Classical Liberalism

[reverendjeremiah]

Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes this supposed shift in liberal philosophy (from classical liberal to modern liberal) to the nineteenth century expansion of the franchise to include the working class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.[65]

Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power.[66]

[/wikipedia - classical liberal]

---

Consumers always set the prices for companies.

Bull crap. Not withstanding that Void has been arguing all this time that companies can set their prices any way they want and I am a cry baby for not liking it. What you say is idealism, not reality.

If the prices are too high, consumers will not purchase your product, and you pave the way for competitors to emerge with lower prices to challenge you in the market.

Do you think Blackwaters "contractor" prices are too high? Well, too bad. No bid contracts with insiders force you and me to pay their price. So how can our spending power (which is gone in this situation) effect them?

Companies always adjust their prices with regard to the complexity of the product they are making, the demand in the market, and the prices of their competitors.

So therefore you get rid of the competitor, ensuring your demand in the market is totalitarian, and toss your problems on the consumer. They are now forced to eat it and work to make it. You always make sure they have just enough money to keep ever so slightly afloat, living pay check to pay check so you get that money back from them and use it against them. Now tell me that isnt what most of the world corporations do. Is that not libertarian? Or do libertarians oppose libertarian economics? Or, should I say, you and Void oppose it (because you are "real" libertarians) and those "fake" libertarians do such things.

Companies that don't go under very quickly. This is very simple economics, which for some reason you are not getting (or refusing to get).

No. That isnt modern economics (which is the topic, right? Classical liberalism in a modern world?). Modern economics is about corporatism, plutocracy, and clepto theivery. Modern corporatists, who have rallied the modern libertarian movement, are the ones running the keynesian economic model. Why? Because, for the select insiders, it guarentees success. It gives the corporations all of the profit, and the masses all of the risk. The bankers want it. The bankers use it. Are you trying to tell me the bankers ARENT libertarians? Are you trying to tell me that bankers DO NOT want as much freedom to do what they want? Well, they want this economic system.

Am I refusing to get this simple economic system down?