It's funny that these are all practices that are thriving under the highly regulated state. Doesn't it stand to reason that the state is responsible? I mean, how can you blame the free market when there isn't one?
This video ignores the fundamental reality that all of these practices existed at various points in time. These are not theories that developed independent of reality. They are concepts that emerged through the "free market."
By definition something that exists (or existed) is not a myth. These practices are far less likely today then they used to be. However, to say that they are pure myth is remarkably ignorant of history.
We have never really had a free market, governments create monopolies through regulations, copyright etc... Your argument is invalid.
Example, you need to go to a special school to get a license to cut hair professionally, for around $10,000. Established businesses lobbied for this, to cut out upstart competition for a profession that, in reality, isn't complex or dangerous.
When it comes down to your dishwasher example I think you should look into a movie called 'The Lightbulb Conspiracy' - its on youtube and free to view (about an hour long). It looks into the problem of planned obsolescence in the market and shows examples of how things such as printers and, as the name suggests, lightbulbs have been designed to be WORSE in their performance (in regards to longevity) for the purposes of increased profits. If you create a product that never fails, you sell only 1.
@Frederiknshansen That is not true. Allow me to use the T.V. example. You probably have seen a standard resolution T.V. But not much anymore. Why? Because consumers like spending money. They spent their money on "HD" T.V.s, even though their SDTV worked perfectly fine, lo and behold!! There is a new market. On your light bulb theory. People bought the CFLs even though their standard bulbs worked fine. People like to spend their money.
@Frederiknshansen toyotas and hondas are frequently ranked as the most reliable cars. We all know people who own toyotas and hondas with 200,000+ miles on them. Therefore toyotas and hondas should be the worst selling cars, right? No. People recognize that for any significant investment that they want to get as much use out of it as possible. Even on cheap goods like hammers you will see people placing value on long-lasting steel and fiberglass handled hammers. the market works.
@gigahertz123 but you have to constantly maintain the machine to work so youre in debt forever until you cant afford to buy replacement parts and breaks down or you have an accident and toyota and honda recently have been putting dangerous faulty units by the millions on the market
following logic of this radio, "truly free market" does not have intelectual property defending law, truly free market does not have oligopolies etc. so THERE IS NO FREE MARKET in the whole world and THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN SUCH SYSTEM IN HISTORY
@Thorsupremecommander Not long ago every society had a god-king who ruled by decree. Then some smart people figured out that this was probably not the best way to run a country.
sources;as I mentioned I think Chomsky does a wonderful job of exposing the flaws of free market thinkers. Further, one only need read the father of free market thinkers, Adam Smith and actually pay attention to what he said..The free market can only function properly when there is perfect liberty and equality for all. Marx is the same. It's all predicated on these mythical "ideal situations". When these ideas trickle down to people like Friedman or Stalin and implemented they become disasters.
I've heard of Chomsky, but have never read his work. I would caution that, while many who study economics read Smith, no free market thinker considers Smith as free market (he had several flaws and, in one of his three chapters on value, describes what can be seen as proto-Marxian concepts); he was influential nonetheless. Friedman is not considered free market by AnCaps either. If you are interested in free market thought, though, I would recommend Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
It's all qualified by the statement "in a truly free market"....
And with that statement you instantly render all further arguments meaningless....because a "truly free market"...is by it's own very nature..a meaningless statement.
@Goodatconnect4 because it's an impossibility......a fantasy....a utopian dream. Every bit as much as communism. The problem with all the "isms" (except for one) is that they try to sell you a perfect end point. Much in the same way as religion tries to sell you an answer that wraps up all the unknowns into a neat understandable package. Well humanity and it's social constructs are not predictable in any way. The free market is NOT a "natural force". It's a creation of man
@doublestrokeroll (Out of curiosity, what is that exceptional "ism"?) There is a science that is dedicated to the study of human action -praxeology- from which economics is based, that you may find interesting. While the results of human action, certainly, cannot be predicted quantitatively, there are many qualitative behaviors that can be logically deduced.
Would you recommend some sources where argument is elaborated (articles, books, videos)?
@Goodatconnect4 Anarchism. Although it comes in many different flavors the crux of anarchism as I understand it is that it recognizes that life is about the struggle against authority. As Chomsky says to "expand the scope of freedom". People are often frustrated by anarchist philosophies because when they ask "how would it work" the answers are vague. But that's the point. Anarchism isn't trying to sell you a point where everything "works out for all". It accepts uncertainty.
Regarding the roots of the term anarchy, it's about dissolution of hierarchies. Some anarchists (Anarcho-Syndicalists, Left Libertarians, Anarcho-Communists, etc.) consider this to mean the absolute dissolution of all hierarchical relationships- voluntarily entered or not. I've also heard it elaborated as "arch" meaning "state" and "an" meaning "against."
I've heard this objection as similar to the old "But how will the crops be picked without slaves?" Who knew machines would do it one day? ;)
@sikok93453 There is a strong incentive structure to make them break ranks. The individual interest in the profits from undercutting the other colluders (even if just a little bit) is bigger than the collective interest in collusion. Public Choice and Game Theories explain this process easily.
Cartels have tended to socialize their costs and price fix with strong Government help in order to survive. Attempted trusts that tried to work with out Govt. help were unstable and broke quickly.
@Chaos511 lol strong incentive is a idealistic hoax - in isolated markets (which the majority of markets would be) with a barrier to entry (isolated by geography for the most part) - there is the incentive of "rational self interest" to collude with others in the same industry - win/win for everyone involved
with a finite area of land, this becomes more profound - or would farm land not be restricted in this regard? e.g. we start farming on the moon
And to add one more thing (Jesus fuck i've sent too many posts here, damn 500 char limit): The economy wasn't redesigned according to Friedman's specifications, at all he didn't even act as an advisor to Pinochet.
Friedman spent six days in there to give some lectures and met with Pinochet for 45 minutes. He was offered a job and Govt. funding in there but he turned them down and went back to the US. He later sent a letter to Pinochet telling him to control inflation.
@philfromearth As for the Shock Doctrine, i admit to have not read it fully, but it has a lot of food for thought. America did indeed try to put it's policies as a shock on places suffering disaster.
The thing is: The LAST thing that the IMF and World Bank did around the world was spread genuine free-market policies, they spreaded a form of pro-US Corporatism, not real free markets. Few places had genuine pro-market policies and even they had rocky transitions (such as inflation in Chile).
@philfromearth So make Hayek's definitions clearer: To the Austrian School, man acts to pursue his goals. Regardless of wheter the goal is greedy or altruist, they are both his "Self-Interest", altruism IS a form of self-interest and man pursues it. By freely exchanging in the market to pursue his goal, he creates a profit to everyone.
Hayek was just making a Smithian argument that free exchanged benefit everyone, NOT making an argument against Altruism or saying it is bad for society.
this video misses out a key phrase - "in an ideal world".
the undercutting argument i simply cannot agree with. you just have to look at the Tesco effect. for what its worth, here's my 2 cents - the day after the independent music store in my town closed down, Tesco (who had recently expanded their store to include music, this hammering the final nail in the music store's coffin), jacked up the prices of its CDs. Tesco is so large that a small independent store is beyond small fry
Every single one of these refutations can be easily refuted, this is nothing more than market apologetics. Call a spade a spade, your position on or in the market is irrelevant, some arguments are just bad arguments.
Planned Obsolescence - This one shouldn't even need to be explained, it's a standard business model in several industries. Describing it as "Companies cripple products in order to sale more" is a straw man of the practice. In any industry where a company holds sufficient property rights to control the industry or a sufficient advantage over the market, planned obsolescence is just good business, and companies can always sell newer and better models.
Undercutting - Ignores the fact that larger companies are often able to produce goods on a more massive scale and more effeciently, thus giving them the ability to lower prices. Ignores the fact that these companies can take advantage of the failure of competition to monopolize the visible, accessible market place thus rigging against competition. Ignores that large companies may undercut in one area and increase prices in another. ect.
@Laughingblades This argument of undercutting ignores the fact that there are dis-economies of scale: In economics there is an "optimum" firm size in each industry, and the bigger a firm is past it, the more calculational problems appear in it's internal pricing system, and it produces goods LESS efficiently. Firms than either have to cut back (and face competititon) or socialize the costs of the diseconomies with Govt. subsidies.
Monopoles - Ignoring the fact these companies often exist in real, physical locations on the map, that they can control access to the market, infrastructure, and goods, and that with each acquisition they can in theory expand their shares, get new investors, and increase their ability to generate raw material wealth
Collusion - Assumes the companies are in the same business, and that they are not owned by the same people...
@Laughingblades Monopolies - Yes, in theory they have the ability to generate more material wealth, but there is a large gap between production and profit, and it's within this gap that they will start to fail. Sure, they can produce more, but their cost will be weighed down with all of that debt, and any investor would be able to see the problem there. I can't speak for all actors, but it would seem like more rational to invest in the small, debt free, and competitive company.
@2daewoo4u In theory and practice, monopolies have existed, they do exist, and they always will exist. The elimination of regional monopolies is impossible under any system.
@Laughingblades Collusion - How do companies who aren't in the same business collude? In the given example, that would just mean there are 5 companies in separate industries with high prices, so nothing is preventing competition. Yes, it assumes they are not owned by the same people...because it's an example of collusion...not a monopoly. If it were owned by the same people...that wouldn't be an example of collusion.
@2daewoo4u Companies that aren't in the same business collude by supporting eachother's business and helping facilitate eachother's stranglehold over the market. Seriously just look at the Bilderberg Group and the deals these businesses make with eachother. This "Collusion doesn't work" nonsense is refuted by reality.
The only place this free market bs has ever been tried has been dictatorships like Chili. It didn't work there why would it work any where else? Milton Friedman, the guru of free markets, was a pretty sinister character as was his mentor Fredrick Hayek. Hayek believed that stability of the society and economy relied on suspicion, mistrust and people acting in their own self interest. Altruism, social conscience, self sacrifice and empathy only served to weaken the society and the economy.
The only place this free market bs has ever been tried has been dictatorships, like Chili. It didn't work there why would it work any where else? Milton Friedman, the guru of free markets, was a pretty sinister character as was his mentor Fredrick Hayek. Hayek believed that stability of the society and economy relied on suspicion, mistrust and people acting in their own self interest. Altruism, social conscience, self sacrifice and empathy only served to weaken the society and the economy.
@philfromearth Chile had a very rocky and problematic transition to freer markets due to the high inflation and mal-investment of previous administrations having to be lowered and liquidated. Things eventually stabilized though, and today it i the freest economy in South America, it has the highest living standards and the highest growth in all of South America and has had it for decades. I know it because i AM South American.
@Chaos511 Allende nationalized several industries including the telephone company (owned by the US monopoly, ATT). This action caused a reaction by the CIA who, in trying to protect American financial interests, set about destabilizing the Chilean economy. Milton Friedman trained Chilean economists at the Universe of Chicago in the theories of the free market and when Pinochet overthrew the government those economists set about redesigning the economy according to Friedman's specifications.
@philfromearth The Chilean economy was already destabilized by Allende himself, nationalizations and increasing money supply fucked it up and began to create mal-investments. Friedman didn't go to Chile because he was a sinister guy trying to exploit the people, he went there because he believed that higher economic freedom would increase the standard of living of the people and would help to bring democracy and political freedoms back. He was trying to lower the evil of the dictatorship.
@philfromearth But to make one thing clear, i'm not some naive moron who thinks the CIA didn't fuck up Chile and thinks the dictatorship was a good thing, no. American Imperialism did do a lot to fuck the world. But personal attacks on Friedman are something i do not accept (even though i'm not exactly his biggest fan), the Chicago School was one small light of freedom inside the dark and chaotic mess of the Pinochet regime.
@Chaos511 The Pinochet regime ruled with an iron hand. The liquidation of public assets widened the gulf between the wealthy and the poor and remained that way throughout his regime. Allende's economy didn't stand a chance against the economic manipulation of the US. This left the door open for Pinochet and his Friedman economists . Yes, Friedman is a sinister character.
@philfromearth Allende's own policies were already destroying Chile. And again, in the beggining the free-market reforms caused problems: Resources had to be re-allocated to other uses, and Pinochet did a lot of inflation and failed to stabilize the money supply for a long time.
But Free-Market reforms always only show positive results in the Long-Term. And in the long term, Chile's economy not only stabilized but is one of the best in South America.
@philfromearth Also, i don't want to be rude, but you are being really fucking ignorant about Friedman and Hayek alike.
First, Friedman was never a "sinister character", and Hayek was never his fucking mentor AT ALL, they were from different schools of thought and disagreed often. And Hayek NEVER argued altruism and self sacrifice were bad for society AT ALL, in fact in all of his writings he stresses the importance of social cooperation.
You are spreading bullshit lies about Hayek, stop it.
@philfromearth I watched it. I can see how it can fool someone unfamiliar with Hayek's whole body of work and his definitions. When he was arguing about "self-interest", he was making the Smithian argument that acting on his interest man will produce what others desire. Altruism isn't factored as separate from self-interest as altruism is a form of self-interest, it is in your interest to help others. Also i love how they called him an aristocrat and put evil-sounding music in.
@Chaos511 I suggest you read "The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Kline. Unlike most of the people I debate with on You Tube, you seem intelligent enough to understand this book. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
Sure, markets have some properties that would allow simple idiot companies to preserve freedom, but it is incredibly easy to usurp these natural forces using things like economies of scale, brand loyalty, geographical monopoly, artificial difference (like how apply can sell inferior products for more, and still people buy them). The fact is, you are wrong.
4. There are only like 5-10 companies that sell dishwashers, and they all have similar quality etc, in the same ways prices can remain high, because the only competition is arbitrary and crappy, and brand loyalty.
3. Undercutting is possible because of Economies of scale, something totally ignored by this retarded fucking video. Walmart can have lower prices with higher profits while a small company with higher prices can be taking a loss just to be competitive.
2. ollusion (pooling) happens all the fucking time in this market right now, why? Easy, because lowering prices does not actually make people switch, due to brand loyalty. People don't actually switch, and the company that lowers prices only loses profits, and gains nothing. So what happens is they raise prices back up with no issue.
@ChrisSudlik In response to point 2. It's actually basic game theory. If the companies are rational and free of government interference, they will all collude to raise prices. If they are smart, they will even create a private agency to help ensure that they all stay in line. Heck, OPEC is a brilliant example of how natural oligopolies collude to great personal benefit, without even needing any brand loyalty.
Somebody posted this on my wall, and I have to say it is absolutely fucking retarded. It will take multiple comments to explain why each point is wrong, so bear with me here: 1. monopolies can exist easily because of economies of scale. A bigger company can have lower prices and higher profits than a small company. It can easily buy up other companies without any of the problems listed by this video. Larger companies have lower administrative costs, get discounts for bulk purchase, etc.
@NINBNIN Just leave govt out of economic affairs, better still - abolish the state! Funny...as economies have become more regulated the more problems we have. Just a coincidence perhaps...
The problem with TVP is that it relies on "experts" & technocrats doing all the right things & making decisions for the masses & since TVP talks so much about Fed, they should know that "experts" coming together & doing all the right things on behalf of the people always ends in a plutocracy with enormous power just like Fed has. So again, freedom & people making choices for themselves works way better of doing things than communism-incarnate that TVP is.
"The problem with TVP is that it relies on "experts" & technocrats doing all the right things"
The difference being those "experts" can back up what they say. The "experts" we're talking about are scientists, engineers, technicians, etc... Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone is equally correct. I'd much rather trust a group that must prove what they say rather than a group who can get away with making empty promises. Plus, education ensures everyone can participate.
i don't agree with anything that this video says. Somehow it's assuming vital details that don't necessarily have to be that way and applying tons of logic after that, to make it look like it makes sense.
The monopoly example is a load of baloney. You don't have to buy up your competitors to reach a dominant position in a market, you just have to have a company that is consistently more profitable. Once you reach a dominant position, you can choose to buy up competitors, but you're going to get them at a cheaper rate as they're weaker, especially if they're desperate. if they choose not to take your deal, you simply price them out of the market (products get cheaper manufactured in bulk). Simple.
@blahdelablah Even a consistently more profitable company producing a more dominant position in the market is constrained from monopolizing and thus gouging the consumer. The consumer can choose to purchase less or not at all, which lowers profits, which causes shareholders to dump their shares for another company. Or, the company faces the problem of a new good or service entering the market which bankrupts the "monopolist," i.e. electric cars displacing oil-run cars (the monopoly).
The average consumer does not base their purchasing decisions on whether a company is becoming too large. Microsoft is a classic example, people dislike the influence they have, but yet still buy Xboxes, and Office, and Windows, etc... Irrational purchasing decisions rule the market, if they didn't then marketing would have little effect. As for emerging threats, large companies are in a position to shift with the market, and overpower smaller companies with increased R&D spending.
@blahdelablah To me, the Microsoft complaints are tantamount to people complaining about Walmart as they continue to shop there. Microsoft has been losing market share over the last decade as better and more creative products/companies compete with them. I find it amusing hearing about everyone else's "irrational" purchasing behavior (whatever that means). Larger firms have to deal with fussy shareholders, greater overhead, the threat of new products and technologies - unless they use the gov't.
Yes, Walmart is another good example. People campaign against Walmart before they open a new store, and then turn around and use that store after it launches. If you don't understand irrational purchasing decisions then you need to look into it, it's key to understand that a better product is not the only factor that drives buying decisions, otherwise Cowon would be the market leader in MP3 players, not Apple. Apple is a marketing master, but they do not always make better products.
@blahdelablah To me, it's not irrational purchasing behavior, it's irrational reasoning. If other people dissected every purchase you and I make, I'm sure they would compile their own subjective list of "irrational" buys. But, what does that really mean? Nothing but conjecture. The reality with Walmart is people value goods at lower prices than keeping a Mom and Pop in business. That's not irrational at all, but a calculated purchasing decision to pay less as opposed to paying more.
You're getting confused because you're not picking up I'm discussing two separate factors:
1. Monopolies aren't usually resisted at the cash register.
2. People don't buy stuff for purely rational reasons, like getting a superior product for their needs.
If you attempt to combine these then no wonder you're getting confused. You seem more interested in point 2 so using the iPod/Cowon example, why would someone pay more money for an inferior product? It's marketing at work IMO.
@blahdelablah So define what an irrational purchase is so I can understand better. Is this an objective value? Is buying a meal at McDonald's "irrational"? By which criteria?
Monopolies are CREATED at the cash register. Sure, marketing could be a reason for buying an inferior product, but it could also be convenience. It could be that you don't intend to use it for than a day and so paying more doesn't make sense. It could be availability or access. It could be a lot of reasons.
A rational purchasing decision would be one where you weighed up all of your options and chose what was best for your real needs. Note that I say real needs, these aren't the needs that companies tell you are your needs.
Yes, monopolies are created at the cash register, but that only backs up my point. What I said was that monopolies are not (by and large) resisted at the cash register. If they're not resisted where they are created, then what's stopping the creation of monopolies?
@blahdelablah Not to be difficult, but I'm still not getting an answer to my question. What is a "real" need as opposed to a "fake" one? What criteria is used to measure that? If I go to McDonald's an order a Big Mac, how do we know whether this is a need being met, e.g. eating, happiness, nostalgia, whatever vs. McDonald's ads telling me to go there?
If monopolies are created at the cash register, what would stop them is not buying from them. But, we don't which means we choose so voluntarily
Beyond the basics in life, most needs are artificial. Artificial needs are more accurately termed as desires/wants. These desires are created out of a mixture of our own ideas and ideas from others. The point I've been trying to make is that people by and large are not rational with their purchasing decisions, their reasons for buying something do not factor in what is important (maintaining a fair economy, for example), but rather their own impulses, which are open to manipulation.
@blahdelablah Ok, so basics in life I will presume are food, water, air, and shelter. Do intangible needs count, such as love, friendship, happiness, etc.? If they do, then would a massage, or watching a movie, and having a cup of coffee with a friend be considered desires or needs? If we're talking just tangible things, what is the acceptable amount of food one should eat? Just enough to functionally survive or to thrive optimally? Wouldn't knowledge of optimal nutrition come from others?
"Ok, so basics in life I will presume are food, water, air, and shelter."
Where did I say this? You should stop jumping to conclusions. As for human connections (for which there is a clear natural need for), money doesn't bring us these connections, the shared experiences we have to pay for are a reflection of the money-driven society we live in. Compare the connection we feel through a good conversation and seeing a film, does the money needed for the film enhance the experience?
@blahdelablah Ok, I just assumed any rational argument about a survival need would have to start with food, air, water, and shelter. Correct me where I'm wrong. What are the basics that you were speaking of?
I'm not suggesting money buys happiness. I'm just saying money is often used in the process of an experience we enjoy. We can enjoy a movie with a spouse (a happiness-bearing experience), but we pay for the movie. Is this considered meeting a need (happiness) or an "unnecessary want"?
With regards to the main difference between needs and wants, I would say needs are from nature, wants are from nurture. Using the cinema example, there is a need for human connection inbuilt, but our want/desire to go to the cinema is a learnt behaviour. Our learnt behaviour is informed by our nature, but it is also informed by the society we live in. That isn't to say that we shouldn't enjoy going to the cinema, I certainly do, but I recognise it isn't a need. Does that make sense?
@blahdelablah With all due respect, you seem like a nice guy, I'm still not getting an answer here. What you're telling me are vagueries and abstractions. You said "beyond the basics in life, most needs are artificial." What are the basics in life? Give me some specifics, not "basics come from nature." That's merely an abstraction. If seeing the movie meets a need: happiness (ignoring many other possible reasons), where is the line drawn between meeting the need vs. the want?
Firstly, would like to thank you for your civility, it's refreshing to meet someone on YouTube that can disagree with you without resorting to personal attacks. I think you're missing what I'm saying because I'm implying it's not a case of black vs. white, there are shades of grey. Let me use a new example. You want to buy a bigger TV, why? It could enhance your TV watching entertainment. Your drive (nature) is for happiness, your decision (nurture) is born by learning to enjoy TV.
@blahdelablah I agree that lack of civility is frustrating and tends to come out when one's argument goes awry. I respect you for not resorting to that as well. I get what you're saying regarding the drives for doing things. What I'm saying is you're talking in abstractions. When you apply them to real life practical examples, there is no rational or logical way to deduce a need from a want. If I go to a movie, how do you KNOW it's media programming me as opposed to filling a need?
"If I go to a movie, how do you KNOW it's media programming me as opposed to filling a need?"
You don't know, simply because we are all partly products of our environment. No man is an island, and to truly understand our true nature we would have to be studied in isolation from external influences. However, this whole need/want thing is not my central argument, I'm arguing that we are influenced, at least in part, by the agendas that companies have.
@blahdelablah If you say wants are from nurture, then I ask you how you know that, you say you don't know, then you should go back and revise that statement. If you were to say, the reasons we know wants are from nurture are xyz, then we have something to work with. But you can't say that because you admit there's no objective value for separating a need vs. a want. If we are influenced "companies' agendas" and you know it's destructive, then choose one you know is more productive.
You misunderstand me. Wants are from nurture, but we're talking about the difference between knowing someone's actions and knowing someone's motives. The same action can have different motives, depending on the individual. Just because you can't say with 100% certainty what influences someones motives, that does not mean the motives don't exist. If you meet someone, you don't know what they're thinking, but that doesn't mean they're not thinking, capiche?
@blahdelablah@passerby26 Thank you guys for a nice discussion and a very good read, have you had some follow up discussions I can read? I really liked your comments!
@blahdelablah Abstractions don't actually mean anything. It's like me saying, "we just need to make people good and the world will be fine." Well, what does good mean? You have to define the terms and use some examples. Just as a "group" or a "team" is nothing more than a collection of individuals. A forest is a collection of trees. To say, "let's plant a forest" would be incorrect. So if you're talking about "the basics," I need to know how you're defining that.
What I'm really getting at is that in most cases our buying decsions are not truly a reflection of who we are, and our behaviour is informed by the society around us, and our relationship to companies is part of this. Going back to the Walmart example, I would not say Walmart is a monopoly, but it does engage in monopolistic practises. There are people who disagree with Walmart but still shop there. How do people deal with this conflict of interest? By not thinking about it, IMO.
@blahdelablah I disagree that people don't think when they shop at Walmart. They value cheaper prices, wider selection, and convenience over loyalty to Mom and Pops. It's that simple. You can argue with them for THOSE reasons, but not because they're not thinking.
You admit there is no black and white distinction for a need vs. a want, so how do you determine that someone is buying to fill a want and not a need? If there is no practical distinction, then it does not exist. It's an abstraction.
"You can argue with them for THOSE reasons, but not because they're not thinking."
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, what I meant was they weren't thinking of the wider implications of their actions (i.e. how they damage their future).
"If there is no practical distinction, then it does not exist. It's an abstraction."
I speak in abstractions to convey general concepts, but if this is not engaging you, I will switch up. What influence do you think marketing has on our society?
@blahdelablah Again, how do you know people aren't thinking of the wider implications of shopping at Walmart? They could be well aware of them, but choose to go against them anyway (assuming your proposition is correct). You may indeed be correct, I'm just asking you how you KNOW that.
My point is abstractions don't actually exist. If I ask you to cut down a forest, you can't. You can cut down trees. The forest does not exist but for an abstract word. So best to talk about how to cut trees.
"You may indeed be correct, I'm just asking you how you KNOW that."
I know because the logic of ignoring the long term for short term relief is flawed. Taking the environment , if we consistently use the Earth's resources faster than they can regenerate, the only outcome is failure. Similarly, we know the economic system helps the rich get richer by exploiting the masses. Anyone who took the time to think about this would see the ridiculousness of our approach and yet we carry on.
@blahdelablah Your statement is flawed. You assume people are ignoring the long-term impact of the environment (assuming it's a zero sum scenario) in favor of mindless shopping. How do you know they aren't aware of the long-term effects but value cheaper goods and wider variety now? Again, you may be right, but you haven't given anything to support your arguments. I do agree with you about environmental destruction, but I view the problem is gov't and an absence of private property rights.
"How do you know they aren't aware of the long-term effects but value cheaper goods and wider variety now?"
No, again you misunderstand me. I am saying that's precisely what they value right now (cheaper goods/wider variety). The fact they value cheaper goods over the impact on our environment shows their flawed logic. No one thinking about the implications objectively would find another answer, unless they don't care about other humans, in which case I'd question their morality.
"The fact they value cheaper goods over the impact on our environment shows their flawed logic"
And your solution is that so called "experts" should unilaterally be able to take decisions about how environment needs to be protected? That's an elitist thinking & exactly what TVP is anyway.
The free market way would be that those whose property is being polluted, goes to court &/or those with knowledge go public & inform people negative impacts & convince enough people on it
"And your solution is that so called "experts" should unilaterally be able to take decisions about how environment needs to be protected? That's an elitist thinking & exactly what TVP is anyway."
Yes, the solution is to manage resources at a level we can prove scientifically to be sustainable (at the very least).
"The free market way would be that those whose property is being polluted"
@blahdelablah My friend, I think you are misunderstanding how you are applying your own logic. Again, assuming it's a zero sum game, i.e. shopping over environment, just because someone might value a cheaper good over environmental impact doesn't mean they don't care at all about the environment, it just means they care about the good more.
"No one thinking about the implications objectively would find another answer"
This statement is a logical fallacy, not an argument.
"This statement is a logical fallacy, not an argument."
The logic is plain as day. If you fail to look after the environment it won't matter how good the products on store shelves are, your quality of life will decrease. A cheap pair of jeans isn't going to be much cop if the world can no longer support the life we have on it.
"I do agree with you about environmental destruction, but I view the problem is gov't and an absence of private property rights."
You can't blame everything wrong about our environmental destruction on government when it is businesses doing most of the polluting. However, I don't blame businesses either, the economic system we live in forces companies to act in the interests of profit over people, that's one reason why a resource-based economy is superior.
When you let govt "regulate" environment then it just gives people a false sense security that they'll do their job when in fact, whichever businesses bribe the politicians & bureaucrats can go on polluting until people are awakened on the issue so it essentially comes down to people being aware of the fact pollution is taking place & then they'll force govt to take action but then in a free market, people's hard-earned money isn't wasted on funding EPA & all that BS
In a free market economy there is less restriction on the actions of companies, less rules controlling what they can and can't do, so the companies that pollute would be freer to do so. How exactly is that a better solution?
@blahdelablah We are getting into "insane number of responses" territory. Do you want to continue in private? Would love to talk about the free market more there.
Sure, I'll send you a PM, but I only see it worth continuing if you're willing to discuss the resource-based economy too, so that we can balance out our debate.
@lomocan So are you agreeing with me that a free market (and thus by association, respect for private property rights) would be the solution to the large-scale environmental destruction?
@blahdelablah If you don't blame businesses, then ask yourself who codified into law the freakish unnatural central bank monopoly called the Federal Reserve. Ask yourself who the biggest polluter in the world is by far. Ask yourself what incentives change when businesses use the helpful, violent, and coercive hand of the gov't. The answer is invariably the State. If we agree the economic system forces people into destructive behavior, well it's the gov't who created the system in the first place
I don't blame businesses because I see the root causes of the environmental issues we face are systematic, i.e. the system itself is at fault. Oh and just so you know, the Federal Reserve is not part of the US government, it's a private institution.
"My point is abstractions don't actually exist." Yes they do. They are labels, they are tools to understand the world. Where do you stop? The human race doesn't exist, only individuals? Men and women don't exist, only individuals? You could argue all words are abstractions, they don't exist, only what they describe exists. However, we communicate in words, so if you're saying abstractions are useless, then how did you get the knowledge you have now?
@blahdelablah The words exist, yes, and general classifications can be helpful, but they do not exist in physical reality. For example, if I say to you, "We're going to clean up the environment.." Well, what does that mean? Are we removing the sewage from Lake A, or re-planting trees in Area B, or not using pesticides in Farm C? You need specific measurements in reality for it to be an action. We can say the plan is cleaning up the environment, but that's just a collection of individual tasks.
Reaching a goal involves practical measures, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about what the goal is. Practical implications of the goal are what we work out after we know what we want to achieve. If you don't have goals then progress becomes aimless. I understand your frustration about abstract concepts, but they have merit. Plus, it's kind of difficult/frustrating to fit a detailed plan into 500 character YouTube comment limit. Visit blahdelablah DOT blogspot DOT com
@blahdelablah Ok, so let's use a concrete example since concepts are only as good as how they translate into practice, i.e. If I say, the goal is to make people good. Well, that sounds wonderful, but it has no actual meaning until you define the terms and apply them.
So using your logic, if you say the goal here is to meet all people's needs and reduce artificial wants (or correct me where I'm wrong), what would be an action step to meet this broad, undefined goal?
"So using your logic, if you say the goal here is to meet all people's needs and reduce artificial wants (or correct me where I'm wrong), what would be an action step to meet this broad, undefined goal?"
Eh? Where is the goal undefined? You did it yourself! Just because the answer is multi-faceted doesn't mean the goal is unclear.
Okay, so meeting people's needs, let's start with the need for equal access to education. What blocks this equal access at the moment?
@blahdelablah What influence does marketing have on society? Again, "society" is an abstract term. There are individuals. Some individuals are heavily influenced, some are not. If we learn to reason and discern at a younger age (most of us do not), then the marketing approach adapts to the consumer. If people can't discern, then marketing can be very persuasive and often destructive. The problem with a lot of marketing is one of the very reasons I advocate an anarchic society.
Marketing works on a near universal scale, no one is immune to outside influence, and that extends to our spending habits too. You can be aware of the manipulation and still be influenced, though education does help encourage a more measured response. It's interesting that you advocate an anarchic society, before stumbling upon the ideas of the resource-based economy I also thought an anarchic society was the best approach, but now I believe the resource-based economy is preferable.
@blahdelablah I'll reiterate that you seem like a nice enough guy who means well, but my frustration lies in your repeated use of sweeping, unsupported statements and abstractions. No one is immune from marketing, you say? How do you know I'm not? You don't know anything about me. I may very well be influenced, but if you are making the statement that you KNOW that EVERYONE is influenced by it, then you have the burden of proving that. How do you know I'm not shut off from TV and advertising?
"No one is immune from marketing, you say? How do you know I'm not?"
Please don't take it personally. How do I prove it? You're talking to me. What do I mean by that? Simply put, we learn from others (language, for instance). However, how do you know what you learn is correct or false? Lies becomes more obvious over time, but everyone can fall for a lie in the short term, if it sounds convincing enough. Marketing works on massaging the truth to encourage us to buy. Make sense?
@blahdelablah "Please don't take it personally. How do I prove it? You're talking to me."
The two of us having a conversation is not marketing. Whether one believes a lie or not is irrelevant in terms of what we're discussing. If you want to talk about language we use with each other, then let's talk about that. But, your point was no one is immune from marketing. And again, you could be right - I'm not discounting it - I'm just saying you're making sweeping statements without evidence or logic
The logic is there, you're just not seeing it (whether that is my failure to communicate properly is certainly debatable). Simply put, if you can fall for a lie from a fellow human, why do you think you're immune to lies from a company?
@blahdelablah So are you defining "rational" as weighing all the different alternatives (possibly contemplating for hours to arrive at the "best" decision?) given the information we have at the time? What if I make a "rational" decision to buy a Toyota after doing hours of market research only to have the brake lines fail on me driving out of the lot? Would that make the decision irrational? If it's based on hindsight, nothing is ever perfectly rational. If it's not, we never have all the info.
@blahdelablah Ok, then let's take my Toyota example a step further. You said a rational decision consists of weighing all options and choosing what is best. So how do we arrive at this? What if I know that Toyota cars kill people, but it is cheaper, better on gas, and doesn't require as many repairs as other competing cars? Is it still a rational decision to buy it? What's more rational: saving lives or cost?How do we know that these "rational choices" are my own or a product of mass marketing?
There was no debunking at all. It was just an opinion with no evidence and no analysis. And that opinion is extremely affected by belief in a "free" market monetary system, therefore many times the sentence was used - "trully free market". There is no such thing as FREE market when everybody's trying to control the market. Some are already doing, some are trying to survive, most of the people will never get into this false freedom. This debunking is strong enough for middle-school homework.
@AlexeyJones Dude, this is a summary video in 5 minutes. Watch Stefan's many other videos, podcasts, or writings which get into much more detail about the free market and economics in general. The point put forward is not if someone is controlling the market, but if there is no interference by coercion in the market, i.e. suppose no gov't exists tomorrow. I'd love to hear some of the debunking.
There is no such thing as a free market. Markets are bought, sold and cornered. It is, in fact, a goal of business to control a market. The holes in logic displayed in this video are abundant and obvious. An absolute ridiculous attempt at debunking. No debunking done here.
@natechomnicorp Then by all means point out those abundant and obvious hole in logic. You know making sweeping claims without backing up with evidence and reasoning is not very convincing.
@yamahaU3 Thank you, I assumed that if I made my comment vague someone would invite me to comment further. DB myth 1; monopolies are impossible. Because of the increasing value of the competitor being inversely proportional to the number of competitors in a market? That does not address the cost advantages of being a larger competitor, or if they bought their competitors all at once, or over a large period or marketing or fraud or mismanagement or innovation... There's 7 holes for 1st myth.
You didn't understand the video. The myths are directed at the free market by people who either don't know or don't care to know how gov't coercion distorts market phenomena. He's talking about economic laws. If you introduce force into the equation, then obviously you can do whatever you want to attempt to control markets. But force is antithetical to the concept of trade. Force works one way; markets another.
@MillionthUsername I did not hear anything about gov't coercion distorting markets in this video. Are you implying that gov't intervention or existence is the barrier that inhibits markets from being "free"? That is not the case there are many factors like; cost of entry, innovation, marketing, geography... If you ignore the complexities of the world and place your imaginary market in a vacuum you can propose a strawman argument in an attempt to debunk a reality of "laissez-faire" economics
@natechomnicorp "Are you implying that gov't intervention or existence is the barrier that inhibits markets from being "free"?"
Yes. When you prevent people from trading freely, it is not free trade. You then distort the market, creating situations which would not normally exist if the market were free.
@natechomnicorp Markets are bought, sold, and cornered ONLY through gov't coercion, regulation, or other market barriers. Whether a business owner's goal is to control the market is irrelevant if they're UNABLE to control it in a free market.
@passerby26 Market variables like; cost of entry, research, corruption, geography, nature, marketing do enable markets to be bought, sold and cornered, as I said. These variables exist without the intervention of governments. Therefor, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a "free market", it is a great over simplification of things. Maybe, an extension of a bias toward government left over from the "Red Scare" and used by corporations to convince some to give up democracy for mercantilism.
@natechomnicorp Maybe you can give some examples of market monopolies created without the use of gov't so I can respond in kind. I would argue that all of the factors you mention are barriers corporations use the gov't to put up to eliminate competition as opposed to the market being the cause. Statements are not evidence from either one of us, so perhaps we should use some examples as evidence.
@passerby26 I don't see how government can be blamed for market forces like nature and geography, research, so on... Are you paying to much for tickets to the ball game? I suggest you start your own professional baseball league. How about visiting Heartland Regional Medical Center, the only hospital in St. Joseph MO. Or "Many public services are natural monopolies... For most local government services the average number of alternative providers is less than two". Monopolies impossible? Hardly
@natechomnicorp There are baseball leagues around the world, so no, it's not a monopoly. With that said, baseball teams are hardly free market institutions. They receive all kinds of corporate kickbacks and subsidies on the taxpayers' dime. I don't know about Heartland Medical Centre specifically, but I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that all hospitals and medical centres receive government funding and are heavily regulated, even the "private" ones.
@natechomnicorp Here's another example. Sports teams and concert shows sell tickets to people which are scalped by those buyers on the street to eager fans who are willing to voluntarily pay an extra price. This upsets these organizations, so what do they do? Well, they turn to the violent hands of the government to get a law passed to stop this voluntary activity from happening. How is this a free market? Sports teams have a beautiful relationship with the State.
People, he's not saying that Planned Obsolescence doesn't exist, but rather that it's a poor business practice that will lead to better products taking over in a free market.
1) the big company could stockpile their profits and buy the means of production, which would stifle competition.
2) Price fixing WORKS! Your second point is so lost, it's sad. ttempts at price fixing is usually corrected by government oversight. There's no incentive to break ranks in that arrangement.
3) Companies that undercut don't have to go into debt. They simply have to have a more efficient economy or own their own means of production.
In a "true free market" ie - no state, cartels and monopolies would occur all the time, with no regulatory authority to stop them, cartel enforcement agreements would be put in place upon formation, in washing powder everyone puts their recipes into a hat, anybody defects, secrets released, bonds would be an easy way to do it as well.
Also the net worth of a small company existing in monopolistic conditions always decreases, ask for 750 mil? be put out of business by any means necessary.
Very badly thought out video with no basis in reality.
De Beers diamond monopoly, they achieved monopoly through undercutting, they also engaged in price fixing. How is the state to blame?
Unilever and Proctor and Gamble recently fined for price fixing. How is the state to blame?
Companies fix prices until there is opportunity for greater profit in setting market prices, chance of which decreases the larger the market share of the cartel
Countless examples of planned obsolescence exist..
It's funny that these are all practices that are thriving under the highly regulated state. Doesn't it stand to reason that the state is responsible? I mean, how can you blame the free market when there isn't one?
TheCeejReturns 1 day ago
This video ignores the fundamental reality that all of these practices existed at various points in time. These are not theories that developed independent of reality. They are concepts that emerged through the "free market."
By definition something that exists (or existed) is not a myth. These practices are far less likely today then they used to be. However, to say that they are pure myth is remarkably ignorant of history.
TL;DR learn2google
xchrisk 1 week ago
@xchrisk
He's talking about a free market, though. That's not really something that has existed, except in a very limited sense.
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 days ago
@xchrisk
We have never really had a free market, governments create monopolies through regulations, copyright etc... Your argument is invalid.
Example, you need to go to a special school to get a license to cut hair professionally, for around $10,000. Established businesses lobbied for this, to cut out upstart competition for a profession that, in reality, isn't complex or dangerous.
dbzssj4678 5 days ago
When it comes down to your dishwasher example I think you should look into a movie called 'The Lightbulb Conspiracy' - its on youtube and free to view (about an hour long). It looks into the problem of planned obsolescence in the market and shows examples of how things such as printers and, as the name suggests, lightbulbs have been designed to be WORSE in their performance (in regards to longevity) for the purposes of increased profits. If you create a product that never fails, you sell only 1.
Frederiknshansen 1 month ago
@Frederiknshansen That is not true. Allow me to use the T.V. example. You probably have seen a standard resolution T.V. But not much anymore. Why? Because consumers like spending money. They spent their money on "HD" T.V.s, even though their SDTV worked perfectly fine, lo and behold!! There is a new market. On your light bulb theory. People bought the CFLs even though their standard bulbs worked fine. People like to spend their money.
Thedriftor 3 weeks ago
@Thedriftor youre talking about advance in technology not about planned obsolescence
HernandeztheHero 3 days ago
@Frederiknshansen toyotas and hondas are frequently ranked as the most reliable cars. We all know people who own toyotas and hondas with 200,000+ miles on them. Therefore toyotas and hondas should be the worst selling cars, right? No. People recognize that for any significant investment that they want to get as much use out of it as possible. Even on cheap goods like hammers you will see people placing value on long-lasting steel and fiberglass handled hammers. the market works.
gigahertz123 2 weeks ago
@gigahertz123 but you have to constantly maintain the machine to work so youre in debt forever until you cant afford to buy replacement parts and breaks down or you have an accident and toyota and honda recently have been putting dangerous faulty units by the millions on the market
HernandeztheHero 3 days ago
@gigahertz123 reliable? I dont think so
HernandeztheHero 3 days ago
following logic of this radio, "truly free market" does not have intelectual property defending law, truly free market does not have oligopolies etc. so THERE IS NO FREE MARKET in the whole world and THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN SUCH SYSTEM IN HISTORY
Thorsupremecommander 1 month ago
Comment removed
jaykgrey 1 month ago
@Thorsupremecommander Not long ago every society had a god-king who ruled by decree. Then some smart people figured out that this was probably not the best way to run a country.
gigahertz123 2 weeks ago
@Thorsupremecommander So let's make one.
shamgar001 2 weeks ago
@Thorsupremecommander
Your conclusion is correct. No, there has never been a free market, except in a very limited sense.
PanzerDivisionBOM 5 days ago
sources;as I mentioned I think Chomsky does a wonderful job of exposing the flaws of free market thinkers. Further, one only need read the father of free market thinkers, Adam Smith and actually pay attention to what he said..The free market can only function properly when there is perfect liberty and equality for all. Marx is the same. It's all predicated on these mythical "ideal situations". When these ideas trickle down to people like Friedman or Stalin and implemented they become disasters.
doublestrokeroll 2 months ago
I've heard of Chomsky, but have never read his work. I would caution that, while many who study economics read Smith, no free market thinker considers Smith as free market (he had several flaws and, in one of his three chapters on value, describes what can be seen as proto-Marxian concepts); he was influential nonetheless. Friedman is not considered free market by AnCaps either. If you are interested in free market thought, though, I would recommend Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Goodatconnect4 2 months ago
@doublestrokeroll all perfect liberty and equality means is no welfarism and no barriers to entry.
chadimus84 1 month ago
It's all qualified by the statement "in a truly free market"....
And with that statement you instantly render all further arguments meaningless....because a "truly free market"...is by it's own very nature..a meaningless statement.
doublestrokeroll 2 months ago
@doublestrokeroll I've heard that before. Why is it a meaningless statement?
Goodatconnect4 2 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 because it's an impossibility......a fantasy....a utopian dream. Every bit as much as communism. The problem with all the "isms" (except for one) is that they try to sell you a perfect end point. Much in the same way as religion tries to sell you an answer that wraps up all the unknowns into a neat understandable package. Well humanity and it's social constructs are not predictable in any way. The free market is NOT a "natural force". It's a creation of man
doublestrokeroll 2 months ago
@doublestrokeroll (Out of curiosity, what is that exceptional "ism"?) There is a science that is dedicated to the study of human action -praxeology- from which economics is based, that you may find interesting. While the results of human action, certainly, cannot be predicted quantitatively, there are many qualitative behaviors that can be logically deduced.
Would you recommend some sources where argument is elaborated (articles, books, videos)?
Goodatconnect4 2 months ago
@Goodatconnect4 Anarchism. Although it comes in many different flavors the crux of anarchism as I understand it is that it recognizes that life is about the struggle against authority. As Chomsky says to "expand the scope of freedom". People are often frustrated by anarchist philosophies because when they ask "how would it work" the answers are vague. But that's the point. Anarchism isn't trying to sell you a point where everything "works out for all". It accepts uncertainty.
doublestrokeroll 2 months ago
Regarding the roots of the term anarchy, it's about dissolution of hierarchies. Some anarchists (Anarcho-Syndicalists, Left Libertarians, Anarcho-Communists, etc.) consider this to mean the absolute dissolution of all hierarchical relationships- voluntarily entered or not. I've also heard it elaborated as "arch" meaning "state" and "an" meaning "against."
I've heard this objection as similar to the old "But how will the crops be picked without slaves?" Who knew machines would do it one day? ;)
Goodatconnect4 2 months ago
lol collusion - they ALWAYS break ranks huh?
sikok93453 2 months ago
@sikok93453 There is a strong incentive structure to make them break ranks. The individual interest in the profits from undercutting the other colluders (even if just a little bit) is bigger than the collective interest in collusion. Public Choice and Game Theories explain this process easily.
Cartels have tended to socialize their costs and price fix with strong Government help in order to survive. Attempted trusts that tried to work with out Govt. help were unstable and broke quickly.
Chaos511 2 months ago
@Chaos511 lol strong incentive is a idealistic hoax - in isolated markets (which the majority of markets would be) with a barrier to entry (isolated by geography for the most part) - there is the incentive of "rational self interest" to collude with others in the same industry - win/win for everyone involved
with a finite area of land, this becomes more profound - or would farm land not be restricted in this regard? e.g. we start farming on the moon
sikok93453 2 months ago
#1 Collude with your competitors
#2 Dip to make huge profits and increase market share
#3 Undercut your competitors and further increase market share
#4 Buy up anything that's left of the competition.
#5 Use planned obsolescence and create subsidiaries that make good stuff.
All without bribing the government (if there is any)! It's all in the game! Who's going to punish you?
whahas 2 months ago
And to add one more thing (Jesus fuck i've sent too many posts here, damn 500 char limit): The economy wasn't redesigned according to Friedman's specifications, at all he didn't even act as an advisor to Pinochet.
Friedman spent six days in there to give some lectures and met with Pinochet for 45 minutes. He was offered a job and Govt. funding in there but he turned them down and went back to the US. He later sent a letter to Pinochet telling him to control inflation.
And this was it.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@philfromearth As for the Shock Doctrine, i admit to have not read it fully, but it has a lot of food for thought. America did indeed try to put it's policies as a shock on places suffering disaster.
The thing is: The LAST thing that the IMF and World Bank did around the world was spread genuine free-market policies, they spreaded a form of pro-US Corporatism, not real free markets. Few places had genuine pro-market policies and even they had rocky transitions (such as inflation in Chile).
Chaos511 3 months ago
@philfromearth So make Hayek's definitions clearer: To the Austrian School, man acts to pursue his goals. Regardless of wheter the goal is greedy or altruist, they are both his "Self-Interest", altruism IS a form of self-interest and man pursues it. By freely exchanging in the market to pursue his goal, he creates a profit to everyone.
Hayek was just making a Smithian argument that free exchanged benefit everyone, NOT making an argument against Altruism or saying it is bad for society.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@Chaos511 @philfromearth
You 2 made great discussion.
Statements or premises:
“Free market is possible under autocratic-fascist regime.”
“Non-free market with distorted prices is possible under democratic multi-party regime.”
Conclusion?
mstipich1 3 months ago
this video misses out a key phrase - "in an ideal world".
the undercutting argument i simply cannot agree with. you just have to look at the Tesco effect. for what its worth, here's my 2 cents - the day after the independent music store in my town closed down, Tesco (who had recently expanded their store to include music, this hammering the final nail in the music store's coffin), jacked up the prices of its CDs. Tesco is so large that a small independent store is beyond small fry
arthurguitar 4 months ago
Every single one of these refutations can be easily refuted, this is nothing more than market apologetics. Call a spade a spade, your position on or in the market is irrelevant, some arguments are just bad arguments.
Laughingblades 4 months ago 2
@Laughingblades You're wrong. There, I can make assertions too.
2daewoo4u 3 months ago
Failures of these refutations
Planned Obsolescence - This one shouldn't even need to be explained, it's a standard business model in several industries. Describing it as "Companies cripple products in order to sale more" is a straw man of the practice. In any industry where a company holds sufficient property rights to control the industry or a sufficient advantage over the market, planned obsolescence is just good business, and companies can always sell newer and better models.
Laughingblades 4 months ago
Failures of these refutations
Undercutting - Ignores the fact that larger companies are often able to produce goods on a more massive scale and more effeciently, thus giving them the ability to lower prices. Ignores the fact that these companies can take advantage of the failure of competition to monopolize the visible, accessible market place thus rigging against competition. Ignores that large companies may undercut in one area and increase prices in another. ect.
Laughingblades 4 months ago 2
@Laughingblades This argument of undercutting ignores the fact that there are dis-economies of scale: In economics there is an "optimum" firm size in each industry, and the bigger a firm is past it, the more calculational problems appear in it's internal pricing system, and it produces goods LESS efficiently. Firms than either have to cut back (and face competititon) or socialize the costs of the diseconomies with Govt. subsidies.
Chaos511 2 months ago
@Chaos511 Argument doesn't address many issues sorry.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
Failures of these refutations
Monopoles - Ignoring the fact these companies often exist in real, physical locations on the map, that they can control access to the market, infrastructure, and goods, and that with each acquisition they can in theory expand their shares, get new investors, and increase their ability to generate raw material wealth
Collusion - Assumes the companies are in the same business, and that they are not owned by the same people...
Laughingblades 4 months ago
@Laughingblades Monopolies - Yes, in theory they have the ability to generate more material wealth, but there is a large gap between production and profit, and it's within this gap that they will start to fail. Sure, they can produce more, but their cost will be weighed down with all of that debt, and any investor would be able to see the problem there. I can't speak for all actors, but it would seem like more rational to invest in the small, debt free, and competitive company.
2daewoo4u 3 months ago
@2daewoo4u In theory and practice, monopolies have existed, they do exist, and they always will exist. The elimination of regional monopolies is impossible under any system.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
^ That is to say, any system that doesn't regulate the market, even then you get pseudo monopolies
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades Collusion - How do companies who aren't in the same business collude? In the given example, that would just mean there are 5 companies in separate industries with high prices, so nothing is preventing competition. Yes, it assumes they are not owned by the same people...because it's an example of collusion...not a monopoly. If it were owned by the same people...that wouldn't be an example of collusion.
2daewoo4u 3 months ago
@2daewoo4u Companies that aren't in the same business collude by supporting eachother's business and helping facilitate eachother's stranglehold over the market. Seriously just look at the Bilderberg Group and the deals these businesses make with eachother. This "Collusion doesn't work" nonsense is refuted by reality.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only place this free market bs has ever been tried has been dictatorships like Chili. It didn't work there why would it work any where else? Milton Friedman, the guru of free markets, was a pretty sinister character as was his mentor Fredrick Hayek. Hayek believed that stability of the society and economy relied on suspicion, mistrust and people acting in their own self interest. Altruism, social conscience, self sacrifice and empathy only served to weaken the society and the economy.
philfromearth 5 months ago
The only place this free market bs has ever been tried has been dictatorships, like Chili. It didn't work there why would it work any where else? Milton Friedman, the guru of free markets, was a pretty sinister character as was his mentor Fredrick Hayek. Hayek believed that stability of the society and economy relied on suspicion, mistrust and people acting in their own self interest. Altruism, social conscience, self sacrifice and empathy only served to weaken the society and the economy.
philfromearth 5 months ago
@philfromearth Chile had a very rocky and problematic transition to freer markets due to the high inflation and mal-investment of previous administrations having to be lowered and liquidated. Things eventually stabilized though, and today it i the freest economy in South America, it has the highest living standards and the highest growth in all of South America and has had it for decades. I know it because i AM South American.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@Chaos511 Allende nationalized several industries including the telephone company (owned by the US monopoly, ATT). This action caused a reaction by the CIA who, in trying to protect American financial interests, set about destabilizing the Chilean economy. Milton Friedman trained Chilean economists at the Universe of Chicago in the theories of the free market and when Pinochet overthrew the government those economists set about redesigning the economy according to Friedman's specifications.
philfromearth 3 months ago
@philfromearth The Chilean economy was already destabilized by Allende himself, nationalizations and increasing money supply fucked it up and began to create mal-investments. Friedman didn't go to Chile because he was a sinister guy trying to exploit the people, he went there because he believed that higher economic freedom would increase the standard of living of the people and would help to bring democracy and political freedoms back. He was trying to lower the evil of the dictatorship.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@philfromearth But to make one thing clear, i'm not some naive moron who thinks the CIA didn't fuck up Chile and thinks the dictatorship was a good thing, no. American Imperialism did do a lot to fuck the world. But personal attacks on Friedman are something i do not accept (even though i'm not exactly his biggest fan), the Chicago School was one small light of freedom inside the dark and chaotic mess of the Pinochet regime.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@Chaos511 The Pinochet regime ruled with an iron hand. The liquidation of public assets widened the gulf between the wealthy and the poor and remained that way throughout his regime. Allende's economy didn't stand a chance against the economic manipulation of the US. This left the door open for Pinochet and his Friedman economists . Yes, Friedman is a sinister character.
philfromearth 3 months ago
@philfromearth Allende's own policies were already destroying Chile. And again, in the beggining the free-market reforms caused problems: Resources had to be re-allocated to other uses, and Pinochet did a lot of inflation and failed to stabilize the money supply for a long time.
But Free-Market reforms always only show positive results in the Long-Term. And in the long term, Chile's economy not only stabilized but is one of the best in South America.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@philfromearth Also, i don't want to be rude, but you are being really fucking ignorant about Friedman and Hayek alike.
First, Friedman was never a "sinister character", and Hayek was never his fucking mentor AT ALL, they were from different schools of thought and disagreed often. And Hayek NEVER argued altruism and self sacrifice were bad for society AT ALL, in fact in all of his writings he stresses the importance of social cooperation.
You are spreading bullshit lies about Hayek, stop it.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@Chaos511 If you want to hear Hayak's view of altruism, from his own mouth, go to Free Documentaries . org and watch the documentary "The Trap".
philfromearth 3 months ago
@philfromearth I watched it. I can see how it can fool someone unfamiliar with Hayek's whole body of work and his definitions. When he was arguing about "self-interest", he was making the Smithian argument that acting on his interest man will produce what others desire. Altruism isn't factored as separate from self-interest as altruism is a form of self-interest, it is in your interest to help others. Also i love how they called him an aristocrat and put evil-sounding music in.
Chaos511 3 months ago
@Chaos511 I suggest you read "The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Kline. Unlike most of the people I debate with on You Tube, you seem intelligent enough to understand this book. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
philfromearth 3 months ago
Bogosity, stripped from reality. I wish it was true, though...
Psicloone 5 months ago
Horrible logic.
tyronelol 5 months ago
Sure, markets have some properties that would allow simple idiot companies to preserve freedom, but it is incredibly easy to usurp these natural forces using things like economies of scale, brand loyalty, geographical monopoly, artificial difference (like how apply can sell inferior products for more, and still people buy them). The fact is, you are wrong.
ChrisSudlik 5 months ago
4. There are only like 5-10 companies that sell dishwashers, and they all have similar quality etc, in the same ways prices can remain high, because the only competition is arbitrary and crappy, and brand loyalty.
ChrisSudlik 5 months ago 2
3. Undercutting is possible because of Economies of scale, something totally ignored by this retarded fucking video. Walmart can have lower prices with higher profits while a small company with higher prices can be taking a loss just to be competitive.
ChrisSudlik 5 months ago 2
2. ollusion (pooling) happens all the fucking time in this market right now, why? Easy, because lowering prices does not actually make people switch, due to brand loyalty. People don't actually switch, and the company that lowers prices only loses profits, and gains nothing. So what happens is they raise prices back up with no issue.
ChrisSudlik 5 months ago
@ChrisSudlik In response to point 2. It's actually basic game theory. If the companies are rational and free of government interference, they will all collude to raise prices. If they are smart, they will even create a private agency to help ensure that they all stay in line. Heck, OPEC is a brilliant example of how natural oligopolies collude to great personal benefit, without even needing any brand loyalty.
victort1231 4 months ago
@victort1231 Central Banks do it too and there seem to be people happy about that...
Where do you need brand loyalty for if you are the only club that makes the stuff?
whahas 2 months ago
Somebody posted this on my wall, and I have to say it is absolutely fucking retarded. It will take multiple comments to explain why each point is wrong, so bear with me here: 1. monopolies can exist easily because of economies of scale. A bigger company can have lower prices and higher profits than a small company. It can easily buy up other companies without any of the problems listed by this video. Larger companies have lower administrative costs, get discounts for bulk purchase, etc.
ChrisSudlik 5 months ago
I can't wait until this failed system collapses. It's only a matter of time.
TheDethBringer666 6 months ago
Long live CAPITALISM
ChelseaFCisNo1 6 months ago
this vid was over 6 minutes....so much for 4 in 4
TENNSUMITSUMA 6 months ago
@NINBNIN Just leave govt out of economic affairs, better still - abolish the state! Funny...as economies have become more regulated the more problems we have. Just a coincidence perhaps...
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
The problem with TVP is that it relies on "experts" & technocrats doing all the right things & making decisions for the masses & since TVP talks so much about Fed, they should know that "experts" coming together & doing all the right things on behalf of the people always ends in a plutocracy with enormous power just like Fed has. So again, freedom & people making choices for themselves works way better of doing things than communism-incarnate that TVP is.
lomocan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lomocan
"The problem with TVP is that it relies on "experts" & technocrats doing all the right things"
The difference being those "experts" can back up what they say. The "experts" we're talking about are scientists, engineers, technicians, etc... Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone is equally correct. I'd much rather trust a group that must prove what they say rather than a group who can get away with making empty promises. Plus, education ensures everyone can participate.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@lomocan Couldn't agree more. Well said.
passerby26 7 months ago
Um, ask Wal-Mart how well monopolies work in small towns.
paullie6719 8 months ago
i don't agree with anything that this video says. Somehow it's assuming vital details that don't necessarily have to be that way and applying tons of logic after that, to make it look like it makes sense.
tylerdurden176 8 months ago
The monopoly example is a load of baloney. You don't have to buy up your competitors to reach a dominant position in a market, you just have to have a company that is consistently more profitable. Once you reach a dominant position, you can choose to buy up competitors, but you're going to get them at a cheaper rate as they're weaker, especially if they're desperate. if they choose not to take your deal, you simply price them out of the market (products get cheaper manufactured in bulk). Simple.
blahdelablah 8 months ago
@blahdelablah , totally agree
tylerdurden176 8 months ago
@blahdelablah Even a consistently more profitable company producing a more dominant position in the market is constrained from monopolizing and thus gouging the consumer. The consumer can choose to purchase less or not at all, which lowers profits, which causes shareholders to dump their shares for another company. Or, the company faces the problem of a new good or service entering the market which bankrupts the "monopolist," i.e. electric cars displacing oil-run cars (the monopoly).
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
The average consumer does not base their purchasing decisions on whether a company is becoming too large. Microsoft is a classic example, people dislike the influence they have, but yet still buy Xboxes, and Office, and Windows, etc... Irrational purchasing decisions rule the market, if they didn't then marketing would have little effect. As for emerging threats, large companies are in a position to shift with the market, and overpower smaller companies with increased R&D spending.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah To me, the Microsoft complaints are tantamount to people complaining about Walmart as they continue to shop there. Microsoft has been losing market share over the last decade as better and more creative products/companies compete with them. I find it amusing hearing about everyone else's "irrational" purchasing behavior (whatever that means). Larger firms have to deal with fussy shareholders, greater overhead, the threat of new products and technologies - unless they use the gov't.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Yes, Walmart is another good example. People campaign against Walmart before they open a new store, and then turn around and use that store after it launches. If you don't understand irrational purchasing decisions then you need to look into it, it's key to understand that a better product is not the only factor that drives buying decisions, otherwise Cowon would be the market leader in MP3 players, not Apple. Apple is a marketing master, but they do not always make better products.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah To me, it's not irrational purchasing behavior, it's irrational reasoning. If other people dissected every purchase you and I make, I'm sure they would compile their own subjective list of "irrational" buys. But, what does that really mean? Nothing but conjecture. The reality with Walmart is people value goods at lower prices than keeping a Mom and Pop in business. That's not irrational at all, but a calculated purchasing decision to pay less as opposed to paying more.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
You're getting confused because you're not picking up I'm discussing two separate factors:
1. Monopolies aren't usually resisted at the cash register.
2. People don't buy stuff for purely rational reasons, like getting a superior product for their needs.
If you attempt to combine these then no wonder you're getting confused. You seem more interested in point 2 so using the iPod/Cowon example, why would someone pay more money for an inferior product? It's marketing at work IMO.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah So define what an irrational purchase is so I can understand better. Is this an objective value? Is buying a meal at McDonald's "irrational"? By which criteria?
Monopolies are CREATED at the cash register. Sure, marketing could be a reason for buying an inferior product, but it could also be convenience. It could be that you don't intend to use it for than a day and so paying more doesn't make sense. It could be availability or access. It could be a lot of reasons.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
A rational purchasing decision would be one where you weighed up all of your options and chose what was best for your real needs. Note that I say real needs, these aren't the needs that companies tell you are your needs.
Yes, monopolies are created at the cash register, but that only backs up my point. What I said was that monopolies are not (by and large) resisted at the cash register. If they're not resisted where they are created, then what's stopping the creation of monopolies?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Not to be difficult, but I'm still not getting an answer to my question. What is a "real" need as opposed to a "fake" one? What criteria is used to measure that? If I go to McDonald's an order a Big Mac, how do we know whether this is a need being met, e.g. eating, happiness, nostalgia, whatever vs. McDonald's ads telling me to go there?
If monopolies are created at the cash register, what would stop them is not buying from them. But, we don't which means we choose so voluntarily
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Beyond the basics in life, most needs are artificial. Artificial needs are more accurately termed as desires/wants. These desires are created out of a mixture of our own ideas and ideas from others. The point I've been trying to make is that people by and large are not rational with their purchasing decisions, their reasons for buying something do not factor in what is important (maintaining a fair economy, for example), but rather their own impulses, which are open to manipulation.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Ok, so basics in life I will presume are food, water, air, and shelter. Do intangible needs count, such as love, friendship, happiness, etc.? If they do, then would a massage, or watching a movie, and having a cup of coffee with a friend be considered desires or needs? If we're talking just tangible things, what is the acceptable amount of food one should eat? Just enough to functionally survive or to thrive optimally? Wouldn't knowledge of optimal nutrition come from others?
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"Ok, so basics in life I will presume are food, water, air, and shelter."
Where did I say this? You should stop jumping to conclusions. As for human connections (for which there is a clear natural need for), money doesn't bring us these connections, the shared experiences we have to pay for are a reflection of the money-driven society we live in. Compare the connection we feel through a good conversation and seeing a film, does the money needed for the film enhance the experience?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Ok, I just assumed any rational argument about a survival need would have to start with food, air, water, and shelter. Correct me where I'm wrong. What are the basics that you were speaking of?
I'm not suggesting money buys happiness. I'm just saying money is often used in the process of an experience we enjoy. We can enjoy a movie with a spouse (a happiness-bearing experience), but we pay for the movie. Is this considered meeting a need (happiness) or an "unnecessary want"?
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
With regards to the main difference between needs and wants, I would say needs are from nature, wants are from nurture. Using the cinema example, there is a need for human connection inbuilt, but our want/desire to go to the cinema is a learnt behaviour. Our learnt behaviour is informed by our nature, but it is also informed by the society we live in. That isn't to say that we shouldn't enjoy going to the cinema, I certainly do, but I recognise it isn't a need. Does that make sense?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah With all due respect, you seem like a nice guy, I'm still not getting an answer here. What you're telling me are vagueries and abstractions. You said "beyond the basics in life, most needs are artificial." What are the basics in life? Give me some specifics, not "basics come from nature." That's merely an abstraction. If seeing the movie meets a need: happiness (ignoring many other possible reasons), where is the line drawn between meeting the need vs. the want?
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Firstly, would like to thank you for your civility, it's refreshing to meet someone on YouTube that can disagree with you without resorting to personal attacks. I think you're missing what I'm saying because I'm implying it's not a case of black vs. white, there are shades of grey. Let me use a new example. You want to buy a bigger TV, why? It could enhance your TV watching entertainment. Your drive (nature) is for happiness, your decision (nurture) is born by learning to enjoy TV.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah I agree that lack of civility is frustrating and tends to come out when one's argument goes awry. I respect you for not resorting to that as well. I get what you're saying regarding the drives for doing things. What I'm saying is you're talking in abstractions. When you apply them to real life practical examples, there is no rational or logical way to deduce a need from a want. If I go to a movie, how do you KNOW it's media programming me as opposed to filling a need?
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"If I go to a movie, how do you KNOW it's media programming me as opposed to filling a need?"
You don't know, simply because we are all partly products of our environment. No man is an island, and to truly understand our true nature we would have to be studied in isolation from external influences. However, this whole need/want thing is not my central argument, I'm arguing that we are influenced, at least in part, by the agendas that companies have.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah If you say wants are from nurture, then I ask you how you know that, you say you don't know, then you should go back and revise that statement. If you were to say, the reasons we know wants are from nurture are xyz, then we have something to work with. But you can't say that because you admit there's no objective value for separating a need vs. a want. If we are influenced "companies' agendas" and you know it's destructive, then choose one you know is more productive.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
You misunderstand me. Wants are from nurture, but we're talking about the difference between knowing someone's actions and knowing someone's motives. The same action can have different motives, depending on the individual. Just because you can't say with 100% certainty what influences someones motives, that does not mean the motives don't exist. If you meet someone, you don't know what they're thinking, but that doesn't mean they're not thinking, capiche?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah @passerby26 Thank you guys for a nice discussion and a very good read, have you had some follow up discussions I can read? I really liked your comments!
whahas 2 months ago
@blahdelablah Abstractions don't actually mean anything. It's like me saying, "we just need to make people good and the world will be fine." Well, what does good mean? You have to define the terms and use some examples. Just as a "group" or a "team" is nothing more than a collection of individuals. A forest is a collection of trees. To say, "let's plant a forest" would be incorrect. So if you're talking about "the basics," I need to know how you're defining that.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
What I'm really getting at is that in most cases our buying decsions are not truly a reflection of who we are, and our behaviour is informed by the society around us, and our relationship to companies is part of this. Going back to the Walmart example, I would not say Walmart is a monopoly, but it does engage in monopolistic practises. There are people who disagree with Walmart but still shop there. How do people deal with this conflict of interest? By not thinking about it, IMO.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah I disagree that people don't think when they shop at Walmart. They value cheaper prices, wider selection, and convenience over loyalty to Mom and Pops. It's that simple. You can argue with them for THOSE reasons, but not because they're not thinking.
You admit there is no black and white distinction for a need vs. a want, so how do you determine that someone is buying to fill a want and not a need? If there is no practical distinction, then it does not exist. It's an abstraction.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"You can argue with them for THOSE reasons, but not because they're not thinking."
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, what I meant was they weren't thinking of the wider implications of their actions (i.e. how they damage their future).
"If there is no practical distinction, then it does not exist. It's an abstraction."
I speak in abstractions to convey general concepts, but if this is not engaging you, I will switch up. What influence do you think marketing has on our society?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Again, how do you know people aren't thinking of the wider implications of shopping at Walmart? They could be well aware of them, but choose to go against them anyway (assuming your proposition is correct). You may indeed be correct, I'm just asking you how you KNOW that.
My point is abstractions don't actually exist. If I ask you to cut down a forest, you can't. You can cut down trees. The forest does not exist but for an abstract word. So best to talk about how to cut trees.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"You may indeed be correct, I'm just asking you how you KNOW that."
I know because the logic of ignoring the long term for short term relief is flawed. Taking the environment , if we consistently use the Earth's resources faster than they can regenerate, the only outcome is failure. Similarly, we know the economic system helps the rich get richer by exploiting the masses. Anyone who took the time to think about this would see the ridiculousness of our approach and yet we carry on.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Your statement is flawed. You assume people are ignoring the long-term impact of the environment (assuming it's a zero sum scenario) in favor of mindless shopping. How do you know they aren't aware of the long-term effects but value cheaper goods and wider variety now? Again, you may be right, but you haven't given anything to support your arguments. I do agree with you about environmental destruction, but I view the problem is gov't and an absence of private property rights.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"How do you know they aren't aware of the long-term effects but value cheaper goods and wider variety now?"
No, again you misunderstand me. I am saying that's precisely what they value right now (cheaper goods/wider variety). The fact they value cheaper goods over the impact on our environment shows their flawed logic. No one thinking about the implications objectively would find another answer, unless they don't care about other humans, in which case I'd question their morality.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah
"The fact they value cheaper goods over the impact on our environment shows their flawed logic"
And your solution is that so called "experts" should unilaterally be able to take decisions about how environment needs to be protected? That's an elitist thinking & exactly what TVP is anyway.
The free market way would be that those whose property is being polluted, goes to court &/or those with knowledge go public & inform people negative impacts & convince enough people on it
lomocan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lomocan
"And your solution is that so called "experts" should unilaterally be able to take decisions about how environment needs to be protected? That's an elitist thinking & exactly what TVP is anyway."
Yes, the solution is to manage resources at a level we can prove scientifically to be sustainable (at the very least).
"The free market way would be that those whose property is being polluted"
Who owns the sea?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah My friend, I think you are misunderstanding how you are applying your own logic. Again, assuming it's a zero sum game, i.e. shopping over environment, just because someone might value a cheaper good over environmental impact doesn't mean they don't care at all about the environment, it just means they care about the good more.
"No one thinking about the implications objectively would find another answer"
This statement is a logical fallacy, not an argument.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"This statement is a logical fallacy, not an argument."
The logic is plain as day. If you fail to look after the environment it won't matter how good the products on store shelves are, your quality of life will decrease. A cheap pair of jeans isn't going to be much cop if the world can no longer support the life we have on it.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@passerby26
"I do agree with you about environmental destruction, but I view the problem is gov't and an absence of private property rights."
You can't blame everything wrong about our environmental destruction on government when it is businesses doing most of the polluting. However, I don't blame businesses either, the economic system we live in forces companies to act in the interests of profit over people, that's one reason why a resource-based economy is superior.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah
When you let govt "regulate" environment then it just gives people a false sense security that they'll do their job when in fact, whichever businesses bribe the politicians & bureaucrats can go on polluting until people are awakened on the issue so it essentially comes down to people being aware of the fact pollution is taking place & then they'll force govt to take action but then in a free market, people's hard-earned money isn't wasted on funding EPA & all that BS
lomocan 7 months ago
@lomocan
In a free market economy there is less restriction on the actions of companies, less rules controlling what they can and can't do, so the companies that pollute would be freer to do so. How exactly is that a better solution?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah We are getting into "insane number of responses" territory. Do you want to continue in private? Would love to talk about the free market more there.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Sure, I'll send you a PM, but I only see it worth continuing if you're willing to discuss the resource-based economy too, so that we can balance out our debate.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@lomocan So are you agreeing with me that a free market (and thus by association, respect for private property rights) would be the solution to the large-scale environmental destruction?
passerby26 7 months ago
@blahdelablah If you don't blame businesses, then ask yourself who codified into law the freakish unnatural central bank monopoly called the Federal Reserve. Ask yourself who the biggest polluter in the world is by far. Ask yourself what incentives change when businesses use the helpful, violent, and coercive hand of the gov't. The answer is invariably the State. If we agree the economic system forces people into destructive behavior, well it's the gov't who created the system in the first place
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
I don't blame businesses because I see the root causes of the environmental issues we face are systematic, i.e. the system itself is at fault. Oh and just so you know, the Federal Reserve is not part of the US government, it's a private institution.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Here are two questions for you:
1) Does the Federal Reserve receive special privilages from the government?
2) Who appoints the head of the Federal Reserve?
AussieAustrianBlog 7 months ago
@AussieAustrianBlog
1) Yes, as much blow as they can manage, plus keys to the White House bathrooms.
2) Santa
blahdelablah 6 months ago
@passerby26
"My point is abstractions don't actually exist." Yes they do. They are labels, they are tools to understand the world. Where do you stop? The human race doesn't exist, only individuals? Men and women don't exist, only individuals? You could argue all words are abstractions, they don't exist, only what they describe exists. However, we communicate in words, so if you're saying abstractions are useless, then how did you get the knowledge you have now?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah The words exist, yes, and general classifications can be helpful, but they do not exist in physical reality. For example, if I say to you, "We're going to clean up the environment.." Well, what does that mean? Are we removing the sewage from Lake A, or re-planting trees in Area B, or not using pesticides in Farm C? You need specific measurements in reality for it to be an action. We can say the plan is cleaning up the environment, but that's just a collection of individual tasks.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Reaching a goal involves practical measures, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about what the goal is. Practical implications of the goal are what we work out after we know what we want to achieve. If you don't have goals then progress becomes aimless. I understand your frustration about abstract concepts, but they have merit. Plus, it's kind of difficult/frustrating to fit a detailed plan into 500 character YouTube comment limit. Visit blahdelablah DOT blogspot DOT com
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Ok, so let's use a concrete example since concepts are only as good as how they translate into practice, i.e. If I say, the goal is to make people good. Well, that sounds wonderful, but it has no actual meaning until you define the terms and apply them.
So using your logic, if you say the goal here is to meet all people's needs and reduce artificial wants (or correct me where I'm wrong), what would be an action step to meet this broad, undefined goal?
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"So using your logic, if you say the goal here is to meet all people's needs and reduce artificial wants (or correct me where I'm wrong), what would be an action step to meet this broad, undefined goal?"
Eh? Where is the goal undefined? You did it yourself! Just because the answer is multi-faceted doesn't mean the goal is unclear.
Okay, so meeting people's needs, let's start with the need for equal access to education. What blocks this equal access at the moment?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah What influence does marketing have on society? Again, "society" is an abstract term. There are individuals. Some individuals are heavily influenced, some are not. If we learn to reason and discern at a younger age (most of us do not), then the marketing approach adapts to the consumer. If people can't discern, then marketing can be very persuasive and often destructive. The problem with a lot of marketing is one of the very reasons I advocate an anarchic society.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Marketing works on a near universal scale, no one is immune to outside influence, and that extends to our spending habits too. You can be aware of the manipulation and still be influenced, though education does help encourage a more measured response. It's interesting that you advocate an anarchic society, before stumbling upon the ideas of the resource-based economy I also thought an anarchic society was the best approach, but now I believe the resource-based economy is preferable.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah I'll reiterate that you seem like a nice enough guy who means well, but my frustration lies in your repeated use of sweeping, unsupported statements and abstractions. No one is immune from marketing, you say? How do you know I'm not? You don't know anything about me. I may very well be influenced, but if you are making the statement that you KNOW that EVERYONE is influenced by it, then you have the burden of proving that. How do you know I'm not shut off from TV and advertising?
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
"No one is immune from marketing, you say? How do you know I'm not?"
Please don't take it personally. How do I prove it? You're talking to me. What do I mean by that? Simply put, we learn from others (language, for instance). However, how do you know what you learn is correct or false? Lies becomes more obvious over time, but everyone can fall for a lie in the short term, if it sounds convincing enough. Marketing works on massaging the truth to encourage us to buy. Make sense?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah "Please don't take it personally. How do I prove it? You're talking to me."
The two of us having a conversation is not marketing. Whether one believes a lie or not is irrelevant in terms of what we're discussing. If you want to talk about language we use with each other, then let's talk about that. But, your point was no one is immune from marketing. And again, you could be right - I'm not discounting it - I'm just saying you're making sweeping statements without evidence or logic
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
The logic is there, you're just not seeing it (whether that is my failure to communicate properly is certainly debatable). Simply put, if you can fall for a lie from a fellow human, why do you think you're immune to lies from a company?
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah So are you defining "rational" as weighing all the different alternatives (possibly contemplating for hours to arrive at the "best" decision?) given the information we have at the time? What if I make a "rational" decision to buy a Toyota after doing hours of market research only to have the brake lines fail on me driving out of the lot? Would that make the decision irrational? If it's based on hindsight, nothing is ever perfectly rational. If it's not, we never have all the info.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26
Using your Toyota example, it's still a rational decision. The ability to make rational decisions does not mean you can predict the future perfectly.
blahdelablah 7 months ago
@blahdelablah Ok, then let's take my Toyota example a step further. You said a rational decision consists of weighing all options and choosing what is best. So how do we arrive at this? What if I know that Toyota cars kill people, but it is cheaper, better on gas, and doesn't require as many repairs as other competing cars? Is it still a rational decision to buy it? What's more rational: saving lives or cost?How do we know that these "rational choices" are my own or a product of mass marketing?
passerby26 7 months ago
OH YOUR GOD. HOW CAN STEFAN BE SO BLIND?
LifeIsJustARide85 8 months ago
And now, ladies and gentleman, the 5th myth: The free market itself!
The34gl3 8 months ago
There was no debunking at all. It was just an opinion with no evidence and no analysis. And that opinion is extremely affected by belief in a "free" market monetary system, therefore many times the sentence was used - "trully free market". There is no such thing as FREE market when everybody's trying to control the market. Some are already doing, some are trying to survive, most of the people will never get into this false freedom. This debunking is strong enough for middle-school homework.
AlexeyJones 8 months ago
@AlexeyJones Dude, this is a summary video in 5 minutes. Watch Stefan's many other videos, podcasts, or writings which get into much more detail about the free market and economics in general. The point put forward is not if someone is controlling the market, but if there is no interference by coercion in the market, i.e. suppose no gov't exists tomorrow. I'd love to hear some of the debunking.
passerby26 7 months ago
There is no such thing as a free market. Markets are bought, sold and cornered. It is, in fact, a goal of business to control a market. The holes in logic displayed in this video are abundant and obvious. An absolute ridiculous attempt at debunking. No debunking done here.
natechomnicorp 9 months ago
@natechomnicorp You have a nice, happy day now.
sircharles2012 9 months ago
@natechomnicorp Then by all means point out those abundant and obvious hole in logic. You know making sweeping claims without backing up with evidence and reasoning is not very convincing.
yamahaU3 9 months ago
@yamahaU3 Thank you, I assumed that if I made my comment vague someone would invite me to comment further. DB myth 1; monopolies are impossible. Because of the increasing value of the competitor being inversely proportional to the number of competitors in a market? That does not address the cost advantages of being a larger competitor, or if they bought their competitors all at once, or over a large period or marketing or fraud or mismanagement or innovation... There's 7 holes for 1st myth.
natechomnicorp 9 months ago
@natechomnicorp "There is no such thing as a free market"
You didn't understand the video. The myths are directed at the free market by people who either don't know or don't care to know how gov't coercion distorts market phenomena. He's talking about economic laws. If you introduce force into the equation, then obviously you can do whatever you want to attempt to control markets. But force is antithetical to the concept of trade. Force works one way; markets another.
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
@MillionthUsername I did not hear anything about gov't coercion distorting markets in this video. Are you implying that gov't intervention or existence is the barrier that inhibits markets from being "free"? That is not the case there are many factors like; cost of entry, innovation, marketing, geography... If you ignore the complexities of the world and place your imaginary market in a vacuum you can propose a strawman argument in an attempt to debunk a reality of "laissez-faire" economics
natechomnicorp 8 months ago
@natechomnicorp "Are you implying that gov't intervention or existence is the barrier that inhibits markets from being "free"?"
Yes. When you prevent people from trading freely, it is not free trade. You then distort the market, creating situations which would not normally exist if the market were free.
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
@natechomnicorp Markets are bought, sold, and cornered ONLY through gov't coercion, regulation, or other market barriers. Whether a business owner's goal is to control the market is irrelevant if they're UNABLE to control it in a free market.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26 Market variables like; cost of entry, research, corruption, geography, nature, marketing do enable markets to be bought, sold and cornered, as I said. These variables exist without the intervention of governments. Therefor, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a "free market", it is a great over simplification of things. Maybe, an extension of a bias toward government left over from the "Red Scare" and used by corporations to convince some to give up democracy for mercantilism.
natechomnicorp 7 months ago
@natechomnicorp Maybe you can give some examples of market monopolies created without the use of gov't so I can respond in kind. I would argue that all of the factors you mention are barriers corporations use the gov't to put up to eliminate competition as opposed to the market being the cause. Statements are not evidence from either one of us, so perhaps we should use some examples as evidence.
passerby26 7 months ago
@passerby26 I don't see how government can be blamed for market forces like nature and geography, research, so on... Are you paying to much for tickets to the ball game? I suggest you start your own professional baseball league. How about visiting Heartland Regional Medical Center, the only hospital in St. Joseph MO. Or "Many public services are natural monopolies... For most local government services the average number of alternative providers is less than two". Monopolies impossible? Hardly
natechomnicorp 7 months ago
@natechomnicorp There are baseball leagues around the world, so no, it's not a monopoly. With that said, baseball teams are hardly free market institutions. They receive all kinds of corporate kickbacks and subsidies on the taxpayers' dime. I don't know about Heartland Medical Centre specifically, but I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that all hospitals and medical centres receive government funding and are heavily regulated, even the "private" ones.
passerby26 7 months ago
@natechomnicorp Here's another example. Sports teams and concert shows sell tickets to people which are scalped by those buyers on the street to eager fans who are willing to voluntarily pay an extra price. This upsets these organizations, so what do they do? Well, they turn to the violent hands of the government to get a law passed to stop this voluntary activity from happening. How is this a free market? Sports teams have a beautiful relationship with the State.
passerby26 7 months ago
People, he's not saying that Planned Obsolescence doesn't exist, but rather that it's a poor business practice that will lead to better products taking over in a free market.
mox1211 9 months ago
1) big company drives other company to bankruptcy and buys other company for virtually nothing.
2) if one breaks ranks, situation 1 occurs.
3)large companies that undercut don't have to be in debt. They just have to be more efficient at production than the smaller companies.
4)come on stefbot. The iPad 2 has already been launched, and it's cheaper to buy that than get your iPad 1 fixed. PLANNED OBSOLESENCE!
TheRyantherenegade 9 months ago 3
1) the big company could stockpile their profits and buy the means of production, which would stifle competition.
2) Price fixing WORKS! Your second point is so lost, it's sad. ttempts at price fixing is usually corrected by government oversight. There's no incentive to break ranks in that arrangement.
3) Companies that undercut don't have to go into debt. They simply have to have a more efficient economy or own their own means of production.
4) Planned obsolescence? You're joking right?
sc0pl355 10 months ago
In a "true free market" ie - no state, cartels and monopolies would occur all the time, with no regulatory authority to stop them, cartel enforcement agreements would be put in place upon formation, in washing powder everyone puts their recipes into a hat, anybody defects, secrets released, bonds would be an easy way to do it as well.
Also the net worth of a small company existing in monopolistic conditions always decreases, ask for 750 mil? be put out of business by any means necessary.
benjymaan 10 months ago
Very badly thought out video with no basis in reality.
De Beers diamond monopoly, they achieved monopoly through undercutting, they also engaged in price fixing. How is the state to blame?
Unilever and Proctor and Gamble recently fined for price fixing. How is the state to blame?
Companies fix prices until there is opportunity for greater profit in setting market prices, chance of which decreases the larger the market share of the cartel
Countless examples of planned obsolescence exist..
benjymaan 10 months ago 2
Comment removed
benjymaan 10 months ago
All this things don't work in theory, but in real life they do.
TheStrangerInTheRye 10 months ago