Are you saying that a laissez faire (a free, liberal market) is tantamount to anarchy which is then tantamount to an oligarchy?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
Why is a free market economy considered "good way to run things" but anarchy considered a "bad way to run things" ?
Because anarchy isnt controlled by the people in charge of the free market - the true dictators of this country, for example.
Why does the US government support big business (too big to fail) yet find oligarchies to be oppressive forms of governments?
Because the US government is Big Business. And they havent said anything about oligarchies in a negative way unless it's in the form of "Oh - we're not doing any of that!", heh heh, lie lie.
The terms are redefined by the powers running this country to suit their needs. We are post-1984, afterall.
Why is a free market economy considered "good way to run things" but anarchy considered a "bad way to run things" ?
Well, I think in this case the two represent something different with regards to "lack of political authority."
Sure the freemarket is supposed to be void of a governing body, but the freemarket doesn't actually reflect this. It is dictated by governing bodies by way of lobbyist and political support.
Anarchy would be the downfall of that, because it would place the control back in the hands of the people (the working class). Its also fair remember that many forms of anarchy are actually quite structured.
Why does the US government support big business (too big to fail) yet find oligarchies to be oppressive forms of governments?
Personally, I don't believe the government considers oligarchy a bad thing, when the government itself is an oligarchy? Now, they may consider other oligarchies bad, to give the appearence of concern, but that's only because they fear the competition.
In fact, many consider our government, not as a democracy, but as a plutocracy. Which is in fact a form of oligarchy.
quote:Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.
In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems.
Focusing on the major (and disproportionate) influence the wealthy have:
quote:The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy are said to have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government.".
Positive influence includes campaign contributions; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, bribes, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues. Recent examples include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK and the United States or the oil industry oligarchy, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, which may back right-leaning political action committees (PACs), as well as billionaire George Soros' efforts to influence US politics by backing left-leaning PACs.
It strikes me as ironic that our government would consider oligarchy oppressive, while showing all of the same signs of oligarchy in (what it calls) US politics and government.
Also, note how money influences both sides of the right/left spectrum. So it's not a right (republican) thing; it's a both party thing.
Are you saying that a laissez faire (a free, liberal market) is tantamount to anarchy which is then tantamount to an oligarchy?
The idealized free market certainly would not prevent the formation of oligarchies, and would likely encourage it as people accumulated wealth and then tried to protect it.
Well, I think in this case the two represent something different with regards to "lack of political authority."
Sure the freemarket is -->supposed --> to be void of a governing body, but the freemarket doesn't actually reflect this. It is dictated by governing bodies by way of lobbyist and political support.
Anarchy would be the downfall of that, because it would place the control back in the hands of the people (the working class). Its also fair remember that many forms of anarchy are actually quite structured.
I would say that the idealized free market is relatively indistinguishable from an anarchistic economy - it allows those that through talent, effort and sweat make things of value to the remaining society, and get justly rewarded for those efforts ... in theory.
In practice, I would not expect an idealized free market economy to last more than a couple of generations before you had inherited wealth and bully tactics interfering with the system, and leading to the formation of the oligarchies.
Personally, I don't believe the government considers oligarchy a bad thing, when the government itself -->is --> an oligarchy? Now, they may consider -->other --> oligarchies bad, to give the appearence of concern, but that's only because they fear the competition.
Ah yes - do as I say, not as I do diplomacy.
In fact, many consider our government, not as a -->democracy -->, but as a plutocracy -->plutocracy. Which is in fact a form of oligarchy.
Predicted by Dwight Eisenhower, iirc.
Also, note how money influences both sides of the right/left spectrum. So it's not a right (republican) thing; it's a -->both party --> thing.
Agreed, and there are members of both parties that try to work against this trend, back to the ideals of the constitutional fathers.
It strikes me as ironic that our government would consider oligarchy oppressive, while showing all of the same signs of oligarchy in (what it calls) US politics and government.
Most evident in the previous administration, but still with some effects on the current one.
The idealized free market certainly would not prevent the formation of oligarchies, and would likely encourage it as people accumulated wealth and then tried to protect it.
Well, let's look at that. We currently live in a semi-free market, but the difference between forms of rule aren't defined by their economy. We are considered a republic because we are ruled by laws, not necessarily people in power.
Secondly, since when is the accumulation of wealth and the protection of wealth considered a bad thing? You just described a bank which people deposit their money for safekeeping. Is that concept, on a base level, a bad thing?
This all sounds very Noam Chomskyish and I'm wondering where you are going with this.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
I would say that the idealized free market is relatively indistinguishable from an anarchistic economy - it allows those that through talent, effort and sweat make things of value to the remaining society, and get justly rewarded for those efforts ... in theory.
I think it is more than theoretical, it has been the reality for a long time now. I don't really understand what an "anarchistic economy" is. Should an economy be controlled and manipulated, and if so, wouldn't that theoretically have to be under the control of, say, an oligarchy?
In practice, I would not expect an idealized free market economy to last more than a couple of generations before you had inherited wealth and bully tactics interfering with the system, and leading to the formation of the oligarchies.
From whom?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
It has never been reality. It was pretty close in the late 19th century in the time of the robber barons and we see what happened then.
I guess we should define terms then since there are different levels of free marketing. There are some restrictions for consumer protection, which is a good thing. There are also anti-monopoly laws in place to prevent a company from essentially owning everything.
But for the most part, the market is free for anyone with some capital to start a company and compete.
What would you consider a free market?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
But for the most part, the market is free for anyone with some capital to start a company and compete.
I think you've got the basic definition right there.
Then, however, we have learned that we need to regulate the market.
You are not allowed to call your new company Ford Motor Company because it leads to consumer (and other) confusion.
You are not free to dump your waste products into the nearest river.
You are not free to lie to consumers.
You are free to compete and grow but only up to a point. We have learned that unfettered free competition slowly leads to too much power in too few hands. Monopolies are almost always a bad thing and if we need one it must be very highly regulated.
and we can and must keep adding to the controls we exert as part of the price of working within our society.
I am not one who thinks that governments have demonstrated an ability to actually execute many things very well. However, it is very clear from history that we need clear, extensive and strongly enforced regulations for the good of society as a whole.
we have learned that we need to regulate the market.
You are not allowed to call your new company Ford Motor Company because it leads to consumer (and other) confusion.
You are not free to dump your waste products into the nearest river.
You are not free to lie to consumers.
You are free to compete and grow but only up to a point. We have learned that unfettered free competition slowly leads to too much power in too few hands. Monopolies are almost always a bad thing and if we need one it must be very highly regulated.
and we can and must keep adding to the controls we exert as part of the price of working within our society.
I am not one who thinks that governments have demonstrated an ability to actually execute many things very well. However, it is very clear from history that we need clear, extensive and strongly enforced regulations for the good of society as a whole.
Free marketeers advocate consumer protection against fraud and the like. They also believe, however, that the most effective means of controlling a company is merely against government regulation but the people themselves -- the consumers.
Businesses know that if they don't appeal to their marketed targets, they lose revenue to their competition. The market itself is what drives prices and what drives quality. It is through the act of competing that the consumer enjoys the highest quality for the lowest price. There is no other economic incentive more compelling.
But I wholly agree that limited regulation for the protection of consumers, the rights of animals, or for ecological reasons are vitally important.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
Free marketeers advocate consumer protection against fraud and the like. They also believe, however, that the most effective means of controlling a company is merely against government regulation but the people themselves -- the consumers.
Excellent in theory. But it didn't work and doesn't work.
™ Version 4.2