I'm not trying to step on Baraka's dick here, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
An argument against free markets is that a free markets lack regulatory control and oversight from a centralized source. However, when we look at what you called "mixed" markets as in the case of the US oil industry which is heavily regulated and controlled an event like the BP oil spill occurs. Centralized regulation and control can not prevent disasters from occurring. What then follows are the consequences or how a free market would respond compared to a "mixed" market. In the case of BP and the US government a settlement was arrived at that was politically based rather than a settlement based on real costs and real consequences. In the end the settlement with the government benefited government and BP, in my view disproportionately, at the expense of tax payers and those most damaged.
|
This is hardly a reasonable example of regulation being worse than no regulation. In fact, it's an example of what happens when regulatory agencies are stocked with industry friendly people, and as such, is actually an example of what happens when regulations aren't adequate or adequately enforced (ie, what happens in free-er markets).
It's a common source of confusion amongst certain folks: that poorly run government programs are an example of why the government sucks. These people then vote for people who have a record of running the government poorly and the cycle continues. The real problem is that regulation (and government in general) doesn't work well when you stock it with people who are more concerned with catering to whichever industry they're looking to get a job in after they step down from their public sector job. Unfortunately, the folks who complain about ineffective government programs are often the same folks who pewl up a storm whenever anyone in the government attempts to hinder the purposefully stupefying effects of outside influence.
Quote:
|
That is only half of the view. When supply of labor exceeds demand, the price or wage drops. But when demand exceeds supply the price goes up. Labor has to be active in the market and adjust to changes. If the demand for auto workers drops, but the demand for computer programmers is increasing labor has to respond. However, when the market is controlled by government you end up with high numbers of unemployed and unemployable auto workers waiting for jobs that will never return - encouraged by government policy. Labor would respond faster to changing market conditions if not for government. Government policy is often the root of the problem.
|
The idea that the government is standing in the way of displaced autoworkers who want to learn to write fluent computer has nothing to do with reality. How long does it take to learn to write professional level code? And how should these folks feed their families in the year or two it will take them to get up to speed in the programming language du jour?
Do you know what price inelasticity is? It's when prices don't respond to changes in supply and/or demand.
Quote:
|
Your view seems to assume that certain parties would be uninformed. If market participants are passive and unwilling to do their homework, so to speak, they will be exploited. But even that condition is self correcting in a free market. Different employers would compete for labor at below market costs and in time bid up the price of labor.
|
When has this ever happened without the aid of organized labor? Please, give me one example (no golf professionals, please).
"I want to let the market handle this whole labor cost and allocation thing without any government intervention at all." is code for "I want a sweatshop based economy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
My view is not based on faith. My view is based on my experience, observations, study and at times some tests I have conducted.
|
Okay, well, I generally don't find your view or your ability to support it with the written word all that compelling.
Quote:
|
Actually, the opposite is true. It is the few who seek political power that most aggressively try to control the behaviors of others. It is through centralized command and control systems that are most exploitative. Free people with choice can respond. Controlled people can not.
|
That isn't what opposite means. Opposite of what? That free markets excel at giving greedy people power or that greedy people know that controlling others can be extremely profitable?
Quote:
|
For example to me a 20 year-old who failed to take advantage of a free education and lives in his mother's basement, playing video games and eating Doritos all day and night is not "powerless". I have no sympathy for people like that. However, as soon as he is willing to go to work, i would be the first in line to want to help him - just don't tell me I gotta pay him $15 per hour to get trained or more than he is worth after he gets trained.
|
Who is telling you that you must pay 20 year old college drop outs $15/hour? I can't talk you out of your fantasies, Ace.
Your opinion or stealing?
