Cartels are not stable, and in the absence of armed compulsion, will either fall apart (when one more more parties to the cartel sees an economic advantage) or cannot prevent a lower-cost competitor (or a competitor with an alternate product that can satisfy demand) from entering the market.
Economics in One Lesson, at the simple end of spectrum, and Man, Economy and State at the more thorough end of the spectrum, with lots of stops in between, make the case clear. Regulation makes things worse, not better. The longer term strategy in the iterated prisoners dilemma of tit-for-tat (which seems to be a reasonable definition of cooperation) has been shown to be as nearly ideal as any strategy. Kurt On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:19 PM, <trep...@sigaint.org> wrote: > I think you misinterpreted me, I am not defending planned economy, The > cooperation that I was referring to is between market agents to form > cartels and extract the most value from their product. The mathematical > fact comes from game theory. There is a strong incentive for market agents > to collude and control the price. Once one small group of cartels controls > the market, it is impossible to other agents to enter. > > It is an honest question. I am an anarchist myself but cannot think of a > solution to this problem without regulation. > > > > Well, I don't know this to be a "mathematical fact", for one thing. For > > many decades,Communists believed that their way HAD TO be better, because > > somehow a centrally-planned and cooperative system was just naturally > > supposed to be better than one basedon a free market. They thought it > > was obviously inefficient and indeed wasteful that therewere hundreds of > > models of radios, TV's, VCR's, cars, shoes, etc on the market.But > > something about Adam Smith's "invisible hand" won out. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand > > So, show us how it is a "mathematical fact" that cooperative strategies > > are "more efficient"than competitive ones. Could the flaw in this idea > > be the fact that such cooperative strategies make a false assumption that > > centrally-planned systems can actually WORK?Even with today's Internet > and > > computers, how can people's desires and needs be handledin such a way > that > > products are available in a timely manner? Old Soviet central planning > > required factories to follow their "Five-year plans": The rules saidthat > > they had to produce X-million of shoes every year. It didn't matter that > > the shoes they produced were not what the people wanted to buy. This > > must have frustrated the central-planners to no end. Jim > > Bell > > From: "trep...@sigaint.org" <trep...@sigaint.org> > > To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org > > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 12:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [Was: private] Now 'Re: [tor-talk] > > http://jacobappelbaum.net/' > > > > How do you cope with the mathematical fact that, in general, cooperative > > strategies are more efficient than competitive ones? > > > > I know of a place that for the past three decades have had one of the > most > > unregulated markets in the world (if not the most). The tendency has been > > that over time the market becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer people > > that form cartels and use the concentrated power to prevent new actors > > from entering the market. Currently, and thanks to a few whistleblowers, > > it is known that the economic cartels have even bought the government and > > the parliament, having government officials and members of the parliament > > in its payroll. > > > >> > >> > >> From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net> > >> On 08/28/2016 09:50 AM, jim bell wrote: > >>>> Anyway, I think using the term, "free market" is more enlightening > >>>> than > >>>> "capitalism". > >>>> The need to raise and employ 'capital' is one part of a free market, > >>>> but > >>>> it could also > >>>> be argued that even in a non-free-market, some form of capital must be > >>>> used, somehow. > >>>> Thus, "free market" and "capitalism" overlap, but are not the same > >>>> thing. > >>>      Jim Bell > >> > >>>Regarding her motivations... From wikipedia > >>>"Le Guin, as Elizabeth McDowell states in her 1992 master's thesis, > >>>"identif[ies] the present dominant socio-political American system as > >>>problematic and destructive to the health and life of the natural world, > >>>humanity, and their interrelations." > >> Well, I'm a free-market libertarian, an anarchist even.  And I agree > >> that > >> the current system is "problematic and destructive to the health and > >> life > >> of the natural world, > >>>humanity, and their interrelations."  But presumably, in entirely a > >>> differentway than Le Guin thinks. > >> > >>>Regarding so-called 'free markets'. The way I see it personally there is > >>>no such thing as "kinder and gentler capitalism". The people who would > >>>foist that off on us utilize people's ingrained, indoctrinated > >>>self-interest and narcissism to have us believe it's possible because > >>>it's 'better for me', no one else gets screwed in the exchange. Imo That > >>>screwing would still happen in a 'real' free markets. > >> Well, currently people with life-threatening allergies are being > >> "screwed" > >> by afactor-of-6 increase in the cost of Epi-pens.  "How outrageous", > >> I > >> hear the fevered shouts!  Problem is, while the decision to make > >> that > >> price increase wasmade by Mylan Labs, the organization that made such a > >> decision possible isthe FDA, the Federal Food and Drug Administration: > >>  By denying the entry intothe ostensibly "free" market of a generic > >> alternative, Mylan did what was in theirseeming "self-interest".  > >> So, we really don't have a "free market", do we?  We certainly have > >> one > >> that employs "capital", making it "capitalism", but when pricing > >> decisions can be made by one company when other companies are denied > >> access to the marketby the GOVERNMENT, that is far from a "free market". > >> In short, "capitalism" or "free market" ISN'T the problem.  The > >> problem > > > > >
