Guys, don't worry . . . the Free Market is still working as intended

[ksen]

There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.

So basically libertarians are for a Fall Out 3 type society.

Sounds awesome!

 

[laughing dog]

Let me describe the first few words of Keynesian economics, Supply Side economics, Demand Side economics, Monetarism, and Welfarism.

"The government shall influence the economy by..."

Now let me describe the first few words of Free Market economics.

"The government does not influence the economy..."

We've had this argument about the word "Capitalism", which according to you is anything short of full Marxism. But you don't get to throw in government management of the economy with Free Market economics. There is no way to stretch that definition far enough. That's because all the rest are a direct violation of the definition of Free Market. You cannot have a term mean its opposite.

There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.

No, they are not compatible with their opposite.

As I thought, your use of the term "Free market ideology" denotes an unrealistic dystopian view of reality: government exists and it does influence markets and the economy.

 

[dismal]

Huh? The people that are worse off are the ones who put money into the funds there and instead of getting some of that money in return, they gave it to him to manager their money. They are the ones who need to decide whether or not PIMCOs payment schedules is worth continuing to invest their money in their funds or move money elsewhere.

So the extravagant bonuses for a few people don't affect the many lower level employees who don't get paid nearly as well?

No, if I understand ksen-world they make starvation wages either way.

 

[Togo]

There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.

So, who runs this market? Who enforces contract, stops illegal dealing, monitors minimum requirements for participating, regulates the balance between disclosure and caveat emptor, handles monopolies and in general makes the market run. Who keeps it free? The reason I ask is because if it is a government doing this, then many of these things (stimulation, distribution of wealth, money supply, etc. fall out of the way the market is managed, even if there is no explicit mandate to do so. And if it's not a government doing it, but rather the collusion of individuals, then what's to stop them doing the same thing as the government did, for broadly the same reasons?

Either the Free Market is a highly artificial state, that needs maintenance, or it's a very natural state, that gradually slides towards government-run market over time. Either way, the challenge for the libertarian is not just what such a market should look like, but how it gets to look that way, and how you keep it that way.

 

[funinspace]

Ah, here is the 2012 thread from the old board regarding CEO compensation, and my last post on it:
http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=7035625&postcount=106

This article is what I quoted before, which I found interesting:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2009/05/comparison_shopping.html

Yet discretion did have its benefits, at least for the CEOs. The peer CEOs selected by compensation committees had total earnings that averaged nearly $850,000 more than those of ignored potential peers. The authors also calculate that each dollar of extra pay among peer CEOs was used to justify an extra $0.50 in pay, so that the favorable selection of peers resulted in more than $400,000 extra for the CEO's pay. Four hundred thousand dollars may not sound like a lot to a public accustomed to reading of $100 million bonuses to Wall Street superstars. But relative to the average CEO, with earnings of around $6.5 million, it represents a more than 5 percent pay hike.

More importantly, one executive's raise feeds into the pay hikes of others, as yet other companies will use the now 5 percent higher paycheck as a peer comparison next year. Add to the mix the fact that every year a few corporate leaders are awarded outsize compensations that allow them to leapfrog their competitors' pays (perhaps because of an exceptionally weak board, threats of retirement, or other unusual circumstances), becoming the new standard for pay comparisons in the process, and it's easy to see how a few decades of favorable peer lists could snowball into the enormous incomes we're seeing today. In fact, according to the calculations of sociologists Tom DiPrete, Greg Eirich, and Matthew Pittinsky, it is possible to account for much of the recent rise in executive pay based on the positive feedback loop and interrelatedness among CEOs' pay.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.

So basically libertarians are for a Fall Out 3 type society.

Sounds awesome!

Sure, because as we all know, if it is not being done by the government then nobody is doing it at all. Do you have a significant other? What agency of the government did you go to in order to find this person? How did you decide what to have for dinner last night?

There are libertarians who favor abandoning the term "capitalism" and only using the term "free market" because there are those who overload the term "capitalism" to mean all of the above ideologies. But there is no way to justify overloading the term "free market" because its definition is much more explicit and it is the government doesn't try to stimulate demand, and it doesn't try to stimulate supply, and it doesn't manage the money supply, and it doesn't try to stimulate GDP, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the poor, and it doesn't enact policies to distribute money to the rich. All of those policies, all of those ways that the government would try to do something with the economy (always with the best of intentions of course since I don't want to blaspheme your god) are against the very basic definition of Free Market.

So, who runs this market?

Uh, I think the point is that there isn't a single entity running everything for everyone else.

Who enforces contract, stops illegal dealing, monitors minimum requirements for participating, regulates the balance between disclosure and caveat emptor, handles monopolies and in general makes the market run.

You're mixing up items that do need a government with those that don't need a government. And for those that need a government, that's not interfering with the economy but policing those who violate the rights of others.

Either the Free Market is a highly artificial state, that needs maintenance, or it's a very natural state, that gradually slides towards government-run market over time. Either way, the challenge for the libertarian is not just what such a market should look like, but how it gets to look that way, and how you keep it that way.

Like each and every other freedom in existence, it is something that the government encroaches on. Opposing the free market because government grows on it like an infection until you get one of the other ideologies is like opposing free speech because the government seeks to pass laws censoring free speech.

Government also seeks to encroach on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, freedom of religion, freedom of self defense, freedom of security from intrusive searches, freedom from self-incrimination, etc. You oppose it when the government does that? Then why single out the market?