I'd say I'm a fair market advocate and not on for a totally free market. this is a major sticking point for me with the plank of the Libertarian party, as well as their stance against borders and nationalism.
When I say fair market I mean that we obviously need limited controls in place to protect both parties involved in any employment. What those controls should be are obviously open to debate, but I think that we have totally weighed down our economy with over regulation in a great many areas, while totally ignoring other areas where real abuses are taking place. Good conversation though. On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Cameron Childress <camer...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Cam, the world you describe is one that is presented in some high > school > > > economics texts, I suppose, but not really anywhere beyond that. > > > > > > > This is not a valid classification. > > > > Obviously we disagree, though you seem to go on to support the notion > that > you understand that the world you presented is not the world that we live > in. > > > > > Rule number one of actual economics is that there is no truly free > > market. > > > > > > > It's not rule number one, but no - there is no truly free market, only > > varied degrees of it, just like everything else in life. > > > > > What do you think rule #1 of real world economics is then? I'm curious. > > > > > The prerequirements of a free market includes absolute, instantaneous, > > > knowledge amongst all parties, it requires symmetry between actors and > it > > > requires perfectly rational actors. > > > > > > This is not a requirement for a free market, it is a requirement for a > > perfect free market actor. > > > > Free markets, in the classical sense, require free market actors. All the > requirements I listed are text book definitions. That's why the classical > theoretical notion of the free market is not applicable to the real world. > > > > > > > The closest we get to it in practice is probably the commodities > market. > > > > > > Closest actors, this doesn't mean a system requires perfect actors to > > function effectively. > > > > > The rules have to change as the constraints change if you want something > like an equivalent outcome. That's fundamental systems theory. > > > > > The further we get away from that, the more we have to deal with actual > > > real entities and their complications. When you get to the level of > > > employment, you are deep down in the weeds where actors aren't > rational, > > > differentiation between consumer and supplier is multifaceted and there > > is > > > substantial inequality of knowledge, which is itself asymmetric. > > > > > > > Nope, people aren't rational. They buy big screen TVs with their tax > refund > > and then can't put food on the table the next day. Very irrational, crazy > > actors. But there is no law prohibiting that wacky silly, > self-destructive > > behavior - nor should there be. > > > > These same irrational actors could potentially cancel their union > > memberships, shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe they are smart actors, > > maybe they are dumb actors, rational.irrational.... A Free(er) Market > will > > sort all that out. > > > > > You are making a presumption about the behavior of a Free(er) Market that > is not born out by either theory or practice as far as I can tell. > > > > > > > It is nothing close to a free market and it never will be. The > > requirements > > > for the simplistic model just cannot be met. > > > > > > > I disagree. If the only acceptable for my Free Market is in it's purest > > textbook form, you are correct. But this is not the only option. There > are > > many principles that can be applied to all parts of our lives that are > Free > > Market principles and the results are quite valid and predictable. > > > > > Agreed. That was my point. They are complex and nuanced, however. It isn't > the simple "Invisible Hand of the Market" construction that people seem to > learn in high school about supply and demand and then presume that it > applies to everything in a capitalist economy. > > > > > The systems do, however, require constraints to protect the actors (on > > > both sides) and to help the systems toward optimization. > > > > > > > I think this is the most fundamental difference in our opinions on this > > matter. I favor letting idiots be idiots. Take the warning labels off. > Stop > > "protecting" the poor poor irrational people from their own stupidity and > > allow them to fail. This is how people learn to act differently and that > is > > a much better lesson (in my opinion) than "well, I don't know why but > > that's just the way it is because the government makes us do it that > way". > > > > > Curious, I see a lot of people failing and, oddly enough, most of them are > poor. The systems in place seem to protect one class a lot more than > others. > > Fundamentally, however, I believe that systems should serve the people and > not the other way around. They should protect the most vulnerable and > encourage everyone to improve their own lives and communities. > > > > > We're still trying to figure out the best way to deal with all those > > > things. It isn't obvious because it is a complex issue and an evolving > > > system. Society is including moral valuations (freedom, dignity, > > > fulfillment, etc) as variables in the equations that just don't arise > in > > > systems like commodities. And at the end of the day, people aren't > > > commodities. Corn doesn't make choices. > > > > > > Fundamental flaw here: The Corn is not the employee, it's the job. > > > > The job is the commodity, not the employee. The employee is only the > > commodity in a world where a Union (or Government) is controlling > (trading) > > people. > > > > > Many systems try and treat employees like commodities. However, even if you > consider the job to be the commodity, it still fails. They do not satisfy > the criteria to be considered commodities. > > There is great economic theory out there about employment and wages and > incentives. I'd love to learn even more than what I do now, it's a > fascinating and evolving field. It isn't simple, though. And it isn't > classic free market theory. > > Cheers, > Judah > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359068 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
