Does the "Free Market" even exist

My thinking is no.

In no way am I a student of political ideaologies or economics, but both interest me. And over the last couple of days I've been pondering a thread here on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Who are the Real Anarchists"?

Wherein an article was referenced: mises.org...


The thread rapidly got into Libertarianism and then "Free Market" worship.

The article on the other hand presented Capitalist Anarchy and Anti-Capitalist Anarachy in it's pseudo article selling classes - they may be very good for all I know - but not a solid source, IMO.

The other day I read about the shady origins of US style - pro-capiltist libertariansim.

Here: mises.org...

But in returning to the "Aanarchist" piece at mises.org, I would like to share the following quote:

In the libertarian tradition, however, the anarchist society is merely the society in which individuals are not governed by a state built on monopolized violence and coercion, but instead govern themselves through organizations into which they have entered voluntarily. Among such institutions can certainly be found churches, schools, families, professional associations, markets, and tribes.

Entered into voluntarily - Family - not so much; Church - not so much; proffesional associations - not so much; markets - not so much and tribes.

By the above referenced definition - government is a free association, unions are a free association and both more freely associated with then family or markets.

After much thought - the only real examples of truly - self decided (not indocronated) association is Alcholics Anonymous and often the court sends people there (but they leave after their time is up).

Then we get to the "Market Worship". And I say worship very deliberately because "Free Marketeers" do hold the Market first in their lives, the answer to all their prayers. The very idea of an "invisable hand" guiding the "market" assumes a benevolent Godhead according to Adam Smith.

But do or can free markets exist. Adam Smith himself tells us that only self-interest can guide us.

plus.maths.org...

And such self-interest can only lead to immoral behavior in the attempt to skew the market in one's own favor (so much for a godly invisible hand).

There is no level playing field, never has been.

Which brings me to today's entry in the musing mind:

From Alternet :www.commondreams.org... by Robert Reich

"The Myth of the "Free Market" and How to Make the Economy Work for Us"

According to this logic, government shouldn’t intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the “free market” knows best.

In reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? ); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?) (4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on.

Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us.

Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game.

Free Market Libertarianism!


And the total futility of even bring anything up.

www.alternet.org...

reply to post by FyreByrd


"Free Market." Buahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Political whores for the globalists are the only ones who get to create their own free market by imposing laws on the peasants while exempting themselves.

Your funny. They still use that phrase in school too. The few freedoms that are still left are rapidly being eaten away by globalist scum in the form of Czars and theirs agencies.

Excellent subject for a relevent thread....cool

Really, it's the paradigm you are addressing....sucks more every day.....used to be innocent. Like in 1969, that is.

I'm not going to read in all the links, but in short, no, a free market does not exists.
If it did exist, we would not have seen trillions flow to banks and other corporations to bail them out in the US, Europe and elsewhere.
there wouldn't be manipulation in the value of currencies, but clearly central banks are intervening because if the value is to high it is not good for the export.

Must we see minimum wage as an obstruction? i think not, it is a protection so that the worker does not have to work 24 hours a day untill he dies.
Every employer would love the idea to pay less and make more profit.

If there was a free market, the world economy would have been history thanks to the US, wallstreet banks would have had the same fate as Lehman Brothers.
I still don't know why they let this particular bank fail and give the others a bailout.
A crisis is the purifying tool for a sound market, but that has been prevented.
And the Fed is actively intervening with its QEternity

reply to post by FyreByrd


No it does not really exist anymore. As long as there are central banks manipulating money there will never be a free market.

reply to post by FyreByrd

There is no free market. The establishment doenst want a free market, its too fair of a system.

What we have is crony capitalism, no bid contracts, where profits are private and losses are public.

But the author is making a lot of straw-man arguments. He's lumping in issues which should be determined by the market like wages vs something like taxes which have nothing to do with a free market.

They used these exact same straw-man arguments vs Ron Paul. Because he said that government was way too big, too wasteful, too involved in our lives, that it somehow equated to him not wanting any government at all. Simply not true.

I know nothing about this author but people like him are generally ones who benefit from the status-quo or the current establishment.

They are terrified by a libertarian philosophy.

In this lecture from last week, Ron Paul spoke to a sell-out crowd of 1400. He touches on the free market but also speaks about a libertarian philosophy or what he calls here, the "freedom movement" and the idea that its based on two main principles, nonaggression and tolerance:

www.youtube.com...

The free market does exist. It is the black market.

No regulation. Except for the organized crime type.

grumpy64
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

No it does not really exist anymore. As long as there are central banks manipulating money there will never be a free market.

But I don't think they ever existed - I think it's pure fantasy.

ManOfHart
The free market does exist. It is the black market.

No regulation. Except for the organized crime type.

There ya go!! I agree 100%.

The Black Market is the closest thing there is to a true "free market system" and even that isn't a true free market either.

ManOfHart
The free market does exist. It is the black market.

No regulation. Except for the organized crime type.

But organized crime is another "Free Association".

gladtobehere
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

There is no free market. The establishment doenst want a free market, its too fair of a system.

What we have is crony capitalism, no bid contracts, where profits are private and losses are public.

But the author is making a lot of straw-man arguments. He's lumping in issues which should be determined by the market like wages vs something like taxes which have nothing to do with a free market.

They used these exact same straw-man arguments vs Ron Paul. Because he said that government was way too big, too wasteful, too involved in our lives, that it somehow equated to him not wanting any government at all. Simply not true.

I know nothing about this author but people like him are generally ones who benefit from the status-quo or the current establishment.

They are terrified by a libertarian philosophy.

In this lecture from last week, Ron Paul spoke to a sell-out crowd of 1400. He touches on the free market but also speaks about a libertarian philosophy or what he calls here, the "freedom movement" and the idea that its based on two main principles, nonaggression and tolerance:

www.youtube.com...

Have you read the references to Libertarianism? And it's origins in the US. Big Business PR Machine?

reply to post by FyreByrd

Why do people always have to think in absolutes and extremes?

A form of libertarian Minarchism is the way to go, because it is capable of combining the best of all worlds.

The people in decentralised, independent, minarchistic States (not Countries) could choose their state to set up one important fiscal-political frame (as designed by Wilhelm Röpke):

To oblige employer associations and worker representatives to negotiate (autonomous of the state), as it is enshrined in the institutionalized settlement of conflicts in Germany today.

Thus securing good working conditions, solid wages, and in return a highly trained and intrinsically motivated workforce. That's about all the state interference we need.

States that would adopt this framework would offer a higher quality of life AND be more competative.
People who still disagree with this could live in another, more anarchistic (or social) state.

Just ditch all the fiscal centralizm, state subsidies, punitive duties, and minimize taxation (to uphold a minimal state, which is still needed to serve and protect the people) and witness the reinvigoration of true capitalism for the good for all.

reply to post by FyreByrd


The idea behind true anarchism the concept of a world without rulers. It doesn't mean that society wouldn't organize themselves, it just means no one would have the right to violently force someone to hand over their resources. That's all a free market is. Free market has become a concept that is linked to many different areas but in it's simplest form it is simply the right of a person to control themselves completely. Now does that mean that in a free market someone wouldn't work for someone else in exchange for something? No, it just means that the person he works for cannot force him/her to do the work at the threat of violence. It means no government exists (which of course are really just cartels that protect certain groups of people and their interests).

When you consider the human being as a unit of human capital then the free market as I said, is one's supreme right to control their own human capital as they see fit. Some people will build businesses that will hire others, some will work for others businesses...but no one points a gun at one another forcing cooperation.

This is of course a simplistic explanation, as with anything there are more books on free markets and anarchy than there are intelligent people in the U.S., but essentially it just boils down to control of oneself not control of others.

ColCurious
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Why do people always have to think in absolutes and extremes?

A form of libertarian Minarchism is the way to go, because it is capable of combining the best of all worlds.

The people in decentralised, independent, minarchistic States (not Countries) could choose their state to set up one important fiscal-political frame (as designed by Wilhelm Röpke):

To oblige employer associations and worker representatives to negotiate (autonomous of the state), as it is enshrined in the institutionalized settlement of conflicts in Germany today.

I like what you are saying here and a new word "Minarchsim" to boot. I've always been a fan of decentralization, something I read about 'The Rule of 150' or somesuch that seemed so true to my experiences of organizations.

And I admire the German Labor systems, they have brought a standard of living to people (and security) unheard of in most of the world. But all those things had to be imposed from outside. The Rules requiring two seats on every corporate board being reserved for labor didn't come from Corporations - they came (and the benefits to all) from government.

Not an expert - very interested - thank you.

OrphanApology
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

The idea behind true anarchism the concept of a world without rulers. It doesn't mean that society wouldn't organize themselves, it just means no one would have the right to violently force someone to hand over their resources. That's all a free market is. Free market has become a concept that is linked to many different areas but in it's simplest form it is simply the right of a person to control themselves completely. Now does that mean that in a free market someone wouldn't work for someone else in exchange for something? No, it just means that the person he works for cannot force him/her to do the work at the threat of violence. It means no government exists (which of course are really just cartels that protect certain groups of people and their interests).

When you consider the human being as a unit of human capital then the free market as I said, is one's supreme right to control their own human capital as they see fit. Some people will build businesses that will hire others, some will work for others businesses...but no one points a gun at one another forcing cooperation.

This is of course a simplistic explanation, as with anything there are more books on free markets and anarchy than there are intelligent people in the U.S., but essentially it just boils down to control of oneself not control of others.

I get that - but 'whose' resources? Aren't they really 'the planet's resources'? Private property is the root of all evil - to paraphase a popular phrase.

Then theres:

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . .Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?

en.wikipedia.org...!

The term "free market" is an oxymoron. If your labor, possessions, and person (your life) are commodified by society, you are not free in any meaningful sense of the word.

"Prostitution" comes to mind...

reply to post by FyreByrd


Private property is not the root of all evil, control is the root of all evil. Controlling others to be more specific.

Free-market is the right of each individual to have 100% control over their own unit of human capital. So if someone lays in bed all day and decides to drink alcohol instead of getting up at six a.m. to chop trees down, they are decidedly going to be worth less than someone who has collaborated and worked with other people to create an enterprise that makes paper. Neither has the right through law to control any one individual's human capital unit, that right exists solely with an individual.

When you say resource, a resource is anything you have burned up your human capital to obtain. So for instance, you have worked in the fields to store up corn without the help of anyone else, that corn is a direct trade with mother earth that you have made using your time sensitive personal unit of human capital (since we are not immortal, our human capital unit is worth quite a bit).

Rulers have realized that it is the human capital that is worth more than any other resource in the world. To own and control people means you control everything they create and trade their time and skills for (human capital). This of course is just the very basic understanding of the free-market, but to understanding any of the other areas this groundwork is necessary.

OrphanApology
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Private property is not the root of all evil, control is the root of all evil. Controlling others to be more specific.

Free-market is the right of each individual to have 100% control over their own unit of human capital. So if someone lays in bed all day and decides to drink alcohol instead of getting up at six a.m. to chop trees down, they are decidedly going to be worth less than someone who has collaborated and worked with other people to create an enterprise that makes paper. Neither has the right through law to control any one individual's human capital unit, that right exists solely with an individual.

When you say resource, a resource is anything you have burned up your human capital to obtain. So for instance, you have worked in the fields to store up corn without the help of anyone else, that corn is a direct trade with mother earth that you have made using your time sensitive personal unit of human capital (since we are not immortal, our human capital unit is worth quite a bit).

Rulers have realized that it is the human capital that is worth more than any other resource in the world. To own and control people means you control everything they create and trade their time and skills for (human capital). This of course is just the very basic understanding of the free-market, but to understanding any of the other areas this groundwork is necessary.

Hmm - I'll have to think about this a bit. I see how this applies to labor but am unsure about the resource or capital part of the equation. Thanks.

OrphanApology
Rulers have realized that it is the human capital that is worth more than any other resource in the world.

That's it in a nutshell really. The shiny stuff in the ground is worth nothing without the labour of the miner and the skill of the artisan.

ManOfHart
The free market does exist. It is the black market.

Very useful is the black market, keeps everything liquid.

(No regulation.) Except for the organized crime type.

Just as every other market then!