Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 May 2001 07:38:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2125 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.
>
> 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.
The closest we have come to a free market in modern times was Hong Kong
before it was handed back to China.
>
> > 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"
Wrong. You have the cheapest pump prices. In environmental terms, what is
the cost of cheap oil? Effectively, cheap oil means we are fiddling while
Rome burns.
Scott A
> ) 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
|
| (...) I'm probably in the ultra-minor minority of Americans who would like to pay for the real price of oil- mainly to reflect the true environmental costs. I don't mind paying the currently high prices but, I think I'v unintentially deluded myself (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
