Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 May 2001 21:19:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
689 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you
> were going so I will reply.
Arrgh. I didn't delete my edits.
> 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.
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 those were indeed markets free
from all but the loosest govt. regulation, so in that sense they were self-
governing enterprises operating without the constraints of public benefit in
mind. They were free to fill their coffers by any means.
> > 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
Thats cool. All I can offer is responsible management; the only alternative is
monstrously complicated litigation.
james
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you were going so I will reply. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
