Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 May 2001 20:50:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
671 times
|
| |
|
|
You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you
were going so I will reply.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> A problem that I have with allowing "market morals" to uphold standards
> is that one only has to look at what unregulated industry has wrought at
> every opportunity that its been given. IMO, free market (im)morals
> produce the kinds of unregulated robber-baron piracy so intimately
> associated with the rise of large-scale industry.
I think we have to define what a free market is and establish if, indeed
your example is an example of a free market or not, before using it to
indict the free market.
> 19th century
> industrialists basically operated in an unregulated market environment:
> very little regulation, very little govt.
> oversight,
very little != none...
> and much graft.
Graft! Well, then... We're all done!
Graft implies government participation in restraint of free entry or in
protecting industries from law enforcement.
THEREFORE: Not a free market.
> When profit-driven industries (i.e., corporations)
> are allowed to operate with basically self-regulating oversight, then you
> canbet that the only interests served are those of the stockholders...not
> consumers, not their workers, and not the environment. It seems to me
> that the 19th century was an exercise of "market morals" economics.
To you, yes, but not to me. See above.
However I am open to the charge of Dave! To wit, that I am claiming benefits
of free markets (we had the cheapest oil we ever had at the height of the
Standard Oil "monopoly") while at the same time claiming that these weren't
actually free markets after all.
But this isn't where I wanted to go, I was hoping to see some discussion
about how we actually can handle the (risk to) migratory animal problem
since actually owning them won't work easily.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Arrgh. I didn't delete my edits. (...) No, it wasn't "free" in the sense that it was a market in which entrepreneurs enjoyed the ability to pursue wealth without the debilitating presence of official corruption inherent to the system, but (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) The closest we have come to a free market in modern times was Hong Kong before it was handed back to China. (...) Wrong. You have the cheapest pump prices. In environmental terms, what is the cost of cheap oil? Effectively, cheap oil means we (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) A problem that I have with allowing "market morals" to uphold standards is that one only has to look at what unregulated industry has wrought at every opportunity that its been given. IMO, free market (im)morals produce the kinds of (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
