Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Monopolies happen in free markets even more so without regulations.
|
In a free market a company can't get a monopoly by calling on the power of the state. (original meaning of the word)
In a free market a company can get a 100% market share if it provides the best product at the best price. Nothing wrong with that. In a free market however, other companies are still free to try and compete if they want. So if another company comes up with a better product or a cheaper way to produce that product then it is free to do so.
Pure monopolies (that exclude others by force) are a problem because if there's no competition, there's no incentive to produce better products at a lower cost.
Competition is an essential aspect of the free market. Therefor the problems associated with monopolies can't occur under free market conditions.
Quote:
|
The illegal drug economy is about as free of a market as you can get, and it has monopolies not granted by any gov.
|
Try opening a "cocaine-shop" in your local street and see how fast the gov will shut you down. By making drugs illegal the gov per definition restricts the market. There is no free market in drugs.
Quote:
|
As I've already pointed out and shown..... it's easy to analyze the wrong and even easier to ignore the benefits.
|
Actually you didn't, but we'll agree to disagree on that because otherwise we'll keeping going back and forward.
Quote:
|
Exactly... they do not account for logical errors. .
|
Actually they do. And my reply pointed out your logical error.
Hans Hoppe has a couple of good introductions to praxeology. It's good reading on a hot summer evening
Quote:
|
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.
|
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18344371&postcount=54
Quote:
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.
|
The comparison here: 2 similar people. 2 similar countries. similar natural resources. 2 different amount sof gov intervention. The one with the highest amount of intervention has the worst economy.
Quote:
|
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.
|
This is one of ways interventionists go wrong. Because they realize it's impossible to measure everything about the economy, they look at certain sectors and try to extrapolate things onto the economy as a whole.
Quote:
|
The what if game is stupid... like you knew which banks, insurance companies, were screwing everything up, it's not like they told you.
|
It's all about risk management. In a free market you try to reduce risk.
Quote:
|
The market does not self regulate or it wouldn't have been regulated.
|
There's no causal link between the 2.
Quote:
|
Other than it ignores the actions people actually take.
|
Praxeology is value free. If a person burns down your house then you no longer have a house. It's not necessary or relevant to know the motives behind the arson to draw that conclusion.
Quote:
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....
|
In a free market the banks would have not been able to do what they did and get away with it. The banks were able to cover up what they were doing thanks to gov intervention. Under free market conditions banks wouldn't even been able to try what they did (and do) without going bankrupt.
[QUOTE]
Those questions aren't relevant to what I said.[QUOTE]
It's an example of how the market selfregulates.
[QUOTE]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]
So in your opinion the corps can manipulate both the market and the gov and your solution is more gov for them to manipulate?
Money is purely an intermediary medium of exchange allowing for an efficient devision of labor.
If you want to end the corruptions, you need to get rid of gov intervention.
Quote:
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?
|
Take a look at my examples of how corps made money by buying up farmland...