(February 5, 2014 at 10:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Is it prohibited by the free market to use your resources and your willing allies to force others to play by your rules?

Quoting from Wikipedia again:

"A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority."

So no, it's not prohibited to use your resources and willing allies to force others to play by your rules, but if you try to do it, and your "willing ally" is the government, then it's categorically not a free market anymore, and due to the use of government intervention, the "invisible hand" metaphor is not applicable.

---

(February 6, 2014 at 12:20 am)Minimalist Wrote: Divi Tiberio, I simply do not think you are as naive as you come across.

...and I don't think you are as confused over definitions as you come across. Unfortunately I rather think you like to do it on purpose.

Quote:When you speak of the invisible hand of the market you sound like Drippy whining about his fucking god and with good reason. Neither exist.

It's a metaphor...of course it doesn't "exist". However, if you think that a marketplace cannot regulate itself, you and I are at a disagreement. Markets have existed to some degree before governments started trying to control them, and there are still parts of the market that are not regulated by the government. To deny market self regulation is to deny reality.

Quote:In the case at hand these corporate cocksuckers are buying influence and access to government to pass laws (which they are writing for their wholly owned legislative subsidiaries) to introduce and which do exactly the opposite of what you claim capitalism is all about. They are corrupting markets by stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

Here's the fucking stupid thing: we agree on this part. I've told you as much before. I hate, hate, hate corporatism. I despise the fact that businesses can purchase laws that give them an advantage in the market.

However, instead of blaming the "free market" or the "invisible hand", I understand that those terms both explicitly require that government intervention in the market doesn't happen.

If the government intervenes in a "free market", then it is no longer a "free market".
If the government attempts to be the "invisible hand", then the "invisible hand" metaphor no longer applies.

You shift the blame when making posts like these, from those that are responsible (the company behind the legislation and the government itself) to the free market, or to the "invisible hand".

To give an analogy, it's like having a country declare itself a democracy, then having a candidate rig the voting machines so he wins in a landslide victory and can make up any new laws he pleases, and them blaming democracy for what has happened. Democracy isn't to blame, because a democracy is defined as a form of government in which "all eligible citizens participate equally". If the candidate has rigged the voting machines so that eligible citizens cannot participate (or their participation is nulled), then the government is no longer a democracy.

Quote:Kindly wake up. You are smarter than this. Which makes me suspicious of your motives.

Kindly read a dictionary, or at least look up terms on Wikipedia before you try to use them in conversation. You are smarter than this!

We do not have a free market system; free market analogies and metaphors do not apply!

Am I like the only one that got the joke? That Minimalist used the 'invisible hand' to highlight how this practice is exactly not that, even though this is the legislation that gets supported by people who would go on Fox News and bold faced lie about how they love the free market?

(February 6, 2014 at 9:01 am)EvolutionKills Wrote: Am I like the only one that got the joke? That Minimalist used the 'invisible hand' to highlight how this practice is exactly not that, even though this is the legislation that gets supported by people who would go on Fox News and bold faced lie about how they love the free market?

This might be accurate if Minimalist hadn't done this a number of different times, each time insinuating that this was the "invisible hand" that capitalists talk about.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:44 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 6, 2014 at 9:01 am)EvolutionKills Wrote: Am I like the only one that got the joke? That Minimalist used the 'invisible hand' to highlight how this practice is exactly not that, even though this is the legislation that gets supported by people who would go on Fox News and bold faced lie about how they love the free market?

This might be accurate if Minimalist hadn't done this a number of different times, each time insinuating that this was the "invisible hand" that capitalists talk about.

Fair enough. It struck me more as satire of what passes for 'free market capitalists' on Fox News and Bloomberg, which really appear to be nothing more than crony-capitalist oligarchs. I read it as skewering these type of assholes, but then again I'm new here.

Quote:We do not have a free market system; free market analogies and metaphors do not apply!

Divi Tiberio,

We certainly do not. AND WE NEVER WILL. You may as well pray to your Invisible Hand to strike me down because you are dealing with pie-in-the-sky theories which do not exist in reality.

Reality, my friend, is that corporate criminals are raping the earth and the middle class at will and shrieking that "oh, if only we had even LESS REGULATION we could do so much more!"

I'm sure they could. But not for our benefit.

The first thing any businessman does is start figuring out ways to fuck over the competition. That is reality.

Fuck them.

You can make whatever distinctions you like between corporatism and the so-called free market. As far as I can tell, corporatism is a natural result of letting a market be too free. If government is not allowed to regulate, there's absolutely no effective and reliable check able to prevent big money from turning the government into an apparatus which serves primarily to further the interests of big money. The less ability government has to regulate business, the fewer obstacles there are between business from effectively becoming government.

Oh fuck yes, Minimalist vs. Tiberius?

---

Addendum: I love those images, Ryan.

(February 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The first thing any businessman does is start figuring out ways to fuck over the competition. That is reality.

Agreed, but without the ability to get the government to pass legislation that helps them "fuck over" the competition, they are severely restricted in what they can actually do.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:42 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: You can make whatever distinctions you like between corporatism and the so-called free market. As far as I can tell, corporatism is a natural result of letting a market be too free. If government is not allowed to regulate, there's absolutely no effective and reliable check able to prevent big money from turning the government into an apparatus which serves primarily to further the interests of big money. The less ability government has to regulate business, the fewer obstacles there are between business from effectively becoming government.

The free market means the government cannot pass any laws concerning the market. This includes regulations, but also laws which favour certain businesses. That is the opposite of what happens in a corporatocracy.

So yes, there is something that prevents "big money" from using the government to further their own interests; it is the law that prevents the government from doing this. Government enforced regulations are instead handled by consumer group regulations, whereby products are independently reviewed and consumers can make their own decisions on which companies to buy from.

This doesn't make it easier for businesses to "become government", because the government is still there, and it still enforces laws protecting the people.

(February 8, 2014 at 8:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This doesn't make it easier for businesses to "become government", because the government is still there, and it still enforces laws protecting the people.

That doesn't mean those businesses can't still do some very unsavory things to cement their business. What's to stop, for example, monopolies from forming? If you look at how super-corporations are buying up stock in multiple companies, we're already starting to go in that direction. I mean, if w're eliminating government regulations, wouldn't monopoly regulations count? And when companies get a monopoly on a specific, vital industry, what's to stop them from abusing their power?

Anyway, if the governments job is to protect the people, I think the people today need to be protected from predatory corporations more than anything. Regulations are exactly how or government protects us from them. Remember the chemical plant leak in West Virginia? That happened because of relaxing of government regulations; they hadn't been inspected since before I was in high school.

(February 9, 2014 at 1:53 am)TaraJo Wrote: Anyway, if the governments job is to protect the people, I think the people today need to be protected from predatory corporations more than anything. Regulations are exactly how or government protects us from them. Remember the chemical plant leak in West Virginia? That happened because of relaxing of government regulations; they hadn't been inspected since before I was in high school.

But Tara, libertarian policy states that those who suffered financial loss due to Freedom Industries negligence in this incident are due financial compensation for the damages. Never mind that Freedom Industries assets are only worth a tiny fraction of the damages they caused, and they have already filed bankruptcy. The market will take care of everything. That's what it does...