Double standards ahoy

[Emperor Rozenski]

Originally Posted by furball

I'd like to point out that the price rise is politically-motivated rather than part of a wonderful shift to the free market.

You don't think the fact that they've been paying $50 for a long time before now instead of the market rate was also a political decision?

[Miliukov]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I really don't see this as a useful analogy, mainly due to the fact that liberal democracy is a compound idea whereas the free market is singular.

Would you be so kind as to elabourate here? I don't claim to be an expert in either economics nor political theory and in both my experience in debate is even less substantial than my academic experience; though I think I know what you meant by this sentence, I'd like to be sure before attempting to defend my (somewhat ad hoc and likely flawed) analogy.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Miliukov

Would you be so kind as to elabourate here? I don't claim to be an expert in either economics nor political theory and in both my experience in debate is even less substantial than my academic experience; though I think I know what you meant by this sentence, I'd like to be sure before attempting to defend my (somewhat ad hoc and likely flawed) analogy.

Well libertarianism and democracy (specifically representative but that's not really important for this issue) are two separate ideas. Liberal democracy is the compound of these two. Constitutions may seem to conflict with pure democratic will because they are an expression and result of the former idea. When you're talking about the free market (or just 'market' because 'free market' is more a qualification indicating the absence of other aspects and influences rather than the inclusion of other things) you're talking of one single idea. The reason liberal democracy could have confllicting rules is simple, there's nothing necessarily logically contradictory about either liberalism or democracy. It's just two slightly conflicting systems. If the free market has conflicting rules there has to be something inherently wrong with the idea. That's why I don't think the analogy is useful.

[Miliukov]

My analogy has been as such been shot full of holes, and I will be withdrawing it as fallacy.

Are you implying that regulation (of any sort, including anti-trust and etcetera) is logically contradictory to libertarian economics?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Miliukov

Are you implying that regulation (of any sort, including anti-trust and etcetera) is logically contradictory to libertarian economics?

Sounds like fun, I think I will.

[Miliukov]

So, how do you account for stopping (or, at least, discouraging) suppliers in certain markets from polluting the atmosphere? Property rights are the solution commonly cited by libertarian economists, but in practise a somewhat flimsy means of preventing pollution. It would be extremely difficult for me to prove, realistically, that current industrial practises (bearing in mind that I do not live in an industrial area) are having a detrimental affect on the environment of my property in a court of law. And yet, I hope you'd agree, I will in fact be considerably worse off if the Ozone Layer is depleted to the point where I become significently more likely to contract skin cancer. The whole world (or at least the region affected by whatever Ozone Hole emerges as a result of this unrestrained pollutant emmission) will be considerably worse off. Litigating the corporations responsible into bankruptcy will provide no remedy; this is an phenomenon that must be prevented before it reaches such a level as to affect me as an individual directly. While this is a specific example, I would hope it capable of making my point.

[JonnyBGood]

Pollution is something which directly affects other people even if the amounts are very small. Unless the pollution you produce is going to remain on your property for eternity and never affect anyone else's you can legislate for it. It doesn't have to affect your property necessarily. The more general problem you seem to be trying to get at is "hay what if shit people do shit things?" This is just a problem people need to face up to. Destruction is always far easier than creation and unless you approach things from the perspective of individual responsibility you're always going to be facing into this problem. Plus I really wouldn't be too bothered by the end of civilisation. It'd amuse the hell out of me for one.



PS Who are you? Seriously here.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Emperor Rozenski

You don't think the fact that they've been paying $50 for a long time before now instead of the market rate was also a political decision?

Of course it was a political decision - everything done by a government or state-owned business is politically motivated.

As part of the break-up of the USSR, Russia sold its gas to the Soviet Union's other former states at greatly subsidised prices. Political.

Ukraine democratically allies itself with the West; Gazprom/Russia breaks its contract with Ukraine and demands higher prices. Political.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by furball

Ukraine democratically allies itself with the West; Gazprom/Russia breaks its contract with Ukraine and demands higher prices. Political.

Normal prices....

[furball]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Normal prices....

Not for Ukraine they're not. They're higher prices, i.e. higher than the status quo, higher than the price that Ukraine currently pays.

[Miliukov]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Pollution is something which directly affects other people even if the amounts are very small. Unless the pollution you produce is going to remain on your property for eternity and never affect anyone else's you can legislate for it. It doesn't have to affect your property necessarily. The more general problem you seem to be trying to get at is "hay what if shit people do shit things?" This is just a problem people need to face up to. Destruction is always far easier than creation and unless you approach things from the perspective of individual responsibility you're always going to be facing into this problem. Plus I really wouldn't be too bothered by the end of civilisation. It'd amuse the hell out of me for one.

Shit people do shit things, certainly, but in the context of economics and industry and pollution the problem isn't usually purely shit people doing things that are inherently shit; it's a collective group of people working in such a way as to produce an outcome that has shit by-products. No single one of them is individually responsible. Big business unregulated would allow a slight propensity toward shit found in a number of individuals to result in major shit for an awful lot of people; I would take the view that individual morality alone can't be relied on to prevent such activity. If it's not illegal then what can I do? Legislate? The only outcome that could remove my grievance would be regulation of the industries responsible, forcing them to cut their pollution outputs. This would take us out of an economy completely free of all regulation and into one that was at least partially regulated. Litigate? As you point out, the presence of pollution on my property is harmful, but in order to litigate effectively I would need to be able to determine who was responsible for the pollution affecting me. Sure, this might be easy if my house is right next to a coal plant, but if not then how can I know who to sue in the first place? I can't charge a criminal whose identity I do not know.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Who are you? Seriously here.

I used to have an account here (though I didn't post on GD). Having determined that internet forums were not a constructive use of my time I ceased my activity with said account and stopped coming onto the forums altogether for a time. Then I started lurking on this forum for a while and eventually (some months ago, if I recall) created this account to streamline the operation (and, having done this, seldom actually used it). I'm not entirely sure why I decided to reply to this thread.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Miliukov

Shit people do shit things, certainly, but in the context of economics and industry and pollution the problem isn't usually purely shit people doing things that are inherently shit; it's a collective group of people working in such a way as to produce an outcome that has shit by-products. No single one of them is individually responsible. Big business unregulated would allow a slight propensity toward shit found in a number of individuals to result in major shit for an awful lot of people; I would take the view that individual morality alone can't be relied on to prevent such activity. If it's not illegal then what can I do? Legislate? The only outcome that could remove my grievance would be regulation of the industries responsible, forcing them to cut their pollution outputs. This would take us out of an economy completely free of all regulation and into one that was at least partially regulated. Litigate? As you point out, the presence of pollution on my property is harmful, but in order to litigate effectively I would need to be able to determine who was responsible for the pollution affecting me. Sure, this might be easy if my house is right next to a coal plant, but if not then how can I know who to sue in the first place? I can't charge a criminal whose identity I do not know.

Some sort of randomly (I don't really mean this) determined pollution limit for the entire planet might be an amusing idea. I don't really see that as regulation per se. No more so than I'd see banning slavery as some sort of regulation against industry.

I used to have an account here (though I didn't post on GD). Having determined that internet forums were not a constructive use of my time I ceased my activity with said account and stopped coming onto the forums altogether for a time. Then I started lurking on this forum for a while and eventually (some months ago, if I recall) created this account to streamline the operation (and, having done this, seldom actually used it). I'm not entirely sure why I decided to reply to this thread.

A matter for the fates indeed.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Destruction is always far easier than creation and unless you approach things from the perspective of individual responsibility you're always going to be facing into this problem.

The commons called ; they want their tragedy back.

Monopolies will arise in a free market. This seems to be a given. Since we're presupposing the entire system on the idea that people will generally act in their own self interest it seems strange to imagine no-one who ever attains a monopoly will ever abuse this position. Hell, wouldn't you?

I fail to see how this is different from the more utopian communists out there who imagine human nature will alter to the point where people won't be selfish / be freeloaders / take advantage of others in the new regime. Except at least they're presupposing some sort of change first.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Normal prices....

Someone lives with their parents in a fairly nice area of town, and they charge him a very low £40 weekly rent because they know he isnt earning much money. One day he meets a girl of whom they dont approve, and after he refuses to break up with her, they decide to put his rent up to £150, which is roughly what other people staying in that area of town are paying. Now, you can argue that this is just a case of prices adjusting to market pressures, but I think its fairly obvious to everyone who isnt incredibly biased what is actually going on.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think monopolies are stable in a proper free market economy for one. I really don't think enough people realise I'm serious when I say I wouldn't mind seeing civilisation going down in flames though :(

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Monopolies will arise in a free market. This seems to be a given.

Not really, but it depends what you mean 'monopoly'. If you just want to define it as a company which has a greater than x% market share at time t, then of course youll have monopolies. But the onus is on you to explain why this is necessarily a bad thing - if a company consistently produces better products that its competitors, then it's going to drive them out of the market. So what?

Monopolies are only really a problem when they are protected from market forces by the state. And this sort of thing couldnt happen in a laissez-faire economy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Monopolies are only really a problem when they are protected from market forces by the state. And this sort of thing obviously wouldnt happen in a laissez-faire economy.

Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing - and I never said they were. I said they would abuse their position (not always, not necessarily even usually - but there would be instances when they would) and if you are denying the possibility of anti-trust laws then I'm not sure how you would deal with this situation. If indeed you would.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing - and I never said they were. I said they would abuse their position (not always, not necessarily even usually - but there would be instances when they would) and if you are denying the possibility of anti-trust laws then I'm not sure how you would deal with this situation. If indeed you would.

I dont think its at all clear how monopolies would abuse their position without antitrust, in ways which are significantly detrimental to society. The most topical example here is probably Microsoft - do you think that the antitrust suits have had any real effect? Would their elimination really have prevented the rise of linux/firefox/google/whatever?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The most topical example here is probably Microsoft - do you think that the antitrust suits have had any real effect? Would their elimination really have prevented the rise of linux/firefox/google/whatever?

It's pretty strange to examine laws simply at instances when they're broken - the vast majority of the influence of the law is in it's prevantitive not punitive effect.

But as for Microsoft, I'm not sure what effect the anti-trust suits have had. The alleged abuses of Microsoft seem to be relatively minor compared to something like Standard Oil, which (afaik) had a definitive effect on the wider economy.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's pretty strange to examine laws simply at instances when they're broken - the vast majority of the influence of the law is in it's prevantitive not punitive effect.

Well, I cant prove a negative here. If you want to argue that lack of antitrust would actually be a serious problem, then you'll need to produce specific cases.

"this rock keeps tigers away"

The alleged abuses of Microsoft seem to be relatively minor compared to something like Standard Oil, which (afaik) had a definitive effect on the wider economy.

Did it? I'm sure it sucked for Standard Oil's competitors, but I dont know if it had wider negative effects. Afaik the price of oil remained reasonable during this time, so its not like people were getting gouged all over the place. I find it difficult to believe that it would have made much difference in the longterm had Standard Oil not been broken up.

[Yahwe]

why did this nonsense reach two pages?