Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
No, that's why "security" will always be an issue. And security is a service just like any other. Companies competing in a free market will deliver a better service than a monopoly holder.
|
Monopolies happen in free markets even more so without regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
That's the great thing about the free market: no monopolies.
To preempt a reply: A company that has a legit 100% market share does not have a monopoly.
Why not? Because other companies are still free to enter the market and compete.
When does a company have a monopoly? When it violates other people's property rights to exclude them from the market. That the original meaning of the word monopoly. Kings and governments used to sell monopoly rights to raise money. They sold special licenses (letters patent) that protected the holder from prosecution by the courts in their territory for certain crimes. (letters of marque sold or given to pirates are another example)
|
The old term does not relate to today... a monopoly can form in a free market and it can squeeze out competition. The illegal drug economy is about as free of a market as you can get, and it has monopolies not granted by any gov.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
No, they show that the methods used by those interventionists are flawed.
The Austrian method is based on logic and the funny thing here is that most interventionists refuse to deal with Austrians based on that fact: the Austrians use of logic.
A couple of months ago when an Austrian, Thomas Dilorenzo, testified before some congressional committee, they even compared "using logic to derive economic laws" to religion. like, wtf?
|
As I've already pointed out and shown..... it's easy to analyze the wrong and even easier to ignore the benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
ok, logical error?  |
Exactly... they do not account for logical errors. Two functions crashing together would be a great example of this. It happens, it's not logical, it changes the rules when it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
The fact that someone uses maths does not guarantee that what he is saying is correct.
What interventionists claim to be able to do is predict the future using their models.
|
I didn't say it did, but it is without question math is the entire system... I've seen all sides, even Austrians, make guesses at the future based on current events, I don't think I've ever seen anyone be correct, every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
I never said S Korea didn't have any intervention, but if you compare it to N Korea then yes, it had less intervention. So you could see it as a comparison between more and less regulation.
|
N. Korea is a very bad example of intervention... it doesn't compare at any level, in any aspect, in any way, it's not even part of our economies. I can't see the comparison between the two, at all.
I can see it between S. Korea and the rest of the world, were they have a stable, growing and overall doing well economy, filled with regulations and intervention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
I believe you already posted that there never was a free market. Then how can history show us that a free market didn't work?
|
Correct, we've never had an overall free market economy. That doesn't mean various markets within an economy aren't free. When phone companies started it was a free market, free of regulation. As they grew more corrupt, greed took over, regulation and intervention followed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
What do you do when sponsor X stops paying? You stop sending them traffic.
What do you do when a new sponsor comes along? Immediately send them all of your traffic or do some research, evaluate their sites,...?
What do you do when your servers at hosting company Y are down all the time? Stick with them ore move to another host?
Which designer do you hire? The one you've heard only good things about or the one that has 25 drama threads on gfy?
If your friends got sick from eating at a new Chinese restaurant, do you go and try the food there yourself or do you pick another restaurant to have lunch?
If a girl cheats on you and you give her a second chance and she cheats on you again, do you blame the lack of gov regulation or kick her out?
The market is selfregulating.
|
The what if game is stupid... like you knew which banks, insurance companies, were screwing everything up, it's not like they told you. The market does not self regulate or it wouldn't have been regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Now that is the great thing about the Austrian method, about praxeology. It's completely value free. It holds up no matter what people's intentions are.
|
Other than it ignores the actions people actually take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
In a free market irresponsible behavior gets punished. Keeping your savings in the hands of a shady company or a company you know little about: risky. Depending on how much you know about the company one could even call it very risky. Keeping your savings in a very risky place: irresponsible.
Some of us learned that hard way when epass went under.
|
Yeah, because people that had been with banks for 30 years had a clue they were doing shady business... It must be the persons fault they didn't read the internal emails and minutes of the board, etc to understand every aspect of a bank, while already doing trustworthy business with them for years.
So it's logical they should have lost everything, the market would have fixed it eh? Again, you expose a massive flaw in this way of thinking....
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Entrepreneurship (see higer for definition) is what drives the economy. The price mechanism is the system gives constantly gives feedback.
Like I said, the economy consists out of individuals who constantly all make different decisions. There is no "conscious entity" directing everything.
Why does the baker bake bread? Because the gov told him to? Or because he wants to make money?
How does the baker know how many breads to bake? Because the gov told him to or because he bases his decision on experience (the amount of breads he sold the previous days or weeks), his understanding of his customers preferences, the fact that one of his competitors is one vacation etc?
|
Those questions aren't relevant to what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Funny how easy it is for those corporations to use gov isn't it?
|
It's only one example of how a corporation can manipulate various markets for greed... they can do it without the Gov as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
So putting them in a position of power is better?
If you want to end the corruption, you need to end what makes the corruption possible.
|
Money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Exactly. And that is what gov intervention is: forcing a 'single path' onto all.
Gov intervention: plans by the few.
Free Market: plans by the many.
|
Gov intervention ONLY happens AFTER a single path has been laid out by a corporation. This free market you put your faith into, does not push out the greedy, it only empowers them to screw everyone over until the Fed steps in to stop it.
Where is the act, law, rule, etc that regulated something before a corporation did something?