On Jun 4, 11:13*am, "Ian B" wrote:
Dave Hill wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:14 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:45 am, wrote:

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

He will be satisfied when our workforce is living in slums and eating
bread and water.
I expect he will still have cake.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Harry, he isn't a banker, he describes himself as
"I have to specialise in something they can't do (high quality writing
which is in ghastly short supply in the "adult" business"
Probably moved to the country and doesnb't like the noise of smells of
farming.

Sigh.

I live in an ordinary little flat in an ordinary little Middle English town
with an ordinary little garden. I write and draw an online comic for a
living which is "adult" in nature but, some people think, rather good
anyway.

I am also rather fascinated by economics. Unfortunately, any attempt to
discuss how free markets work automatically gets one accused of being some
kind of super-rich capitalist looking to grind the proleteriat beneath the
wheels of his gilded coach or something. Normally by people who've never
read so much as an article, let alone a book, on economics.

You see, I passionately want life to improve. I want us all to get
wealthier. I want a society where people don't struggle to survive. I want a
society where we can have the wealth and time to potter in our gardens, or
whatever we wish to do. But what people don't understand, really they do not
understand, is where wealth comes from. They think it comes from higher
wages, or it comes from protecting themselves from competition. They think
that high taxes can do it, that redistribution can do it. That forcing
everyone to pay more for some product (like milk) will help the economy. But
the fact is, the economy does not work that way. If you do that, you make
everyone a little poorer. You do it to every product, and you make everyone
*much* poorer. The policies which people support in their belief that they
will benefit from them, actually achieve the exact opposite. The result is
poverty, it is unemployment, it is dwindling industry, ghost towns, failure.

It's just the way things are. It's no good pretending that things aren't
that way. Nobody likes facing competition, but everyone has to. It's the
only way for us all to get wealthier. So, if you want to accuse me of
wanting a better life for everyone, guilty as charged. But anti-farming? No,
not that.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Greed knows no bounds. There is nothing these *******s won't stoop to
do to enrich themselves.

Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave to the poor, Gordon Brown robbed
the poor to give to the rich.
These scumbag bankers are still living it up when they should have all
been sacked. Meanwhile, everybody else is suffering.

We need to start a revolution and shoot the *******s.