Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
In a free market a company can't get a monopoly by calling on the power of the state. (original meaning of the word)
In a free market a company can get a 100% market share if it provides the best product at the best price. Nothing wrong with that. In a free market however, other companies are still free to try and compete if they want. So if another company comes up with a better product or a cheaper way to produce that product then it is free to do so.
Pure monopolies (that exclude others by force) are a problem because if there's no competition, there's no incentive to produce better products at a lower cost.
Competition is an essential aspect of the free market. Therefor the problems associated with monopolies can't occur under free market conditions.
|
By definition, no state or fed has to claim you're a monopoly, at that, nobody claims you are until AFTER you are.
It already happens within pockets of free markets...
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Try opening a "cocaine-shop" in your local street and see how fast the gov will shut you down. By making drugs illegal the gov per definition restricts the market. There is no free market in drugs.
|
The market itself is free based, not restricted by regulations, safety standards, etc, etc, etc... it's as free of a market, free floating of regulations, as you can get in this country, and it still has pockets of power that fully control the market/price, etc... a monopoly, without any gov doing anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Actually you didn't, but we'll agree to disagree on that because otherwise we'll keeping going back and forward.
|
I can admit that you ignore the benefits, can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Actually they do. And my reply pointed out your logical error.
Hans Hoppe has a couple of good introductions to praxeology. It's good reading on a hot summer evening  . |
I didn't make a logical error, I showed you another example of where Austrians can't accept the facts of what actually happens in the markets. It's not all logical, functions to conflict, it creates illogical events... it can turn blue to yellow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
The comparison here: 2 similar people. 2 similar countries. similar natural resources. 2 different amount sof gov intervention. The one with the highest amount of intervention has the worst economy.
|
You even comparing the two is pure laughable... trying to make it sound like N.K. is an example of market intervention is pure silly and does not help your argument, if anything it's hurting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
This is one of ways interventionists go wrong. Because they realize it's impossible to measure everything about the economy, they look at certain sectors and try to extrapolate things onto the economy as a whole.
|
No... not at all. What they do is after corps for years or decades keep screwing people over and the free market doesn't fix it, they step in to fix it... waiting 10, 20 or 50 years for the free market to unscrew itself, is purely stupid. That's what normally happens, decades and decades of abuse, THEN regulation happens, after the free market failed to clean up the mess, before it was regulated!
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
It's all about risk management. In a free market you try to reduce risk.
|
In any market, every market, EVERYONE tries to reduce risk... which has zero to do with a person knowing if a company is screwing everyone over or not...
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
There's no causal link between the 2.
|
True... they are more the same thing rather than two different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Praxeology is value free. If a person burns down your house then you no longer have a house. It's not necessary or relevant to know the motives behind the arson to draw that conclusion.
|
That has nothing to do with market greed and the action taken by them that without question does change markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
In a free market the banks would have not been able to do what they did and get away with it. The banks were able to cover up what they were doing thanks to gov intervention. Under free market conditions banks wouldn't even been able to try what they did (and do) without going bankrupt.
|
Hahaha... free markets in banks, what a joke. Know what free market banks get you? IOU's....... if you actually think an unregulated bank is a good idea then you have zero clue about history, what so ever, that proves this wrong a 1000x over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
So in your opinion the corps can manipulate both the market and the gov and your solution is more gov for them to manipulate?
|
The ability to manipulate happened before the first regulation ever came in.
This would be another factor Austrians ignore in their quest for a fake free market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Money is purely an intermediary medium of exchange allowing for an efficient devision of labor.
If you want to end the corruptions, you need to get rid of gov intervention.
|
Corruption happens where no gov can be found.... the little pipe dream Austrians have is funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Take a look at my examples of how corps made money by buying up farmland...
|
Not relevant, it was not regulation before an issue came up... regulation does not happen first.
No matter what, I will always think the Austrian economic theory is filled with flaws, like many other people. All you've done is prove to me is how much more flawed it is than I actually thought. Not that other economic theories are perfect either, but that's the point... they think they've got it all figured out, when in reality, we can find contradictions and flaws to their theories all day long. You just choose to ignore them, much like other economists ignore the flaws in the systems they use.