Politics, politics, politics

[Baleforce]

Well only 5 years ago the free trade myth was busted. The increasingly free capitalist system as we knew it was on the brink of collapse! It should have heralded the end of unregulated free trade. But it hasn't, with many people already religiously wed to free economics, they couldn't rip up their world view. But the issues are complex. Markets need regulation. They don't balance themselves perfectly. As Marx said 200 years ago they are prone to boom and bust.

But in terms of national prosperity, we need to buy and sell across boarders. The more transactions, the greater wealth is created. At the same time, there are those who prosper from globalisation, and those that suffer. Cross boarder free trade and movement is good for some, not others, while free unregulated markets have been shown to be perilous. Only governments bailing them out at the expense of the poor (nurses etc) saved markets and the bastions of free trade - banks. So to say that these issues are not black and white is an understatement!

If you think how quickly technology has evolved in the past 2 decades, politics itself is no where near keeping up. It's largely still the same as it was in the 1970s. The same career politicians. The same institutions. The same patterns and practices. The same sound bites often and discussion of the same issues. Yet the world is moving on at a rapid speed and politics is not keeping abreast. Just reacting and one step behind at each turn.

I disagree, I believe the markets will do a better job of balancing themselves than any regulation can, ultimately people are greedy and self centred and the pursuit of profit is the only metric that is predictable.

The reasons for intervention are obvious and understandable and to do otherwise in recent scenarios would be morally questionable and dismissive of short term interests, but, that intervention adds a random dynamic.

 

[Baleforce]

The only people who derive any economic benefit from 'free trade' are the elites.

the whole point of free trade is that anyone can be elite, all you need is a great product, and all a great product needs is a good idea and hard work

 

[milo]

@milo can you create a Brisket thread? I think it would be good.

I like to make my own salt beef with brisket

 

[r-u-s-x01]

I disagree, I believe the markets will do a better job of balancing themselves than any regulation can, ultimately people are greedy and self centred and the pursuit of profit is the only metric that is predictable.

The reasons for intervention are obvious and understandable and to do otherwise in recent scenarios would be morally questionable and dismissive of short term interests, but, that intervention adds a random dynamic.

What's your views on monopolies?

Do markets account for externalities, if not regulation what's the solution?

 

[Baleforce]

What's your views on monopolies?

Do markets account for externalities, if not regulation what's the solution?

my views on monopolies are that they are inherently no bad thing, if someone is smart enough to create one then they should be rewarded, long term sustainability prevents long term exclusive pricing, maturation of the product will always allow for greater economy of scale and cheaper buy in

they'll balance if you give them long enough, is human regulation smart enough to factor externalities anyway?

 

[SpurMeUp]

I like to make my own salt beef with brisket

Just so bored of the B term. Brisket means brisket!

 

[SpurMeUp]

I disagree, I believe the markets will do a better job of balancing themselves than any regulation can, ultimately people are greedy and self centred and the pursuit of profit is the only metric that is predictable.

The reasons for intervention are obvious and understandable and to do otherwise in recent scenarios would be morally questionable and dismissive of short term interests, but, that intervention adds a random dynamic.

So why did capitalism as we know it all but collapse a few years ago? The only salvation massive massive government debt ultimately paid for by government services, the poor, wage stagnation for nurses and teachers etc. Do you stick by your assertion that markets do a better job of balancing themselves? Really?

Yes greed is consistent. And money a very easy metric. But to say markets regulate themselves after the financial crash a few years ago is quite amazing. A complete disregard for recent history that we are paying for now in more ways than one. Trump and Brisket not least, they have a lineage to the crash.

There is no doubt, absolutely none, that unregulated markets are not sustainable. Monopoly. Cartels. Abuse. Crashes. Selling of brick to greedy investors. You really think we should sit back and do nothing, and the hand of the market will sort it out? That ship sailed imo.

 

[milo]

Just so bored of the B term. Brisket means brisket!

I think that there has been too much beef in this thread already.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

my views on monopolies are that they are inherently no bad thing, if someone is smart enough to create one then they should be rewarded, long term sustainability prevents long term exclusive pricing, maturation of the product will always allow for greater economy of scale and cheaper buy in

they'll balance if you give them long enough, is human regulation smart enough to factor externalities anyway?

Disagree with both these points on phone so won't go into much detail, pick up again later just going to try another regulation you may agree with.

Laws preventing insider trading.
Copyright

 

[SpurMeUp]

my views on monopolies are that they are inherently no bad thing, if someone is smart enough to create one then they should be rewarded, long term sustainability prevents long term exclusive pricing, maturation of the product will always allow for greater economy of scale and cheaper buy in

they'll balance if you give them long enough, is human regulation smart enough to factor externalities anyway?

With respect - that is gonads. Monopoly is regulated for good reason. If you have one, consumers have no choice. And no one can muscle in. It is good only for one party - the monopoly controller. I think this is an example of blind faith in a doctrine overriding common sense.

 

[Baleforce]

Disagree with both these points on phone so won't go into much detail, pick up again later just going to try another regulation you may agree with.

Laws preventing insider trading.
Copyright

i don't consider those market regulation

 

[Baleforce]

With respect - that is cobblers. Monopoly is regulated for good reason. If you have one, consumers have no choice. And no one can muscle in. It is good only for one party - the monopoly controller. I think this is an example of blind faith in a doctrine overriding common sense.

but the monoploly only has one choice too, it has to sell at a price people are willing to pay

if someone can do it cheaper they can "muscle in" and the monopoly is broken

 

[Baleforce]

So why did capitalism as we know it all but collapse a few years ago? The only salvation massive massive government debt ultimately paid for government services, the poor, wage stagnation for nurses and teachers etc. Do you stick by your assertion that markets do a better job of balancing themselves? Really?

Yes greed is consistent. And money a very easy metric. But to say markets regulate themselves after the financial crash a few years ago is quite amazing. A complete disregard for recent history that we are paying for now in more ways than one. Trump and Brisket not least, they have a lineage to the crash.

There is no doubt, absolutely none, that unregulated markets are not sustainable. Monopoly. Cartels. Abuse. Crashes. Selling of brick to greedy investors. You really think we should sit back and do nothing, and the hand of the market will sort it out? That ship sailed imo.

it "collapsed" because we are looking short term and we meddled, what would the state of play have been a century from now had the banks not been bailed out?

crashes and surges are part of the balancing

true capitalism is closer to a theory than reality as we (totally understandably) lack the courage to not interfere, it can't be measured across a single generation

 

[r-u-s-x01]

but the monoploly only has one choice too, it has to sell at a price people are willing to pay

if someone can do it cheaper they can "muscle in" and the monopoly is broken

You can abuse market position to create barriers to entry making it expensive to enter the market.

Predator pricing to drive new entrants out of business (using reserves built up by charging monopolistic prices)

Why is copyright not a market regulation?

 

[SpurMeUp]

but the monoploly only has one choice too, it has to sell at a price people are willing to pay

if someone can do it cheaper they can "muscle in" and the monopoly is broken

A monopoly dominates - by definition. If there is only one player in a market, it can be impossible for anyone to build an infrastructure to compete.

Supplying petrol needs a network of petrol stations, international geo-political agreements, massive capital investment etc If there was only one player in a country no one could muscle in. It would take billions of investment and years to get a foothold. While the new biz tried to get a foothold, the monolopy could cut prices in the petrol station next door to take them out. How would the dominance be broken without some regulation?

Or for food. If an external country, rather than company, has a monopoly supplying wheat - does it cheaper - then the nations ability to produce wheat dies. Can that be a good thing?

Monopoly, possibly with the exception of a benign government monopoly that benefits the whole country, is invariably a bad thing.

 

[Baleforce]

You can abuse market position to create barriers to entry making it expensive to enter the market.

Predator pricing to drive new entrants out of business (using reserves built up by charging monopolistic prices)

Why is copyright not a market regulation?

but you only achieve that market position when you have something genuinely unique, no new enterprise goes unimitated

that's a leveraging of your prior smart decision making

it's preventative not reactionary

 

[SpurMeUp]

it "collapsed" because we are looking short term and we meddled, what would the state of play have been a century from now had the banks not been bailed out?

crashes and surges are part of the balancing

true capitalism is closer to a theory than reality as we (totally understandably) lack the courage to not interfere, it can't be measured across a single generation

Forget a century. Short term there would have been anarchy. People would put their cards into bank machines, only to find no money in their account. How would you personally have reacted to that?

Businesses that were with the wrong banks would have collapsed overnight. Viable businesses. Other healthy banks would have fallen apart too as people took out all their cash. Destroying more healthy businesses etc.

Money only works when everyone has faith in it.

So unregulated markets don't work...unless you're an anarchist.

 

[Baleforce]

A monopoly dominates - by definition. If there is only one player in a market, it can be impossible for anyone to build an infrastructure to compete.

Supplying petrol needs a network of petrol stations, international geo-political agreements, massive capital investment etc If there was only one player in a country no one could muscle in. It would take billions of investment and years to get a foothold. While the new biz tried to get a foothold, the monolopy could get prices in the petrol station next door. How would the dominance be broken without some regulation?

Or for food. If an external country, rather than company, has a monopoly supplying wheat - does it cheaper - then the nations ability to produce wheat dies. Can that be a good thing?

Monopoly, possibly with the exception of a benign government monopoly that benefits the whole country, is invariably a bad thing.

people who couldn't afford petrol wouldn't buy it, they'd be forced to convert their machinery to gas/solar/wind, the petrol industry would have to change tack due to the market reduction

 

[SpurMeUp]

people who couldn't afford petrol wouldn't buy it, they'd be forced to convert their machinery to gas/solar/wind, the petrol industry would have to change tack due to the market reduction

Hmmm if you were correct the rises in petrol prices over the past 3 decades should have done something. But I don't think they have. Regulation on the other hand has allowed electric cars to drive around tax free and subsidised.

re. Money only works when everyone believes in it. These stones were money in the Rai south sea islands

 

[SpurMeUp]

What's interesting about these money Rai stones - they didn't move. They were just verbally passed on to the new owner in exchange for goods.

When a stone was being transported by boat one day from a quarry, a storm hit and it sunk to the bottom of the sea. But it was still traded. No one had seen it since it sank, but all agreed it was there, so it was used too as currency and transferred from one person to another.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, our faith in our form of money would have been lost, and capitalism as we know it would have fallen apart. So no markets don't regulate themselves.