmetnal provision failures are transfered to the public at large.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 679

What is the Free Market?

Simply put it is the complete absence of central planning, so saying it is just a different form of central planning is, well, silly.

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:11 pm

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

What is the Free Market?

Simply put it is the complete absence of central planning, so saying it is just a different form of central planning is, well, silly.

Jason's linked article wrote:

What "the free market" actually is, is the lack of any central planning. That's all it is.

Is it not also a lack of any centralized regulation? In other words, a true free-market would lack any laws that would protect consumers from fraudulent marketers, and what is produced is simply a factor of demand?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 679

There is debate on who would regulate fraud. Different factions within libertarianism have different opinions on whether the free market alone can handle fraud or if the government is needed to handle fraud.

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:01 am

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

There is debate on who would regulate fraud. Different factions within libertarianism have different opinions on whether the free market alone can handle fraud or if the government is needed to handle fraud.

What are your opinions on this matter Jason?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 679

MockingGods wrote:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

There is debate on who would regulate fraud. Different factions within libertarianism have different opinions on whether the free market alone can handle fraud or if the government is needed to handle fraud.

What are your opinions on this matter Jason?

Although I'm tempted by the arguments presented for independent dispute resolution organizations, at this point I'm not yet convinced. I still see the need for a government that has the job of protecting the rights of others.

Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:30 pm

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

There is debate on who would regulate fraud. Different factions within libertarianism have different opinions on whether the free market alone can handle fraud or if the government is needed to handle fraud.

What are your opinions on this matter Jason?

Although I'm tempted by the arguments presented for independent dispute resolution organizations, at this point I'm not yet convinced. I still see the need for a government that has the job of protecting the rights of others.

I tend to agree with you.

Something else I was thinking about. It's my understanding that libertarianism promotes the idea that small scales of government (planning) or perhaps no government (planning) is better then what we're currently experiencing. I have trouble believing that smaller scale planning is or could be better then that which is undertaken on the larger scale.

I have trouble accepting the idea that human society would actually improve by breaking down our development into smaller junks. If you believe smaller scaling would actually improve our situation, how small would the optimum size be? Individual? Small groups (50 or less)? Larger (50 or more)? Cooperation size (1000+)? It's my opinion that our social nature is what gives us the advantage in survival, and reducing our social constructs into smaller scales wouldn't be optimally advantageous. My ideal society would be one that rid itself of competition and worked solely from a cooperative perspective.

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

MockingGods wrote:

Is it not also a lack of any centralized regulation? In other words, a true free-market would lack any laws that would protect consumers from fraudulent marketers, and what is produced is simply a factor of demand?

Do you demand consumer protection from fraudulent marketers? If so why must that demand manifest through a monopoly? Clearly it’s not because its’ mandates are binding bcs binding mandates to not necessarily effect reality or the failure of the institution to detect fraud or exploitation or that institution itself to engage in fraud or exploitation.

MockingGods wrote:

Something else I was thinking about. It's my understanding that libertarianism promotes the idea that small scales of government (planning) or perhaps no government (planning) is better then what we're currently experiencing. I have trouble believing that smaller scale planning is or could be better then that which is undertaken on the larger scale.

Small scale planning is not the issue. What is at issue is the Schumpeterian notion of “creative destruction”. That is multiple market products are offered from different institutions. This seems wasteful to the central planner because production is dislocated and you cannot take advantage of economies of scale. However the issue at hand is what is optimal. An economy of scale might be best but first you must know what the best way to produce soemthign is. That information does not emerge from geniuses alone but from the price structure which rewards individuals who combine the factors of production in the most optimal way.

Central planning assumes away this problem as if it’s already been solved. If central planning had solved the issue of what is the optimal method of combining factors of production in an infinite variety of products that are in existence or will be in existence then all central planners would be able to outperform the market in regards to speculation but that is typically opposite the case.

This idea is actually similar to natural selection, infact Darwin’s ideas are extracted from edam smith.

Also the ecology of demand and supply are not fixed so the central planner must always alter his production methodology. Centralizing decision making makes this extremely hard. Removing a market in prices and private ownership of capital makes it likely impossible.

There is also the issue of human corruption. If you assume the average capitalist has the capacity to engage in exploitation then you must apply that to the central planner. By centralizing production you make it more difficult for consumers to evade or defect from the central planner, which creates a system of adverse selection, in that the central planner can exploit his consumers and benefit. Therefore exploitation is rewarded rather then punished as in a market where consumers have defection options.

MockingGods wrote:

I have trouble accepting the idea that human society would actually improve by breaking down our development into smaller junks. If you believe smaller scaling would actually improve our situation, how small would the optimum size be? Individual? Small groups (50 or less)? Larger (50 or more)? Cooperation size (1000+)? It's my opinion that our social nature is what gives us the advantage in survival, and reducing our social constructs into smaller scales wouldn't be optimally advantageous. My ideal society would be one that rid itself of competition and worked solely from a cooperative perspective.

Size would be unknowable. A internally consistent market apologist would say they do not know and could not know. And if the market seemed to suggest some optimal size for producing dishwasher detergent the market advocate would argue that might not necessarily be the case in 3 decades or 3 minutes. The reason is , of course, that information is not given to one person or a few persons, but exists in a decentralized fashion, in the social order not the individual.

I agree that humans are social animals but it does not follow from this that humans do not exploit or manipulate other humans. There must be a system of behavioral enforcement to ensure individuals do not exploit each other. Centralizing power, grants 1 individual much sovereignty over others, which rewards exploitation. Forcing people to serve the interest of others , as in the welfare state, allows others to consume at the expense of those that produce.

If you read Trivers(71) in regards to non-kin (reciprocal)altruism you realize that humans are essentially selfishly altruistic. They will help others but only when there are EVOLUTIONARY social gains(meaning action is not driven by conscious decision alone but potentially emotion or instinct). The tribal order works like a market by having high population viscosity, low population size , memory, and long lifespan, facial recognition allowed the individual brain to directly reckon the value others grant to each other generating a market structure.

1The global economic order has reduced population viscosity to very small number. Now those that receive aid may defect to another location to receive aid. The tribal structure would have made defection very expensive as to go and live alone would have been dangerous. In the global economic order people can receive aid , never pay it back and yet not have to move, yet continue to receive aid.

2The massive population size of the planet has disrupted the individual brain’s ability to assign value to others that help you. Somebody in japan might make .15 of your car, how can you know to compensate this person? In a tribal structure I would see the individual that helps me probably everyday in my life and also the production process is likely very simple. In a global economic order I will never know those that provide me goods or services, how can you create a compensation scale without a price system?

Under socialism or collectivism the compensatory mechanism is non-existent or tremendously irrational. Systems like this operate in an adversely selective fashion to increase the supply of things that might actually be destructive or not socially valuable either by being unable to reckon value or by inverting the value scale.

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10152

DarkReign wrote:

The free market is non coercive, whereas the government is.

The two are entirely at odds with one another, as a truly free market cannot exist with a government.

I watched a documentary about the abuse of a coal mine in th 70s that bought off West Virgina's local government to make laws to set up a monopoly. Not only did this mine own the mine, they paid the labor, not with money, but with vouchers, and on top of that owned the housing the labor worked in and the grocery stores they shopped in.

They paid off government to create indentured slavery.

AND they used government to bust up the unions who objected to the abuse.

A truely free market is anarchy where you end up with barons and everyone else poor.

You cannot have a free market without government. For the same reason you cannot have freedom of religion without the First Amendment.

I am sick of the "no rules" the right wing sells. That mentality is the same mentality that allows a religion to reach absolute power. It creates a free for all where eventually competition dies.

The private sector can be just as abusive as a political party or a religion to claim otherwise is absurd.

There was a NY factory fire at the turn of the century where hundreds of workers DIED because the greedy owners didn't want them leaving, so they locked the exists. OSHA was eventually created because of that fire.

I have no doubt the more we strip regulations the more our society will go back to things like that.

The idea of less regulation can only happen with responsibility. It cannot be "I can do what I want" by itself.

We have speed limits, that does not make the government anti-car. I do not think our economy needs to be speed limit free, nor should it.

I am for arguing less regulation only when those who want it SHOW that they can behave. I have seen nothing by the top in the past 30 years that is showing me that they are. If they had, we wouldn't have bailed out airlines in the 80s. We wouldn't have had the dot.com bubble in the 90s. We wouldn't have bailed out the banks and car companies now.

I have NO sympathy for CEOs who still get paid even if their companies tank. I have no sympathy for banks or oil companies are making record profits while gas is 4 bucks a gallon while people cant pay their bills or go to the hospital.

If these fat cats want government off their back, if they want less regulation, there is a quick and easy way to do it. Pay your share and start fucking caring about those who work for you. Otherwise don't bitch when they ask for help.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile