Free Market Regulation Question

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by CB328

This would not be allowed in a free market

In a "free" market the big banks would buy off or kill people that wanted to publish news of their crimes, so they would never be held accountable.

That is totally absurd.

Brinks Security personnel aren't going to run around mass murdering people at the order of a bank. Brinks would get run out of business quickly.

How do you know?

Marines kill people all the time in exchange for money, so do hitmen, so do drug companies.

How would anyone even prove Brinks did it? Cause I heard it was the communists...

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by CB328

This would not be allowed in a free market

In a "free" market the big banks would buy off or kill people that wanted to publish news of their crimes, so they would never be held accountable.

That is totally absurd.

Brinks Security personnel aren't going to run around mass murdering people at the order of a bank. Brinks would get run out of business quickly.

How do you know?

Marines kill people all the time in exchange for money, so do hitmen, so do drug companies.

How would anyone even prove Brinks did it? Cause I heard it was the communists...

Marines don't have to earn their paycheck by providing a market service.

Brinks, on the other hand, does.

In a free market system the Federal Reserve would not exist people are putting the cart before the horse there since fiat currency is the means of how goods and services are exchanged and the Federal Reserve controls prints and values and devalue that means then sets the rates of that currency and other financial instruments.

Wealth is meaningless since 1 entity controls the value dollar and that is the Government as everyone knows in a truly free market can only exist without Government and monetary interventionism.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by CB328

This would not be allowed in a free market

In a "free" market the big banks would buy off or kill people that wanted to publish news of their crimes, so they would never be held accountable.

That is totally absurd.

Brinks Security personnel aren't going to run around mass murdering people at the order of a bank. Brinks would get run out of business quickly.

How do you know?

Marines kill people all the time in exchange for money, so do hitmen, so do drug companies.

How would anyone even prove Brinks did it? Cause I heard it was the communists...

Marines don't have to earn their paycheck by providing a market service.

Brinks, on the other hand, does.

Both are employees tasked to do what they are paid to do. If they do not perform they
will be fired, simple. Some will quit, others will do their job, they will remain and do the
killing, supply and demand.

Hit men are a market service, does not stop them, so are the Mexican
cartels.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist



It's already been proven that when left to their own devices the banks, through greed, will destroy themselves. Happened in 2008. Smaller regional banks would have filled the void.. however.. we have the system we have.. and decided to prop em up.

Originally posted by mastahunta
Both are employees tasked to do what they are paid to do. If they do not perform they
will be fired, simple. Some will quit, others will do their job, they will remain and do the
killing, supply and demand.

Hit men are a market service, does not stop them, so are the Mexican
cartels.

edit on 23-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

Marines don't lose customers if they kill random people.

Hit men who work for cartels would not exist in a free market society because all drugs would be legal.

Thus, there would be no drug cartels.

Additionally, people would have private security like Brinks to protect them from hit men.

In a free market, if banks didn't have the reserves of gold (or whatever has arisen in the market as a medium of exchange) to meet outstanding receipts (banknotes), then there would likely be runs on the bank and it would face legal trouble, and it would probably go under.

In the environment today, you have lenders of last resort, legal fraction reserve banking, the FDIC securing deposits, etc.

Which scenario has forces keeping the banks in check?

Originally posted by JakeLeMaster
In a free market, if banks didn't have the reserves of gold (or whatever has arisen in the market as a medium of exchange) to meet outstanding receipts (banknotes), then there would likely be runs on the bank and it would face legal trouble, and it would probably go under.

In the environment today, you have lenders of last resort, legal fraction reserve banking, the FDIC securing deposits, etc.

Which scenario has forces keeping the banks in check?

Someone has been studying Austrian economics.

I like it.

You are exactly right.

Originally posted by JakeLeMaster
Which scenario has forces keeping the banks in check?

Which one actually exists? Free markets are not real. Like most things, it looks good on paper, but humans have a way of messing things up.

Prior to the Federal Reserve in 1913, we may have been under a free market system.

Corporations at that time were limited in power (at least in the U.S.) compared to as we know it today.

It seems that the corporations' power base increased as they (the corporations) began to reform the government itself.
(via bribery and corruption methods)

The general idea goes back thousands of years to the ancient trade cartels that set up local "governments" to help control the merchant interests, and guarantee trade flow through the wide area trade routes.

Most U.S. large corporations today are international either by foreign trading and/or foreign stockholders and owners.


Many "good 'ol American companies" are actually owned by foreign investors !

American Companies Sold To Foreign Interests

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by earthdude
Without regulations the money guys would grab even more money. Masters of monopolization they are.

How?

They would all be bankrupt today.

again

The banks would be bankrupt, the people who own the bank would be rich

Liability limits are imposed by the State.

In a free market, business owners would be held accountable for the actions of their business.

The corporation is a State creation.

Liability Limits are also imposed by contract and legal ease. So how would I get my money back
if I am bankrupt? My phone is shut off, my car is repossessed and so is my home. How do I
get my money back from a billionaire now that I am destitute?

In plain English please

edit on 23-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

Money back from what?

In a free market, your money would not be stolen in the first place.

How do you know that?

I am telling you, right now...

The three men who own the bank put all the depositors money into a fund and essentially
transferred the capital into their accounts via stock manipulation and betting against the banks
position.

I am now broke, no phone, my car was repossessed and my home was too.

How to I get my money back from three billionaires when I am destitute?

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by mastahunta
Both are employees tasked to do what they are paid to do. If they do not perform they
will be fired, simple. Some will quit, others will do their job, they will remain and do the
killing, supply and demand.

Hit men are a market service, does not stop them, so are the Mexican
cartels.

edit on 23-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

Marines don't lose customers if they kill random people.

Neither do drugs cartels

Hit men who work for cartels would not exist in a free market society because all drugs would be legal.

Thus, there would be no drug cartels.

Additionally, people would have private security like Brinks to protect them from hit men.

edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)

Yes there would be because 18 million Christians started a military group that is seeking to
squash drugs by violent means. Drugs have gone back underground and there are more hit men
than today because vigilantism is lucrative.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Prior to the Federal Reserve in 1913, we may have been under a free market system.

Not really. The Vanderbilts, DuPonts and Rockefellers had already been shaping markets at the national level long before 1913. I'm sure many more participated in market manipulation at state and local levels.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by xuenchen
Prior to the Federal Reserve in 1913, we may have been under a free market system.

Not really. The Vanderbilts, DuPonts and Rockefellers had already been shaping markets at the national level long before 1913. I'm sure many more participated in market manipulation at state and local levels.

edit on 23-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Yes I agree.

But the influences were smaller and less impacting on the public.

I think the banks were scattered also.

Not much centralization.

Originally posted by xuenchen
But the influences were smaller and less impacting on the public.

Maybe smaller then today but not small in any way. A far cry from free markets, which is the point of the OP.

Originally posted by Praetorius
I hear so many attack capitalism and the open market as well as deregulation, but unless I'm simply not seeing something, it seems to me that they aren't honestly looking at what really happens in such climates...

Correction, you hear attacks on state capitalism and crony capitalism, which any reasonable person would reject. It's the conflation of Marx' idea of capitalism and free-market Capitalism that creates the confusion and then the incorrect conclusions based on bad data/first principles.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

Which would run the mega banks out of business quicker?

There are other options, the fastest way is just to take there internet communications offline for a week, but under net neutrality this is an act of war. A few parts of their operations may still survive but will damage many offices.

The options you provided are more reasonable in approach. The main concern with capitalising the justice system is that it can contravene the UN charter on human rights with a target of free justice. From previous discussion, I take your description of this to mean reducing job certainty and applying market forces to the workers within the justice system. There is a risk of introducing more conflicts of interest into the system, where a lot of the problems currently are. Also a lot of tradition and worker rights issues involved.

The reality of the situation is that this is what is going on with the establishment of credit rating agencies as deregulation and reduced government funds went into accounting and oversight operations. The market demanded some way to manage the risk, but these agencies can only go so far in investigations without legal support.

There is a hybridisation of capitalistic and communistic ideologies going on around the world, at either extremes the result is bad. Finding the right balance is a slow and ongoing process.

Originally posted by kwakakev
There is a hybridisation of capitalistic and communistic ideologies going on around the world, at either extremes the result is bad. Finding the right balance is a slow and ongoing process.

Let's say what you really mean:

"There is a hybridisation of voluntary and coercive ideologies going on around the world, at either extremes the result is bad."

Clearly this statement is ridiculous.

The free market means voluntary trade in a system of private property rights. Communism is non-voluntary in nature. Communism does not respect property rights; therefore, the collective may impose its will upon you against your consent.

Violence must be used to take that which does not belong to you from another. The State uses violence in this regard to collect its taxes. Then it uses that money as it sees fit, against the will of the person who originally earned it.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by kwakakev
There is a hybridisation of capitalistic and communistic ideologies going on around the world, at either extremes the result is bad. Finding the right balance is a slow and ongoing process.

Let's say what you really mean:

"There is a hybridisation of voluntary and coercive ideologies going on around the world, at either extremes the result is bad."

Clearly this statement is ridiculous.

The free market means voluntary trade in a system of private property rights. Communism is non-voluntary in nature. Communism does not respect property rights; therefore, the collective may impose its will upon you against your consent.

Violence must be used to take that which does not belong to you from another. The State uses violence in this regard to collect its taxes. Then it uses that money as it sees fit, against the will of the person who originally earned it.

I agree that communism is not a good model, but I also think you are choosing to overlook
some of the implications of your own ideas, simple because you like your ideas. I think a
free market works for small organizations, but I do not think it works in all cases.

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Question:

Which would run the mega banks out of business quicker?

A completely free market that had no State imposed regulations at all, and relied entirely on private contract, private security, and private courts to uphold property rights.

or

The current system.

Discuss

Ooo ooo I got this one! The command system will fix everything! It worked so well in Russia and China! Wait...they've migrated closer to the free market system. Hmmm...I'll have to work on this one a bit and get back to you.

/TOA