I'm questioning the Free Market (unusual)

[JoeyD]

I think she's right. Monopolies were forming naturally in the late 1800s shortly after industrialization had begun, until a centralized entity stepped in to break them up. TPTB will always act in their own best interests regardless of the situation, regardless of what it takes to ensure the continued prosperity of them and their family; having a desperate labor force is in their own best interests.

A little ways down the road from the late 1800s comes the roaring twenties. Look how that panned out. The rich didn't give a fuck, it took a whole new deal to get that shit straightened out.

Look at the plutonomy that's forming today, those people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire (unless you're one of them). If you disagree take a sabbatical and work any job that doesn't require a bachelor's or higher (and live off only that). Unless you live in a country that really has their shit together that should drive the point home.

It comes down to a matter of liberty vs. rights and some rights, which wouldn't be enforced in a 100% free market, need to be enforced. Those pitchforks are important. My fear is that technology will give them an upper hand they didn't have in previous generations.

Well said. I admire the libertarian viewpoint and think society and economics can learn a lot from it. But being one of the only non-libertarians on this board, I have argued often that a complete lack of regulation would lead to inequity. If no one were greedy or power hungry, then presumably it would work, but human nature gets in the way. If there's no government that can meaningfully enforce basic rights and equity, then we simply have mafias and drug cartels and billionaires substituting their own wisdom and muscle. Give me democracy with all its flaws and we'll work to improve it. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

Yeah, I hate big governments, but on the other hand I haven't come up with a way to do away with government alltogether. Unless we go back to the the hunter gatherer livestyle.

But I also share the fear for monopolies and have been unable to come up with a way to prevent them forming in a true free market. Maybe there can be law or principles enforced on the blockchain, where when a company gets too big and powerful it's forcibly broken up. But I don't believe that would actually work in real life as the power of the blockchain doesn't extend outside of the blockchain in the physical world. So for now I don't believe a true free market solution is viable without some form of government. Governments are not the inventors of slavery not by a long shot and getting rid of government will not solve enslavement and force, quite the opposite from what I've seen from history and market reactions. Companies like Apple and Ikea benefit quite a bit from the modern version of slavery.

One very poignant example I heard is that the factory workers for Apple-products are now monitored to restrain them from being able to commit suicide. Wow, you can't even kill yourself to get away from that.

[donkeypong]

I think she's right. Monopolies were forming naturally in the late 1800s shortly after industrialization had begun, until a centralized entity stepped in to break them up. TPTB will always act in their own best interests regardless of the situation, regardless of what it takes to ensure the continued prosperity of them and their family; having a desperate labor force is in their own best interests.

A little ways down the road from the late 1800s comes the roaring twenties. Look how that panned out. The rich didn't give a fuck, it took a whole new deal to get that shit straightened out.

Look at the plutonomy that's forming today, those people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire (unless you're one of them). If you disagree take a sabbatical and work any job that doesn't require a bachelor's or higher (and live off only that). Unless you live in a country that really has their shit together that should drive the point home.

It comes down to a matter of liberty vs. rights and some rights, which wouldn't be enforced in a 100% free market, need to be enforced. Those pitchforks are important. My fear is that technology will give them an upper hand they didn't have in previous generations.

Well said. I admire the libertarian viewpoint and think society and economics can learn a lot from it. But being one of the only non-libertarians on this board, I have argued often that a complete lack of regulation would lead to inequity. If no one were greedy or power hungry, then presumably it would work, but human nature gets in the way. If there's no government that can meaningfully enforce basic rights and equity, then we simply have mafias and drug cartels and billionaires substituting their own wisdom and muscle. Give me democracy with all its flaws and we'll work to improve it. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

[lil_jay890]

Dude here's your problem... U say she is a PhD student. This means her opinions have already been formed (most likely by her centralized instructors)... Unless you say something that is in line with what she has been taught, it will be disregarded.  Anything that you say that disagrees with her education that she has overpaid thousands of dollars for will make her feel insecure and minute, therefore she will reject anything you say unless it was already her preconceived opinion.

[Tuck Fheman]

I was going to say all of this, but then I found out this guy said it first ...
https://mises.org/library/market-and-distribution-wealth
 

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

I think she's right. Monopolies were forming naturally in the late 1800s shortly after industrialization had begun, until a centralized entity stepped in to break them up. TPTB will always act in their own best interests regardless of the situation, regardless of what it takes to ensure the continued prosperity of them and their family; having a desperate labor force is in their own best interests.

A little ways down the road from the late 1800s comes the roaring twenties. Look how that panned out. The rich didn't give a fuck, it took a whole new deal to get that shit straightened out.

Look at the plutonomy that's forming today, those people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire (unless you're one of them). If you disagree take a sabbatical and work any job that doesn't require a bachelor's or higher (and live off only that). Unless you live in a country that really has their shit together that should drive the point home.

It comes down to a matter of liberty vs. rights and some rights, which wouldn't be enforced in a 100% free market, need to be enforced. Those pitchforks are important. My fear is that technology will give them an upper hand they didn't have in previous generations.

[CLains]

Part of the libertarian appeal is that one doesn't pretend to have some specific solution in mind, as that would already be to presuppose a monolithic imposition. In practice though the statists tend to reverse the dialectic to a situation where you have to give positive proof that freedom will produce results, by giving a constructivist demonstration that this or that problem will be dealt with. If you turn the table you can ask them to prove that a given solution is the optimal one - perhaps they will say majority rule is the "least worst" option. It then comes down to a matter of principles and rights on the one hand, and how pessimistic/optimistic one is in seeking out better solutions on the other.

[Permie]

I was talking to a Health Economics PHD student and we had a lengthy discussion about the nature of society and how I believe that the Free Market will solve all problems better than a centralized entity (the state).

One point she raised that I hadn't considered is that even if the average health of the population improved, a large wealth disparity will still cause resentment and bitterness which results in higher stress levels and worse illnesses. She thinks wealth disparity will be just as bad or worse in a free market, as the people are not 'guaranteed' an education and a baseline level of healthcare.

I'm sticking to my guns, or rather, sticking to my non-violent principles and still think the Free Market can solve this problem better.
I can't come up with a specific answer as a rebuttal but I do think that lower barriers to entry will allow more people to make profit solving problems.
Can somebody articulate why a free market will produce a better-off society and reduce wealth disparity to the 'optimum' level?
If every system to run a country was tested, I'm confident that Free Market Anarchy would be the best but I can't always explain why.
"Innovation" and "because a swarm of intelligent and free humans will do it better than an exclusive group (government)" don't always cut it as good enough answers for her.

Help me show her the way