Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

DJoshuaRubin (97.99)

The Path of Free Markets

Recs

38

August 08, 2010 – Comments (38)

Hey Fools, 

There's obviously a very, very angry contingent in the CAPS blogosphere. They, or you guys, seem to believe that by far the best thing a government can do is to do as little as possible. You passionately believe that the free market, in the long run, does the most good for the greatest number of people, and that the government should not help out fallen industries, should not provide money to citizens down on their luck, and should not engage in any kind of "social engineering" which you believe will ultimately do more harm than good. This is even true in the case of climate change where you believe the government is only more likely to add to the problem than help solve it. 

This is the why - a LIBERAL, see some things and am encouraging you guys to back up a little bit on the heated rhetoric about liberals wanting to create a nanny state, wanting to actually "destroy" America and my wanting to strangle business, limit innovation and to trip old ladies crossing Main street.

To me, America is clearly entering a phase in which two Titanic forces are working against the so-called "working" man. One is globalization. As air travel gets faster, as video conferencing gets better, as communication improves, as worldwide education improves, companies can hire from talent pools around the world, and get quality work for cheaper prices.  This puts serious pressure on the average American, many of whom have lousy educations and exist in a cultural landscape that is almost openly anti-intellectual and pro-double cheeseburgers. 26% of Americans are likely obese. Our average citizen doesn't even know how to feed him/herself. Think about how utterly ridiculous that is.  So, our bloated and often poorly educated citizenry is falling behind every bit as much as their behinds are falling.  

Another major headwind for the working man is the digital divide. As technological progress races forward, the people with digital knowledge become more and more valuable. But it seems inevitable to me that the gap between those with legitimate technological know how and the digital ignoramouses is likely to grow. There is a massive gulf erupting between the haves and have nots when it comes it technical intelligence. 

And, if that divide were not bad enough, technology itself - robots, software and digital services that require no human employee are likely to take away more and more jobs over time. 

One more major bonus problem of massive proportions is overpopulation. There are just plain too many people, and as that number grows there is likely to be more and more people who fall into the horrifying category of "surplus" people. There is no meaningful labor for them to do because it technology and other people are already doing it.  

To me, a LIBERAL who loves his country, believes in meritocracy, and respects varying points of view, it seems to me that capitalism is very much like the board game Monopoly. Except it is a never-ending game of a Monopoly.  Just imagine how much fun it would be to play Monopoly once the board is set and some guys have hotels on Boardwalk, Park Place and whatever the heck those light green ones are that rake in all that sweet dough, while some are tuck with the lousier properties.  

To me, libertarian-minded and appropriately-named Conservatives want to keep everything JUST the way it is.  If any of the players step up and say, "Hey, this sucks, we have no chance" the conservative faction goes utterly beserk and gives speeches about the Nanny state, the meritocracy and the horrors of government intervention. And no matter how hard the dudes who own Baltic Avenue and it's ugly sister property, they ain't gonna catch up, not now, no way, no how, not never. So they say, "Hey, we need to adjust the rules a little here. We need some government intervention to level the playing field a bit." 

The bottom line as I see it, is that I can't see how the free market will provide enough jobs and meaningful opportunity for advancement to enough people in this next 100 years.  And capitalism, as I see it, has always been about the rich sticking it to the poor and middle class as hard as they can without causing all out revolution, anarchy and massive hordes of people eating each other and mating and doing boom-boom right out in the open in the street. If allowed to run completely wild, the free market will do to the world what oil companies do to Africa - allow staggering amounts of degradation, leaks, health problems and other terrible things, while a select few live in elegant, walled-off complexes, taking in all of the joys life has to offer.  There has to be a seat at the table for responsible, reasonable government intervention that doesn't cause people to froth and the mouth and rail as if possessed by demons against necessary checks on the free market. 

So my question to libertarian minded folks is, forgetting for a second how much you hate government intervention - what do you think the limits of libertarianism are and what are the down sides as, inevitably no system is perfect?  

As Alex "TMFMarathonMan" Du Mortier always signs off, "I welcome all respectful and informed opinions" which I translate into "Please don't be an ***hole and spout back the heated, vapid crap you heard from your favorite talking head." The Fool is better than that. 

Fool On,

H. Wood Dan

38 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 08, 2010 at 12:49 PM, SockMarket (81.75) wrote:

+1 and I wish I could give more. Amazing blog Dan. As a left leaning independent (in terms of how I would vote) I agree completely. Well, almost completely.A few thoughts:

1) I would note that in general liberals tend to be more reasoned than libertarians (IMO) but there are certainly some who are just as bad. one story comes to mind of an older woman who was furious (and rightly so) that nothing was being done to stop the violation of the 4th amendment, yet was equally angry when the Supreme Court applied the 2nd amendment to all of the states. Go figure.

2) What we have now isn't really capitalism, as Smith described it, but rather a perversion of it. I forget the name for the entity, but I believe that he stated that when a company got too large it's interests actually ran counter to society and it was no longer beneficial. I think that is what we have now.

3) Personally I really like the model of the scandinavian countries (Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden) ex Iceland and how they run government. They have some of the best Lorenz curves (a measure of inequality of income distribution for those who aren't familiar with it), some of the least corruption, best healthcare, longest life span, and best salmon in the world. (well maybe the last one is not the government's doing). I really wish we would head in that direction.

Report this comment
#2) On August 08, 2010 at 1:36 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

America SHUTS DOWN when money is no longer related to production.....this is what happens when politicians spend money they don't have....we run out of money......you can go to sleep comfortably knowing Alstry told you so....well in advance.

Lee County leaders could close every county park, park every LeeTran bus and sack every third sheriff's deputy.

They still would not close next year's budget gap.

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201008080110/NEWS01/8080411

If politicians can borrow as much as they want to pay themselves and their families....why can't every American borrow a similar amount too?

Report this comment
#3) On August 08, 2010 at 1:37 PM, DJoshuaRubin (97.99) wrote:

DtheB - thanks a lot for your rec and smart commentary. I give your #2 (as wrong as that sounds) a great big hizzah. The absurdities with BP are Exhibit A in that case. 

Of note, for an intelligent, libertarian site, Fools might be interested in FreedomChatter.Com, a site run by David "Pencils2" Kretzmann, or as I used to call him, "The Wonder Boy."  

Report this comment
#4) On August 08, 2010 at 1:40 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

Quick Follow....it is not a liberal or conservative issue....it is one of fairness....

If liberal and conservative politicians can borrow as much as they want to pay themselves and pay their taxes, why can't liberal and conservative citizens also borrow money pay themselves and taxes?

Report this comment
#5) On August 08, 2010 at 1:46 PM, DJoshuaRubin (97.99) wrote:

Alstry - I have heard and understand and get your point. You feel America has run out of money and is heading for incredible amounts of destruction and probably war as we hurtle into the digital age. I am a sheep who is delusional for continuing to invest in the stock market and to pay my taxes and to have even an ounce of faith in the passion, creativity and entrepreneurial powers of our citizenry. Our politicians are all hopelessly corrupt and terrible things are coming. I get it. Now, why don't you treat yourself to a nice long trip to Hawaii so you can enjoy some calm and peace before the Apocalypse that you so valiantly have predicted, and predicted, and predicted, and predicted and predicted and predicted comes. You have done your job, Alstry and I think I speak for many CAPS players when I say thank you for putting so much passion and effort into alerting this community of sheep.  

You know - I was reading in Linchpin by Seth Godin about the "lizard brain" or the part that's only interested in survival.  It's the part of your brain that screams at you in the middle of the night to go check and make sure the back door is locked so your home doesn't get invaded, the part the nags you on a flight that the turbulence might flip the plane, the part that is all about safety and protection from possible future harm. It's very important not to let that lizard brain run wild or you stop thinking about actual solutions and just start screaming all the way through catastrophe.  Lastly, even if the ship is sinking, why not pour yourself a martini and go listening to the orchestra that is still playing music. 

Report this comment
#6) On August 08, 2010 at 1:52 PM, zymok (45.68) wrote:

My favorite talking head is my own, but I'll try to be neither vapid nor heated ;)

H. Dan - 

Globalization - helps both the hi-tech and lo-tech countries.  In essesence, lower costs frees capital in the hi-tech country to produce more valuable goods.  Americans, for all their defects, have access to better technology than developing countries and can produce more valuable goods.  True, this can be temporarily disruptive to workers whose  jobs are outsourced, but is good overall.  Hence the rising standard of living in the US over the last several decades as globalization has increased.

 Digital divide - let me expand this to education in general.  Yes, Americans need to be better educated.  This is true irrespective of any economic and political policies in place.  The government is pretty well failing here.  Protectionist measures won't help - an unproductive person is just that - unproductive.

 Robots - raise the standard of living by increasing productivity. Similar arguments apply as in globalization.  Railing against robots is like weavers protesting that mechanical looms would put them out of business.  True, and bad for the weavers, good for society.

Overpopulation - as societies get richer, the birth rate declines.  Figures from developing nations have shown this to occur faster than expected.  Globalization helps curb overpopulation.

Playing monopoly - the analogy assumes that economics is a zero-sum game.  It is not.  We can all increase our wealth.

Sticking it to the poor - the rich want to get as much as possible out of their (monetary) investment.  The poor want to get as much as possible out their (labor) investment.  Two sides of the same coin.

Oil companies in Africa - you've touched on "external costs", that is costs (degradation of the environment) that are born not by the causing agent (the oil company) but by others (people who live and work in the area). It is an appropriate and necessary function of government to "internalize" these external costs, hence the need for environmental regulations, etc.

 DtheBear -

Liberals are more reasoned than libertarians - this is laughable.

Large companies - the interest of a company is never necessarily aligned with the interests of society.  The point of free markets is that it doesn't matter.  A company that cannot compete on its own merits does not survive.

Best Lorenz curves - define "best" in an objective way.  People concerned with income distribution are usually concerned with "fairness".  Is that the case here?

Report this comment
#7) On August 08, 2010 at 1:56 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

Oh man, I wish I had another rec for comment #5

Report this comment
#8) On August 08, 2010 at 2:05 PM, zymok (45.68) wrote:

Ditto - +1 for #5

Report this comment
#9) On August 08, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SockMarket (81.75) wrote:

zy,

1) it is almost as funny as what you wrote to Dan. if that were addressed to me I would very happily shred its faulty logic. (can I?)

2)" the interest of a company is never necessarily aligned with the interests of society.  The point of free markets is that it doesn't matter.  A company that cannot compete on its own merits does not survive."

No. In a true capitalistic system you find owners of single (non chain/franchise) stores. They want their customers to:

1. like them so that they will buy there, and

2. have a healthy economy around the store so that people can afford to buy there

 In a situation where you have a large chain store like WMT they have the power to reduce competition, a power not available to the above, and thus overcharge consumers once competition is gone. This is not beneficial to society.

3) first off it is only 1 curve per country. second most people consider equitable distribution of income and wealth to be ideal, or best. I am no different

 

and I should not address this as it was not addressed to me but I will say one thing on your note to Dan: when birth rates slow it slows population growth. population growth is the rate at which overpopulation is getting worse, not a measure of overpopulation. When it drops it does not reduce overpopulation. 

Report this comment
#10) On August 08, 2010 at 2:39 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

More High Salaries in Ball, California 

Food Stamps Cuts Coming

Alstry's day today, go boating with family and friends....hopefully there is a nice sunset.....

It is an insane society that allows its politicians to borrow as much money as they want to pay themselves, their taxes, and their friends....while the rest of the nation gets cut off from credit, forced to pay higher taxes, and shuts down as the private economy collapses.......

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED....OVER AND OVER.....

Your silence screams loudly with ignorance of what you face....

America is At Risk of Boiling Over

Report this comment
#11) On August 08, 2010 at 2:42 PM, cthomas1017 (39.66) wrote:

"There's obviously a very, very angry contingent in the CAPS blogosphere. They, or you guys, seem to believe that by far the best thing a government can do is to do as little as possible."

Nice technique.  You've attempted it in the past and I called you on it then too.

The technique?  To fully misrepresent your adversary's position and then draw in a couple of suckers who take the bait and try to defend it.

There are extremists who will agree to your statement.  They are idiots and they generally crawl in a corner when they are exposed as the anarchists that they are.

Most of those that you are trying to skewer believe in a constitutionally limited federal republic.  That's a HUGE difference from anarchy.

As for engaging in any other discussion about this post, it is impossible given that the leading premise leads to the rest of your post.  A house cannot stand on a foundation of quicksand.  

Report this comment
#12) On August 08, 2010 at 2:44 PM, cthomas1017 (39.66) wrote:

"There's obviously a very, very angry contingent in the CAPS blogosphere. They, or you guys, seem to believe that by far the best thing a government can do is to do as little as possible."

Nice technique.  You've attempted it in the past and I called you on it then too.

The technique?  To fully misrepresent your adversary's position and then draw in a couple of suckers who take the bait and try to defend it.

There are extremists who will agree to your statement.  They are idiots and they generally crawl in a corner when they are exposed as the anarchists that they are.

Most of those that you are trying to skewer believe in a constitutionally limited federal republic.  That's a HUGE difference from anarchy.

As for engaging in any other discussion about this post, it is impossible given that the leading premise leads to the rest of your post.  A house cannot stand on a foundation of quicksand.  

Report this comment
#13) On August 08, 2010 at 2:50 PM, DJoshuaRubin (97.99) wrote:

Great comments Zymok - I am hustling to get my house ready for a showing, but got a good laugh out of your laugh at the idea that liberals are more reasoned.  Personally, I think we're all pretty much mad cause we live on a rock that spins madly in space and we think all of this stuff is so incredibly important.  But that's just me. I do think there's a wicked streak of lunacy in the tea party/libertarian movement that is unusually prone to conspiracy theories. That said I'll take Libertarianism over neocons and whatever this God forsaken version of the Republican party/Rush/O'Reilly villainy is all about. Zy - I appreciate your reasoned take on all this though, and being open to some regulation to protect the environment. 

Also, I think all comments are actually addressed to all reasonable Fools.  Great thread, thanks to all for posting.

Alstry, how you can have the audacity to suggest people who are taking their time to WRITE and EXPRESS their feelings on the state of the world are "SILENT" is beyond absurd and hilariously insulting. Enjoy that sunset, though. And I do truly hope the friends and family you're taking in the sunset with are not stuffed teddy bears and the like.   

Report this comment
#14) On August 08, 2010 at 2:59 PM, goalie37 (96.99) wrote:

My kudos to you for stepping into a very heated debate.  Politics in this country has become a very emotional thing over the past 10-20 years.

I love the CAPS community, but posting any blog is a minefield.  You have shown, repeatedly, a willingness to take the fire that will inevitably be thrown at you.

My own view of the role of government is that they should be neither a nanny nor a do nothing entity.  They should act as a partner to the businesses within their state.  Globalization means intense competition from literally hundreds of nations.  We need a governing body that works with us.

Report this comment
#15) On August 08, 2010 at 3:31 PM, rofgile (99.10) wrote:

"There's obviously a very, very angry contingent in the CAPS blogosphere. They, or you guys, seem to believe that by far the best thing a government can do is to do as little as possible."

This is a pretty good thesis statement for someone like "whereaminow", or the other libertarian bloggers on CAPS.

---

A converse thesis might be: "There are some tasks that are so large, difficult, and profitless in undertaking, that we need a government to accomplish".

A good example of that would be cleanup and protections after a large oil spill in the gulf.  Without a large government action, there would be no coast guard, no booms, no forcing BP to pay for damages, no cleanup.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#16) On August 08, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Teacherman1 (47.99) wrote:

Being a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal", I constantly find myself torn between the two. I do not care for extremism on either end of the spectrum.

At the risk of seeming to be "copping out", I much prefer moderation in all things.

I would like to see more of those who have benefited from the "system" take it upon themselves to help those in "true need", than to have the govt., at whatever level ,do it; simply because I think they could do a better job with less waste.

There are some things that are of such a magnitude, that only a collective body such as the govt.can do them. I just wish they would do them better. 

The problem is that by the time a good idea (represented by a peacock), makes it through the legislative process, it too often turns into a turkey.

Just my opinion and like most opinions, probably of no interest to anybody but me. 

Have a great weekend. 

Report this comment
#17) On August 08, 2010 at 3:52 PM, zymok (45.68) wrote:

#9 DanieltheBear,

1) Shred away - all reasoned discussion is welcome.

2) In regards to what store owners want - I may not completely address your point here, since "being liked" gets into some rather tangential areas, but let me talk about the suppression of competition.

The usual argument against large companies is the one you make about WMT - they come, artifically lower prices to drive out competition, and then raise prices to exorbitant levels.

There are several problems with argument.  The large company (in this example WMT) takes a considerable risk in artificially lowering prices, particularly in that they have no assurance that they can ever "get well".  Second, this assumes that they can even drive out the competition, and keep it out.  This has always been unlikely, and is even more so in this day and age.  Is there anything that WMT sells that I cannot buy over the internet?  Third, history shows it doesn't work.  Companies like WMT achieve their competitive advantage through economies of scale, superior inventory management, and other legitimate means that lower the price of goods to the consumer.  They don't need to attempt practices that are legally and economically dubious.  

3) Yes, I understand Lorenz curves.  There is more than one country in world, though ;)

You've gone from "best" to "equitable".  Equitable, by definition, means fair, so thank you for answering that part of my quesiton.

Now it remains to define "fair".  Under capitalism, "fair" is what you can negogiate for yourself.  Under Marxism, "fair" is "according to your needs".  Under serfdom, "fair" was poverty for the workers and luxury for the lords.  What definition do you use?

Last - population growth.  Allow me to clarify.  The US, as an example, has a fertility rate that is slightly below the replacement rate.  Population growth is then the result of immigration.  Indications are that this is a natural tendency, i.e. make the whole world wealthy and we can achieve ZPG or even NPG.  No guarantees, of couse, but that's what the data indicates.

Report this comment
#18) On August 08, 2010 at 3:55 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

Instead of assuming you know what libertarianism and free markets offer, why don't you investigate them? 

Do you know what the dead give away is that you have no clue what you're talking about?

To me, libertarian-minded and appropriately-named Conservatives want to keep everything JUST the way it is.

If you can't differentiate between what a Conservative is offering you and what Libertarian is offering (two tremendously different paths with almost nothing in common on war, government, health care, civil liberties, etc), then you are not going to motivate me to explain myself.

If anything, you need to explain yourself.  Liberals have no answers.  That we know for sure.  Neither do conservatives.  What can you possibly tell me?  What can liberalism possibly offer me?  More of the same.  No thanks.  Done with that.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#19) On August 08, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Option1307 (30.51) wrote:

+1 for a well written post and good luck with your showing, sell that house!

I don't necessarily agree wit your overall sentiment, but I respect you for sharing it in a friendly manner.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me personally, it's not that I want all government to leave and be gone forever, I just wish they would stick to their constitutionally assigned duties.

Even before that, can we just have a government that has a few simple characteristics. I mean I don't care who delivers them as long as they are delivered. This won't make things prefect, but lets get some basics in order before we complain about the details. I'd like to see a goverment who:

1) Isn't completely corrupt/incompetent (Rangel, Blagojavech, Foley, Bush II, etc.)

2) Balances a budget (cough, California, cough)

3) Enforces our own federally written immigration laws (I am Mexican and can say that witha straight face, it's not racism people!)

4) Has a decent education system (as you pointed out above our children are getting freaking smoked by foreigners, and no, $$ alone won't fix this problem as we have seen with "No Child Left Behind" garbage)

5) Quit running ponzi schemes (i.e. SS, Medicare/caid, Pensions, etc.)

6) Fixes the health care system (you want to lower costs, impossible when 26% of Americans are obese (hello Heart failure, Diabetes, etc.), national health care won't touch our costs when we as a society are obese and totally unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, I love me a bacon a bacon chesseburger from practically any fast food restaurant and will damn well eat one whenever I feel like it, but I also hit the gym everyday and am active in my life. Balance people, balance. (Sorry for the rant but I'm currently in medical school and it sickens/sadens me the state of our society/country's health, or lack there of.)

Again, nice thoughts even though we disagree on some, thanks for sharing!

Report this comment
#20) On August 08, 2010 at 4:10 PM, zymok (45.68) wrote:

#13 HollywoodD

Good luck with your showing - I hope that you sell your house for a huge whopping profit in true free market style :)

I think that far too many people in any part of the political spectrum are pretty much irrational.  I've often said that in any election 40% of the people will always vote Democrat (anybody but a Republican!  Republicans are evil!), another 40% will always vote Republican (anybody but a Democrat!  Democrats are evil!), 10% will vote according to the polls, and the few remaining are left to sift through the sound bites and attack ads.

I think that this is the reason that many intelligent, sane people simply decline to engage in this sort of discussion.  They weary of fighting the same shrill, irrational non-arguments time after time, and so leave the stage to the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world.

I will now climb down off my soapbox and apologize for the tangential tirade.

 Zymok - the equal opportunity basher

Report this comment
#21) On August 08, 2010 at 4:13 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

HD,

I will happily answer this question though:

So my question to libertarian minded folks is, forgetting for a second how much you hate government intervention - what do you think the limits of libertarianism are and what are the down sides as, inevitably no system is perfect?  

The limit is that we can't use force to get you to do what we want.  So what we can accomplish is limited compared to statists.  We can't coerce or trick everybody in the country to hand their money over for space exploration.  So it's possible you won't be seeing pictures of the moon for free anymore.  And the Olympics, well, that might have a new form too.

Also, I'd like to point out that it's never a good idea to start a post with poor economics.  Globalization does not hurt the working man.  It hurts some workers in some industries in some countries while helping some workers in other industries in other countries.  It is an overall benefit to the wealth of all people by expanding the division of labor and utilizing comparative advantage.  Second, technological progress does not hurt the working man either.  It hurts the individual living on subsidies in outdated industry - see auto unions, but it's no problem for anyone willing to retrain.  For centuries!!!! heart-string tugging types have been telling us that technology hurts the working man.  It's simply not true.  

Besides that stuff (which maybe you know this and maybe you don't, is just recycled nonsense from Fourier), thanks for the engaging post.

David in Qatar

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On August 08, 2010 at 4:24 PM, fmahnke (95.68) wrote:

To me, libertarian-minded and appropriately-named Conservatives want to keep everything JUST the way it is.

Wow, I don't  think thats exactly what I heard from Ron Paul and wonder how you get their.

I don't really have the time outline the limits of some basic gov't structure that would work for me/ But  do I know that,

Mandating the purchase of health insurance. paying for social services and border enforcement for illegals, when the border is not secure, and allowing a gov't insulate itself from the financial effects of this recession are way over the line of what is reasonable, to me 

 

Report this comment
#23) On August 08, 2010 at 5:01 PM, SockMarket (81.75) wrote:

zy,

ok. here it goes:

Globalization

Well I would note that we have been messing up Africa for quite a while, and despite massive globalization in the past 40 years their situation has not improved in most areas.

Sure you can lower costs, so companies make more profit, however I don't think that benefits the average person. Especially when you consider that outsourcing has done nothing to help the national deficit (and probably contributed some to higher unemployment). Costs drop but wages will follow.

I would suggest that outsourcing provided a temporary boom and that the problems Buffett notes will probably come to pass and thus take away much of the gains. I would also say that we grew for quite some time without this level of globalization and that it is not necessary or specifically beneficial.

 

education

I think that the policy of free higher education, which the vast majority of the developed world employs, is the way to go. The best example of this working is Europe. This certainly won't fix all our problems but going the other way, of less government intervention (I assume what you would advocate) I cannot see working and can't think of any good examples where it does.

Protectionist measures won't help - an unproductive person is just that - unproductive.

you will always have the bums of the world, but most people will be productive when the need arises. If we were to restrict trade and essentially force our own industries to produce certain goods I suspect you would find that supernormal profits at first would drive quite a few of those unproductive people to be productive.

 monopoly

we "can" all increase our wealth, and in dollar terms we do, but when you adjust for inflation the poor are getting poorer and there are fewer and fewer in the middle class. In an ideal world this works, however ours is far from ideal.

obviously not everything has been answered, I am a bit short on time.

The large company (in this example WMT) takes a considerable risk in artificially lowering prices, particularly in that they have no assurance that they can ever "get well". 

no they don't. They have quite a number of other stores which have already gotten well, so even if one store was never able to get well there would be only a small dent in earnings. Further it is pretty easy to guestimate what a private, small, retailer's costs are and put yours under theirs. With the backing of other "well" stores this can be done for a long time without a problem, certainly longer than the small independent stores can keep up a price war. After the smaller competitors w/o economies of scale/buying power are gone they can raise prices. History has shown this, and simple logic will confirm why it happens. There is very little risk invovled.

Second, this assumes that they can even drive out the competition, and keep it out.  This has always been unlikely, and is even more so in this day and age.  Is there anything that WMT sells that I cannot buy over the internet? 

when was the last time you went grocery shopping online? They are, I believe, the second largest food retailer in the US. Further, they offer the service of convenience, seeing the good, and the abiltiy to instantly get it. When you look at other stores in the same area it is unusual for them to not be pushed out by WMT or the like. I have no statistics on the subject but I would guess the competitor closure rate is well over 75%.

Third, history shows it doesn't work.  Companies like WMT achieve their competitive advantage through economies of scale, superior inventory management, and other legitimate means that lower the price of goods to the consumer.  They don't need to attempt practices that are legally and economically dubious.   

So? When they have no competiton and are free to boost margins they certainly do, as does everyone else when given the opportunity. The idea that they keep their prices low consistently, even when no threat to their business exists, is laughable. 

 

I have a very, very simple definition for you: the green line on the chart here. That is ideal, fair, equitable, (same dam thing) in most people's eyes.

 

Nearly every population model I have seen has us growing until well after 2050. What you say is true about the US and some other developed countries (Japan comes to mind) but on the whole the world pop is expected to keep growing for quite a long time. The trend will eventually reverse but it could well take 100's of years for that to happen (depending on how fast Africa and Asia develop) and it will take quite a long time after that to come down to a reasonable number of people. You are talking in the hundreds of years here, easily. 

Report this comment
#24) On August 08, 2010 at 5:14 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

Since I chimed in, I guess I'll have to make a political statement of sorts...(ugh)

My view of the Government is as a necessary evil. The services provided keep society from imploding in on itself.The role of the Government should be to protect our God-given rights and freedoms.

The problem is a matter of trust, be it republican or democrat, it always seems like a choice between a douche and a turd (South Park reference).

I for one was for the stimulus package, just sickened by how it was implemented. Why not portion off for small businesses.That might actually create jobs.

 The amount of Government waste is also reprehensible, one of Obamba's selling points during election was that his first priority was to scour the budget and eliminate anything repetitive or useless. I have not seen any evidence of that.

So this November I will vote my concience, just keep in mind this is from the guy who voted for Ross Perot twice.

msftgev (who has reached his political comment quota for the year)

Report this comment
#25) On August 08, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Valyooo (99.81) wrote:

I feel that capitalism was an absolute neccessity to get us to where we needed to be today, but going forward I am open to something new. There is less innovation needed today than yesterday, and more corporations than small business

Report this comment
#26) On August 08, 2010 at 6:44 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

So my question to libertarian minded folks is, forgetting for a second how much you hate government intervention - what do you think the limits of libertarianism are and what are the down sides as, inevitably no system is perfect?  

So my question to liberal minded folks is, forgetting for a second how much you hate government intervention (which I do) - what do you think the limits of libertarianism are and what are the down sides as, inevitably no system is perfect?  

Ok, now I can answer - as a Liberal - to the question of the limits of Libertarianism.

I think that Libertarian ideals are limited instantly, even as they are born. I think every corner of the world, of every era since mankind stood upright, is an example of failed libertarian ideals (as David describes them) whether that loss was to a Deity, a King, a Family head, a Communism, a Democracy, a Mob, some big guy, some smart guy, a bank or any blend of the above and more.

I understand that you wanted to hear from Libertarians but having read many of their posts and -  "occasionally" responded - this is how I understand what David is promoting. I aplogise in advance if my comment inspires namecalling or angry responses in what is clearly an attempt at having a thoughtful discussion, an attempt which has been matched by some of the Libertarian supporters.

I have to run but I am interested in seeing how this develops.

Report this comment
#27) On August 08, 2010 at 7:28 PM, DonMashak (< 20) wrote:

My Fellow Citizens...

 Please try to think critically and realize that you have been duped into thinking there are two political Parties.  There is one political party, the ruling class, with two heads, donkey and elephant.  Regardless of which head is in charge, the same people and powers behind the scenes control our government.  They merely change the heads from time to time to make the citizens think there was a revolution, when in fact, nothing really changed...  And they purposely pit different groups of Citizens against each other to distract us from what they are doing be it by political party, race, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, legal vs illegal citizen status etc.

 So you folks can go on chasing your own tails trying to explain the current situation in terms of political party perspectives, or you can cut to the chase and start realizing there is a ruling class that are violating the principles of Natural Law.

 Those were my thoughts.

 Don Mashak

The Cynical Patriot

http://twitter.com/dmashak

Report this comment
#28) On August 08, 2010 at 8:05 PM, DJoshuaRubin (97.99) wrote:

Whoa - a massive response. Thanks to all for taking the time to put all this quality thought here. I went to see "Inception" because I had to get out of the house for the open house. All I can say is I walked out after an hour and a half because if I had to listen to one more expository rambling about the nature of navigating the subconscious, dreams and imagination I swear I was going to harm myself.  Also, to my horror, I had to sit through - honestly - over 15 commercials. I will never, ever attend another movie at theaters again. Never.  What an absolute piece of horse dook. Anyway... my brain has seriously been damaged, or more damaged, and now I need a drink and time to just thank God I'm not trapped in the movie Inception any longer. Psyched to go through these when, or if, my mind returns.

Report this comment
#29) On August 08, 2010 at 8:18 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

There is less innovation needed today than yesterday

Valyoo I would argue the exact opposite.

There is more innovation needed today than yesterday.

 

Report this comment
#30) On August 08, 2010 at 8:29 PM, AvianFlu (47.82) wrote:

A question for all the libertarian bashers:

 What is it, exactly, that you hate about freedom? Seriously.

Report this comment
#31) On August 08, 2010 at 9:06 PM, zymok (45.68) wrote:

#23 DanielTheBear

 Africa - The problems in Africa are due to corruption and chaos, not globalization.  It's a good object lesson though - an economy cannot flourish without the rule of law.  Developing countries that have established a strong legal system have thrived under globalization.

Costs - lower costs definitely benefit the consumer.  Competition keeps prices down, so lower costs do not automatically go to the company's bottom line.

Outsourcing vs. the national deficit - outsourcing leads to increased wealth, therefore to increased tax revenue.  However, Congress has shown a sterling ability to outspend any increase in revenue.  I really would not try to tie outsourcing to the national deficit.

Temporary boom - is permanent.  As much as I admire Buffett as an investor, I would not call him an economist. (Excuse me a moment while I don my flame-proof undies here).  We've been growing under globalization for decades, even centuries now.  History shows it works.

Education - Assuming that I advocate less government intervention would be rash.  What I am saying is that the government is doing a poor job at the federal and state level in primary and secondary education and this must change.  We could have the greatest higher education in the world, but if we can't get HS graduates ready for them, we're sunk.

Protectionist measures - only serve to shelter and foster inefficient industries.  Our economy grows by making our own people more productive, not by keeping them in jobs that can be done cheaper elsewhere.

The poor keep getting poorer - Compare the standard of living of the poor today versus a hundred or fifty or thirty years ago.  It's way better now.  Yes, our world is far from ideal, but it is continually getting better.

WMT and monopolistic practices - "History has shown this" - give me a couple of examples, please.  In fact, show me some place where WMT has actually achieved an economic monopoly.

WMT and groceries - Again, show me where WMT has achieved an economic monopoly on groceries.  The closure rate for WMT competitors may very well be 75%, I have no data on that.  But all that would show is that 75% of the competing stores are not as efficient as WMT.  The other 25% are.  If WMT raises prices, I have the freedom to shop at Target, or Alberton's, or any of a zillion other places.

The service of convenience - this is part of what adds value to shopping at WMT (or whereever), and so is not free, nor should it be expected to be free.  It's one of the reasons big box stores charge less than conventional stores.

Keeping prices low - I would not suggest that any company keeps prices any lower than it has too.  Really, that would be rather stupid, wouldn't it?  I am saying that a true monopoly is virtually impossible to obtain in a free market.  Again, I welcome counterexamples.

The green line - the line of perfect equality that you point to means that everyone has the same income.  The guy that works 60 hours a week gets paid the same as the guy that works 30.  The neurosurgeon with thirty years experience gets paid the same as the begining floor sweeper.  Is this really your idea of equitability?

Population - yes, it might take hundreds of years.  You hit the nail on the head when you said "depending on how fast Africa and Asia develop".  Best we get them developed as fast as possible, then. Which brings us back to the merits of globalization (and law and order, of course).

 

Report this comment
#32) On August 08, 2010 at 10:15 PM, DJoshuaRubin (97.99) wrote:

CTThomas - Your assigning a malicious intent that's not there. I stated my take on Libertarianism as best I could. And with respect. Feel free not to post here any longer since you need to call out my supposed evil intentions. I'm not trying to "skewer" anyone on this post as I barely even put a joke in. Obviously many others felt the post's intentions were sincere.  There's a movement in this country that is raging at the government and I'm trying to both give my take on it and see what smart Fools think.

Goalie - thanks, brother. Well and succinctly put.

ROF #15 - I agree.

Teacherman1 #16 -  I much prefer moderation in all things. I agree. The fate of the world depends on moderates winning.

Where's a Minow - #18 -Do you know what the dead give away is that you have no clue what you're talking about?

Is it that I have said that a 1,000 times and that I'm a COMEDY writer?  Do you know what the dead give away is that you're level of condescension is guffaw worthy? This same sentence. I was using the Monopoly analogy in noting that both conservatives and libertarians espouse their passion for the free market and people calling themselves conservatives and libertarians often bash the government.  The idea that liberals have "no" answers is beyond idiotic. You may not like their ideas. You may call them foolish, but to say they have none is absurd. 

Option #19 - Thank you for contributing.  Disagreement in Fooldom with respsect always leads to a little more knowledge gained on both sides. 

Zymok/DtheB - Duelling Fooldom at it's finest. And thanks for the good wishes on the house. GREATLY appreciated. Selling a house is torture. 

David in Q - #21 - I wish I had read that first. Interseting ideas, I will consider and I appreciate the goodwill in this one, though I guess I have to live with the "poor economics" crack. Yeah, tell all the workers at B&N to just go ahead and retrain themselves to happiness when digital books wipes them off the map and they find themselves competing with countless people for scant jobs that they have to start out doing as rookies. I agree with you retraining is key. I invest heavily in learning Adobe Products on Lynda.Com and actually just did my first gig as a comic strip artist for a play in NYC. So I am walking that talk since I feel Hollywood is not a viable career. 

fmahanke - no doubt I was generalizing, and again, this was basically part of my Monopoly analogy and how I see the things playing out if what I'm currently understanding as Libertarianism was put into full practice. 

Msftgev - #24 - I feel you, brother. I had sworn off political conversation, but since my return to CAPS, I find so many fundamentally decent, smart people, it seems worth it to me again.

Valyoo - # 25 - That seems utterly reasonable to me. 

Devoish - #26 - I'm sure that's likely to get a response!

Don #27 - Please, dude, no need for the lectures on all of us being duped. If we want that kind of talk we can read Alstry. The vast majority of Fools and posters here realize that both parties pretty much suck moose arse.  And no one is chasing their own tail in this thread. It's a discussion of the essential nature of Libertarianism which is not a political party. I have no clue what Natural Law is but it conjures up images of hairy men shooting lots of guns in the woods way after Midnight. I do agree with much of what you're saying about the way the powers that be divide people and I will check out your Twitter blog because from a marketing perpective, "The Cynical Patriot" is a great name. 

AvianFlu #30 - That question demeans this thread and all of Fooldom. Why not just ask critics of Libertarianism how often we beat our wives? One thing I think that David in Q was accusing me of is not being specific enough in my use of language, and I would say the same thing about your question.  I think the word freedom has been so prostituted it's not even clear what it exactly means? Free to have an abortion? Free to marry another man? Free to not have 9 trillion billboards encourage the citenzry to get even fatter? Free to pay no taxes though you make a trilion dollars?  No one in this thread hates freedom if what you define it as the right to pursue happiness without unjust burdens. 

Again, I want to encourage people interested in Libertarian thinking to check out former Fool, David "Pencils2" Kretzmann's blog. Though I despise what I believe to be his refusal to accept the reality of human-caused climate change, he is ALWAYS respectul, intelligent, passionate and one of the all-around most impressive young guys I will ever know.  It's called Freedom Chatter.Com. Of note I have begged him to change a name that sounds koo koo, but the site is really strong.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#33) On August 08, 2010 at 11:49 PM, AbstractMotion (65.07) wrote:

Every political/economic/social policy has it's flaws.  Libertarian thought in general ignores the fact that the system would almost inevitably be corrupted due to an extremely weak and poorly funded central government.  I'm sure someone will argue that wouldn't happen, but realistically it would.

Modern conservatism on the other hand focuses almost entirely on social conservatism and tax cuts, real fiscal conservatism left during the 1980's with the rise of supply side economics, which really hasn't worked out in practice.  Likewise social conservatism is never going to have mainstream appeal.

 

Liberal economics sits on some equally shaky principles.  Mainly that the government can in effect create wealth, jobs and in many cases manage resources better than the marketplace.  Our government doesn't really invest money in anything, at best it might spend it on infrastructure which would offer better conduits for commercial activity.  In practice though this rarely happens at the federal level, the stimulus is a great example of that ( a lot of money was spent, very little was invested in anything lasting ).  I'd also argue that the focus on income equality is largely misguided, the stress on uniformity in general despite the fact that we live in a world with large differences in ability and competence is counterintuitive.  Curves and equality don't matter too much as long as the absolute floor is set high enough.

 

Regarding globalization, it's basically wage cost arbitrage by another name.  I don't agree that the net effects are really all that positive, as people have pointed out there's very little comparative advantage in the bulk of trade we get from it.  We buy drywall from China, but there's very little reason resource wise that we couldn't make it domestically.  The whole structure of current globalization relies on massive disparity of wages and general cost of living (based on PPP a dollar goes a hell of a lot further in China).  Things will improve to some degree since many of the people working these jobs were simply farming for subsistence before globalization, I have my doubts about the long term prospects though.

Overpopulation is an overrated phenomenon here in the US, realistically we're one of the least overpopulated nations on earth.  Overpopulation is largely a problem in poorer nations with high fertility and death rates, these are also the areas where the environment tends to be destroyed the absolute fastest, as people are desperate to do anything for their own survival.

Which leads pretty well into the troubles in Africa.  Oil companies might have caused some environmental damage, but by far the biggest problems are disease, corruption, warfare/genocide and environmental degradation in other ways (freelance logging, bush meat, etc.).  Society and social progress require some degree of stability, which hasn't existed in much of Africa for a very long time.

Walmart is a horrible company that pretty much embodies everything wrong with corporatism.  It was one of the first companies to really exploit globalization and connect Chinese producers with the US, despite selling itself as an "All American company".  It regularly treats it's employees like crap, and surprisingly it's service sucks as well.  It's basically been kept afloat by it's ability to pressure small towns to invest resources in bringing the company to their town, usually at the expense of other local businesses, and the general apathy shown by the US consumer when it comes to expecting anything except prices a few cents cheaper.  Personally I don't shop there, and I never will.

Education is a bit more complicated.  Realistically there are sizable flaws in the US education system, but a lot of people tend to ignore the fact that there is an intelligence bell curve and there's always going to be a sizable section of the population that's just not cut out to do sophisticated or complex workloads.  In general the group that's being hardest squeezed is those without a high school degree who are suited mainly for labor, which is either being outsourced or occupied by illegal immigrants who are willing to work for wages below what it costs to maintain the current standard of living.  It's nice to talk about expanding education and getting the college graduate rate up, but there's a hard limit on how practical that is as a long term solution.

Which brings us to protectionism.  I'd like to point out that there's a difference from protectionism and settings up basic standards for how we conduct trade.  In general I'd prefer to see a fair trade style policy implemented across the board and require that nations we trade with maintain a basic level of social services and environmental regulation.  If they can meet that and there's still wage imbalances they'll likely equalize themselves much faster and the workers will see more of that money in the process. 

 

Report this comment
#34) On August 09, 2010 at 12:19 AM, MyDonkey (< 20) wrote:

#27 (Don):

Many of us mice agree that the cat should wear a bell, but we're not sure how to go about belling the cat. Any suggestions?

Report this comment
#35) On August 09, 2010 at 12:45 AM, ChrisGraley (31.45) wrote:

Just speaking for myself here...

Liberals -

The good...

Consumer legislation as long as it applies equally to anyone selling goods to us. We have the biggest market for a short while and those wanting the consumer dollar should jump through hoops.

The bad...

Anything that has to do with Economics or money. The belief that we can cripple all of the corporations and run the economy on magic fairy dust amazes me.

Conservatives

The good...

Enough of an understanding of economics to put the fairies out of business.

bad....

Trying to legislate morality while at the same time doing immoral things.

Libertarians

The good...

They aren't telling me they are doing me a favor while they forcibly bend me over like the other 2 parties.

bad...

Unless more people have neighbors with tanks than I think, our citizen army will have the same success as the Jamaican Bobsled team when one of those big bad countries like Seychelles decides it wants to invade us.

Stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I've had my fill of both the right and the left.

I just want to be left the hell alone, so the Libertarian pitch was already appealing.  If given the choice, I'll vote Libertarian and buy a tank.

It'll be cheaper for me in the long run than anything a liberal will propose and  the conservative that tries to dictate my morals will find out where I parked the turret on it the hard way.

 

Report this comment
#36) On August 09, 2010 at 2:24 AM, mhy729 (41.43) wrote:

HDan, great discussion you got started here.  I always enjoy reading through reasoned and civil debates.  So much more edifying than the crap you often see elsewhere on the web, particularly in the comments sections of news websites.

I saw "Inception" last week, and yes the expository bits felt rather stilted...that part of the movie wasn't executed well.  However, I did enjoy the movie, though certainly not as much as many others and what seems to be a large majority of adulatory critics.  I'd give it a B+.

Good luck with selling your house!  Where will you be moving to?

Report this comment
#37) On August 09, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Pick1es (23.38) wrote:

I'm pro-double cheeseburgers...

Report this comment
#38) On August 10, 2010 at 6:36 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

Regarding globalization, it's basically wage cost arbitrage by another name.  I don't agree that the net effects are really all that positive, as people have pointed out there's very little comparative advantage in the bulk of trade we get from it.  We buy drywall from China, but there's very little reason resource wise that we couldn't make it domestically.

That's not what comparative advantage means. It means that even if you can do something better than the other person, you are still better off by focusing on other tasks where you can leverage your advantage even more.

David in Qatar

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement