In article , Ian B
writes
wrote:

I'm afraid you seem to be arguing with an advocate of a totally free
market. The market is king. Make a profit and damn the consequences.
etc.

The consequences of everyone trying to get the best deal is a general
improvement. How hard is that?

Not hard - just not inevitable. And far too simplistic.


So I suspect that any argument to try and point out that the results
of this are almost always unpleasant and bad for society is likely to
go unheard.

This is simply ridiculous. The results of this are a general improvement.
What do you think happens if you tell people not to seek a profit?

Do a simple thought experiment. Tell shoppers they aren't allowed to seek
the best deal. What happens?

A complete straw man. I'm not arguing from the pov of denying the
market entirely. Just that it should not be allowed complete free rein.
This is for (at least) two reasons -
1 the unscrupulous will seek to take unfair advantage which will damage
individuals, society or even the local market;
2 there is an inherent inbalance in people's abilities and
circumstances. Whilst some might argue for a completely laissez-faire
approach to this it is (subjectively) unfair - and objectively, results
in an unbalanced and hence dangerous society.


Profit at any cost, making a killing and taking advantage for personal
gain seem to be the only principles.

Yes. Because that's how people work. Even you. Faced with two identical
products, and one is cheaper, which one do you buy? Why is that? Would your
life be improved if the government ordered you to buy the more expensive
one? How?

But I'm talking about the businesses that provide these things or
services. There isn't much damage an individual can do by choosing
where to shop. There is damage done by by unscrupulous 'entrepreneurs'
taking short-term decisions for immeidate profit. Its why we need lawas
and regulations. If they were all perfect people, we wouldn't.


For example, the implied comment on welfare and safety - 'there's your
problem...'. Such things are just an impediment to raking it in.

It was quite clear what that meant. The government forces our farmers to
waste more resources on their cows than foreign ones. Result: the foreign
milk is cheaper. That's a regulation problem.

Yes - it is quite clear what that meant. Regulation in welfare and
safety is an impediment to making more profit - at the expense of
tedious things like some consideration of living things. Its better for
the balance sheet not to have to consider such pink and fluffy things.


There *are* reasons for regulations in certain areas. The sharks in
the market need to be controlled - it isn't a choice of either free
market or communism, despite Ian's implication.

Actually it is. You see, everyone has a reason to want the State to protect
them- it's always "just me, just this one thing". So it ends up with
everybody demanding the State fix prices, and that does indeed end up
shading into communism. And then, the economy falls apart, and they say,
"oh, that ghastly free market".

That, believe it or not, is why we have a government to decide on these
things. It might not get it right all the time, but that is what its
for. And who is talking about the state fixing prices (although that
might be better than monopolies fixing prices)?


The fact that unregulated markets result in valueless speculation
becoming an industry in itself is either ignored or, worse, justified
- despite it being damaging for all but the speculators.

Ah the old "it's the speculators' fault" fallacy. Free market speculation is
fine, because when it's done badly it collapses and the speculators lose
their money; otherwise it's good as it diverts capital to the right places.
But you have to understand economics to understand that.

Bullshit. Despite the fact that you have this tendency to read what you
expect rather than what is there, I didn't say it was all the
speculators' fault. I'm sure they are not the only ones that service
their own greed at the expense of long term stability or others.

But on specifics, how is speculation on oil prices which artificially
pushes up prices good? I don't recall ever seeing a shortage of
investors in what is after all, a product with a limited supply.

How was speculation on mortgage defaults or many of the other financial
betting instruments beneficial for us?


Just remember that you're actually arguing for scarcity of goods in the
marketplace.

And just how was I doing that?

You are arguing for higher prices, and less wealth for every
man Jack and woman Jill in the country; to satisfy your own preferences.
That's actually a pretty despicable thing to do, when you get down to it.
You want to pay more and have less, you go for it. But don't drag the rest
of us down with you.


You have a very strange way of interpreting arguments that don't fit
with your worldview. It seems to go with your interpretations of other
people's words.

I'm not arguing for higher prices. As far as I'm arguing prices at all,
I'm arguing that they should take account of other things than financial
profit. An unfettered market is good for no-one in the long term. Do
we want ACME Inc cutting corners when they produce nuclear power? Do we
want harsher environments for labout providers?

Just how far does the lack of regulation in your free market go?

--
regards andyw