My Daughters Liberal Left education

[sweetnpetite]

Out of curiosity,

does your daughter go to a Private school, fully privately funded? and do you pay for it completely out of your pocket with no help whatsoever from financial aid- including grants, federal student loans and work study?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Will someone *please* tell me

How do you pronounce Ayn?

I believe it's proounced like Ine, with the I stressed.

 

[sweetnpetite]

TAxes

"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasars"

I say this not as a religious edict, but to point out the obvious. Who's likeness/symbolism is born on the face of your money. Who owns the gold to back up the worth- or as the case may be, makes the laws to garantee at least some value to those bills and coins? Who in fact does "your" money belong to? Is not every dollar bill in your posession, in actuallity a *debt* rather than it's payment?

What is your proposed solution to this? Shall we go back to trading in salt?

 

[Pure]

Hi Amicus,
I asked about monopolies and oligopolies, if there were ever a problem (arising in free markets).

You replied

It is my contention...and I think I read this in one of Ayn Rand's non fiction works....."A monopoly cannot exist in a free market place..."

She means by that...I think...that even if on supplier cornered the entire market on one product or service and withheld product to increase prices...there is a limit to what the consumer would pay and other suppliers would come on line...

When you have a partially controlled and regulated market place, such as we do...let us say in Pharmaceuticals or even energy production, then government regulations supplant the 'invisible hand' and business functions under the new set of rules dictated by those in power.

But in the theoretical free market place, again with laws enforced against fraud and deception...then a monopoly could not exist.

Well, in theory, maybe, all kinds of things.

I notice you first went to the 'holy writ', to answer the question. Rand says they don't happen.

Is this, then a religious doctrine, or a claim about the world.?
Assuming the latter:

Is there any evidence to back up your views? Of course, any examples would only approximate 'freedom,' but since government (tariffs, subsidies) is your main worry, it's not hard to go back before governments interfered a lot. Before antitrust laws, and corporate income tax, and 'loopholes.'

I'm not an economic historian, but it seems to me to be a strong tendency in every rather free situation for competition to diminish. And for larger units to form. After all, self interest drives the market (and life in general) right. Well, if I sell something, be it horses or cinnamon, it's to my interest to try for agreements with other sellers---i.e., agreements not to undercut each other: So a good horse will always cost at least X dollars, and a pound of cinnamon, at least Y dollars. (the term is 'cartel', I believe).

Please supply some evidence, in actual situations, of continued free atomistic competition?

The same sort of grouping tendency, of course, is in artisanry. Hence the Guilds. There is going to be a certain rate for an Guild member to make a 12 in silver plate, of a certain design.

The animal kingdom generally supports this idea. Very few species have 'lone wolf' members (not the wolves, certainly; maybe Bengal tigers, iirc); they cooperate, rather than compete--e.g., fight over the same prey. Even lone types, the Bengal tigers, iirc, tend to command a certain area, and recognize that others have their own areas. So they too, try to diminish competition (for food).

So in the real economic world, monopolies and oligopolies (and cartels, 'buyers groups'; territorial agreements [you take the East side, I'll take the West side]) come into being. And the units tend to get larger, for some time at least. Think of the Hudson Bay Company, or the British companies in Southern Africa, 19th century-- like say, gold mines and diamond mines.

So your very principle, about market place runs into the dilemma that leaving it alone, it becomes less and less a market place.

Eventually the public tries to protect its interest *as furthered in a free market*; getting the government to pass anti trust legislation.

Since you favor freedom, why shouldn't voters be free to ban gouging, break up monopolies, etc. IF they want that. And some of these moves help the (relatively) free market.

IOW, if a quite free market is a good, then it's likely going to require 'outside' (non market) measures. These *increase* the freedom of the market, which, by your hypothesis is the greatest good, source of freedom, etc.

 

[oggbashan]

Monosponistic

There's an interesting word.

If there is only one purchaser for a particular article or service then the purchaser is operating in a monosponistic environment.

How can 'market forces' set the price?

In the US, NASA is monosponistic. Who else buys space shuttles?

A free market cannot operate if there is only one buyer.

Equally, a free market cannot operate if there is only one supplier.

Both situations exist more often than the general public might realise.

In both cases the purchaser and supplier have to negotiate a price that is fair to both.

Og (formerly of the (UK) Institute of Purchasing and Supply which has now changed its name to something more trendy)

 

[gauchecritic]

Not exactly an interesting thread, although I did write a rather lengthy reply last night to most points raised and then suddenly decided the game wasn't worth the candle.

I'm just waiting for the flip-flop now which usually follows such or as in Ami's case the disappearance.

I must admit I've never observed the rather limited 'come hither' before which was followed by the oft expressed 'join my harem because you are a girl and you know that's your place'

I'm just posting this as a place marker.

Gauche

 

[amicus]

Pure...


Let us both...for the moment...put aside the free market place, theoretical or not...Randian...or the result of study...and let us place the ball in your court in terms of a non professional view of economics...


Hypothesize a command economy...make it any kind you wish, but it must be total...wherein the central authority makes all economic decisions...

To be more explicit..that 'central authority' controls all the land and resources and directs whom shall work at what and how much and what they produce. The central authority also controls quality and distribution....

Explore in your mind just how this would work...does the leader make all the decisions or is it by committee? If a committee, composed of whom? How is labor divided and surplus dealt with? Who determines if there is a scarcity. What form of exchange, (money) would you have? Is it metal based or paper and guaranteed by what?

In other words...you and most here challenge and demean the system I advocate....show me...tell me how you visualize a better way for a people to live.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Ami, I'd like to indulge your line of questioning, but

A: Hypothesize a command economy...make it any kind you wish, but it must be total...wherein the central authority makes all economic decisions...

Since this hypothetical thing is not what I advocate, I see no reason trying to justify it. You make it sound quite Stalinist, of course, which history has shown to be one possibility.

I advocate a mixed economy that each country's people work out, democratically. I know that for you, everythings black or white. There is 'command economy' or 'free economy' ; mixed category doesnt exist, or is a kind of wolf in sheep's clothing. Or it's like the old days in the South where if you were 1/16 "Negre" you're black.

There is no one formula--in a book of Holy Writ-- for the perfect economic set-up, and what works is relative to a people AND a time period.


Many things can be left 'private,' and supply and demand do play a key role (else you get weird old-Soviet type examples like the Lada, or a truckload of left shoes.)

show me...tell me how you visualize a better way for a people to live.

That is quite easy. If you look into [cases I know a bit about] Canada, Germany, and Finland, you'll see a better way. Decided by the 'real' people, as shown in support for the system by all the main parties. The real people are ones whose opinions and desires you despise. I say it's better, because of a number of 'quality of life' indicators, esp. infant mortality. And because all the main parties in these countries have continued the basic system, making requisite adjustments.

So that's your answer. Sorry, no Stalinist committees for you to refute (that was done 60 years ago). Parliaments, prime ministers; areas of 'free enterprise' and areas of 'regulated free enterprise, and some of government control. All very messy, but that's reality as opposed to Rand's and your theory.