Fighting Free Market Fundamentalism
The Free Market Fundamentalism that Libertarianism is famous for is simply wrong. Free Markets are a means to an end, not a goal in themselves: to allow efficiency and equitable access to all in society. It’s quite clear that markets can easily go overboard and they need to be managed, just like all human enterprises and public spaces.
This is not to say that Libertarians don’t make a decent point in their analysis of the perverse consequences of many Government regulations. They do. It’s undoubtedly fair to say that many Governmental interventions do more damage than they do good.
Producers and consumers should be able to interact with as little interference as possible.
Also, it’s undoubtedly true that Governmental tyranny has been an unmittigated disaster for manking throughout the ages.
However, Austrianism completely ignores the monopolistic tendencies of capitalism and puts all the blame for monopolies on Governments being used by corporate elites to create cartels and monopolies. Why they don’t blame the owners of these monopolies remains an open question.
It is also amazingly simpleminded to assume that these monopolies would not exist without Government mandate, as Austrian Economists proclaim. I believe everybody thinking this over calmly will quickly realize that dominant market players will always disable small time competition and that they will quickly take over the maiden ‘free market’. If it’s not Government that should stop this, Austrians should explain who should.
There is also the issue that the markets serve society and not vice versa. So if, for instance, a nation suffers from lack of competitiveness in international trade there is absolutely no reason not to create tariffs to keep foreign competitors at bay. In fact: the nation has the solemn duty to protect itself from such a situation.
Free trade does NOT always benefit all involved, that’s complete nonsense. Often the free traders will point at the ‘long run’ but their arch enemy Keynes put that argument to rest by saying ‘in the long run we’re all dead’. And that’s the way it is.
When commissioning the Transcontinental Railroad, Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect of ‘If I buy the rails in Britain, we will have the rails and they will have the money. If I buy the rails for a little more in America, we will have the rails and the Union will also have the money’.
This is the simple truth and it is yet another amazing feat of propaganda that the Free Traders have managed to obscure this.
It’s the same thing with Transnationals plundering local economies. The small discount the individual gains at Wal-Mart is simply a knife in the back of his neighbor and the regional economy is devastated by buying there. The main problem is that Wal-Mart takes most of the money out of the local economy, with deflationary effects. Some time back a fascinating study was published quantifying the effects Wal-Mart has on the economy, both locally and nationally and the damage that that one Transnational has done has been incredible. Here’s my report on that study.
Choice
This is yet another great slogan of the Libertarians: choice. No, CHOICE, as it is often spelled by free market commenters I speak with. Even the Lord Himself is usually granted only one capital.
It’s annoying how people get enthralled with pleasant sounding words without ever really thinking through what such a word means and what kind of implications can be expected.
They will maintain that if two parties consent, there is ‘free will’ and that’s the end of it.
But let’s consider Rothbard’s ultimate example of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’. He defended the ‘right’ of parents to sell their children in the ‘free market’.
Obviously he was mistaken as he apparently did not see the children as people. Nobody in his right mind is defending trading people, is he?
Would the child accept this ‘choice’? What would (s)he choose? Even if it consented, out of love and loyalty to its parents and because of a lack of awareness of the implications, would it be relevant?
Also, what kind of ‘freedom of choice’ would lead to such a decision? Are there many parents out there particularly interested in the ‘choice’ to sell their children?
Of course, selling one’s own children is a common practice. With desperate people. People in incredibly dire economic circumstances WILL sell their children.
Should they be allowed to? Of course not. Their situation should be mended.
Rothbard, with this heinous and morally utterly corrupt example just shows his real face here and this is ultimately where Libertarianism is headed.
It’s important to understand that this is not even just the sickening blathering of a man suffering from profound spiritual problems. This is the unavoidable end game of Capitalism. The right and the ability of the ultra rich to monopolize all ‘resources’, including ‘human resources’. It’s clear that when everybody has been made utterly destitute with their usurious banking con, the last and final bailout for the poor will be to sell their children into slavery. This is what happened to the Africans, once they were bankrupted by selling them liquor.
They first sold their children, then their wives and ultimately they went out enslaving neighboring tribes.
Is there anybody out there doubting this is the usurer’s wet dream?
To be honest: there probably are many who cannot believe it. But it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee: this is the kind of depravity that we face. This is the kind of darkness that rules the hearts of our overlords. It is not for nothing that this is where their ideologies ultimately lead to.
So ‘choice’ is not so wonderful as it has been made out to be. Not all choices are equal and many choices simply utterly detestable. The so called ‘freedom’ to make certain ‘choices’ is not quite what many joining the burgeoning ranks of Libertarianism really had in mind.
Conclusion
‘Choice’, nor ‘Free Markets’ are a goal in itself. There is a moral imperative. The fact that Libertarianism does everything in its power to avoid this, is why it is ultimately Satanic by nature.
We are not looking for ‘heavy handed violent statist interference’ as the libertarians like to put it. Nor do we believe that all, or even many, of our problems are going to be fixed by Government. But clearly ‘free markets’ do not exist. Not for longer than one minute, anyway.
The perceived ‘rights’ of the ultra rich are not particularly important. What is important is a reasonable deal for all. This is absolutely possible. We live in an incredibly abundant environment.
Of course this leads to the question ‘what is a reasonable deal?’, And undoubtedly this question will keep us busy for a long time. But there is also such a thing as common sense and once we start seeing through the many extremist ruses the Money Power’s Mind Controllers distract us with, from ‘anarcho-capitalism’ to ‘communism’, things will prove to actually be not really so complicated.
Related:
The Problem with Transnationals and what to do about them
The Satanic Core of Libertarianism
Faux Economics
Here’s a man that actually understands. Courtesy of Ted Daniels and Jamie Bergamasco:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3i-geRpH1w&feature=youtu.be]
>>>>>They first sold their children, then their wives and ultimately they went out enslaving neighboring tribes.
The Canadian version is the Fraser Institute; a fine upstanding member of it said on radio: child labour is good for those Asian children; for his own doughter no such benefit is needed
>>>>>It is also amazingly simpleminded to assume that these monopolies would not exist without Government mandate, as Austrian Economists proclaim. I believe everybody thinking this over calmly will quickly realize that dominant market players will always disable small time competition and that they will quickly take over the maiden ‘free market’. If it’s not Government that should stop this, Austrians should explain who should.
And we have a well-documented history of it, from 1800 to 1900; how industries were taken over and free market competitors put out of business
>>>>>When commissioning the Transcontinental Railroad, Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect of ‘If I buy the rails in Britain, we will have the rails and they will have the money. If I buy the rails for a little more in America, we will have the rails and the Union will also have the money’.
This would have been a very good example; without Lincoln, and without the transcontinental railway. The Union actually ended up with no rails and no money.
Unfortunately the forces behind the 19th century tariff legislations were monopoly and central bank minded individuals. Please read
In the 1860s 1 mile of railway bed could be built for $9,000 on the plains, for $25,000 in the very rough areas; the citizens of the United States ended up paying $125,000 for each mile, and Union Pacific retained ownership
—
Another point free-traders like to make that under protection quality goes down and price goes up. Furtunately we don’t need any theory, simple observation of the past 19 years (since NAFTA was signed) speaks for itself: the quality and workmanship of shoes, spoons and forks and other things visibly went down, while prices remained
=====
Napoleon had a very good free trade policy:
you are free to bring any goods into the country; you are free to take any goods out of the country;
but you are not free to take money out of the country (instant trade ballance, and foreign trade is instantly limited to what the country actually needs)
Giving away land to Rail Road Barons nearly did the country in. The best way to improve land’s rent value is to provide transportation infrastructure. Goods can then get in and out to market, hence land’s value automatically improves.
Suppose a rail road baron owns the land surrounding a town or rail station. The workers of the town toil and improve the land. Workers are maids, ranchers, business owners, and all who contribute in the town. However, rail road owner does nothing to his parcel. What improved RR Baron’s land value, his inputs or town’s workers?
Baron’s also worked with private banks, which allowed cheap loans; this in order to buy up competitors and monopolize markets.
Advanced taxation, that is fiscal policy is as important as monetary policy. Monetary reform also requires fiscal reform.
One of the Killer elements in NAFTA is that foreign private banks be allowed to do business. The bulk of their banking is now foreign owned. Mexico’s money creation is largely outside of their sovereign hands.
Damn……always the same with these quotes. Even if they were actually said, they often turn out to sound wonderful, while being pretty irrelevant…….
Sounds a bit like these 10,000 dollar toilets in submarines, or that multitrillion hole in the defense accounting.
hahaha, yes, corporations and government, such a wonderful combination, too bad I never got my foot in the door, or I’d never had entered this marginal ‘monetary reform’ business hahahaha…….
You really have outdone yourself in the rank ignorance is bliss dept.
“The Free Market Fundamentalism that Libertarianism is famous for is simply wrong. Free Markets are a means to an end, not a goal in themselves: to allow efficiency and equitable access to all in society. It’s quite clear that markets can easily go overboard and they need to be managed, just like all human enterprises and public spaces.”
Free markets imply NO COERCION by, and NO POLITICAL FAVORITISM for ruling class parasites.
You are SIMPLY WRONG Anthony, and so are your factless attacks against Rothbard, for I see you could show ZERO proof from Rothbard’s work I referenced to show us all.
Markets do NOT go overboard, only those with the wealth to purchase political favoritism at the expense of the people’s social power go overboard and threaten congress with martial law to get what they want, like mafioso gangsters ROTHBARD has spent a lifetime EXPOSING!!!!!
A truly free market of mutually beneficial VOLUNTARY exchange, which we HAVE NOT HAD since the progressive era of society and economic PLANNERS CREATED this bullshit “mixed” economy of corporate state privilege to plunder and impoverish the people that we’ve suffered under as Americans for over 100yrs now, and then the entire globe since the creation ESF/CIA and Bretton Woods dollar hegemony inflation exportation, and global BIS run CB inflation in concert.
I dont trust todays oligarchs, why shoud we trust YOUR mpe crap either? Let men be free of money controlled by anyone, for NO ONE has ever done it – that is resisting running the printing presses of debt moiney fiat.
Oh yes, the greenbacks were with interest via bonds floated, whereas gold & silver never cost anyone a nickel of interest. Thats why power hates us to use it for ourselves, it cheats shylock his vigerish and ability to finance perpetual wars off unborn futurity’s labors.
Just admit you’ve NEVER actually read any Rothbard.
“”However, Austrianism completely ignores the monopolistic tendencies of capitalism and puts all the blame for monopolies on Governments being used by corporate elites to create cartels and monopolies. Why they don’t blame the owners of these monopolies remains an open question.
It is also amazingly simpleminded to assume that these monopolies would not exist without Government mandate, as Austrian Economists proclaim. I believe everybody thinking this over calmly will quickly realize that dominant market players will always disable small time competition and that they will quickly take over the maiden ‘free market’. If it’s not Government that should stop this, Austrians should explain who should.””
WE COULD & SHOULD as consumers by boycott, IF govt hadn’t already long ago granted them exclusions from competition from taxpayers wallets.
100% BS Anthony. Just read Rothbards Wall Street, Banks & American Foreign Policy where he rips them all a new one in spades.
There’s that ole bankster financed Marxian term CAPITALISM. The one Marx meant WAS the special privilege of mercantilism, ie corp & govt co-operation. And NOTHING to do with free and voluntary enterprise.
1) Austrians are 100% anti-mercantilists, ie anti-capitalist in the sense Marx meant. But are pro-capitalism in the sense of truly free and voluntary enterprise.
2) It is amazingly simpleminded to believe cartels ever did ascend without govt sanctions, as history proves they were ALL failures until getting them. Rothbard has proven this innumerable times, and so has Kolko, LD Brandeis (in his Other Peoiple’s Money…) and the Beards as well.
You are all rhetoric, lets have some actual Austrian school quotes to prove your BS, eh? vs second hand drivel.
“A truly free market of mutually beneficial VOLUNTARY exchange, which we HAVE NOT HAD since the progressive era of society and economic PLANNERS CREATED this bullshit “mixed” economy of corporate state privilege to plunder and impoverish the people that we’ve suffered under as Americans for over 100yrs now, and then the entire globe since the creation ESF/CIA and Bretton Woods dollar hegemony inflation exportation, and global BIS run CB inflation in concert.”
You don’t get it Marxbites: we agree to a large extent, all I’m saying is that a ‘free market’ cannot exist. It’s simply conquered. With or without Government interference.
Here’s how private banks control the market, especially to make property bubbles: 1) A person goes to the bank and becomes hypothecated for a house loan. 2) Banker creates credit money from nothing. 3) This credit, equal to loan’s principle, is handed to new homeowner. 4) Homeowner spends his new credit money into money supply, increasing said supply. 5) Banker marks liability column of double entry ledger with an amount equal to fees, usury, and principle. 6) Banker attaches home to ledger, such that the house can be grabbed in a downturn.
When paying back loan, there is a high drain rate. Liability can be thought of as negative numbers. So, when credit money is paid back, it disappears out of existence into the ledger. A positive meets a negative and the result is nothing. Liability exceeds the principle, therefore the money supply wants to drain at a high rate.
A credit money driven economy (Private Banking with debt contracts) has a saw tooth output. Economy grows as bank money goes into the market but simultaneously debt contracts grow in number and in time based usury amount. Velocity of money is high, making for inflation of goods and exuberance, which is the rise in saw-tooth pattern. (The exuberance is a functional output of the credit money system, not human action as wrongly predicted in Austrian theory.) Debts grow unnaturally, and usury takes its tool, draining money supply. Remember credit money disappears, so the supply is truly draining. Eventually deflation causes economy to keel over, and then banker is allowed to grab assets. Saw tooth drops rapidly as velocity slows to zero, and banker stops making new loans. Loan foreclosures and the like allow debt contracts to evaporate. This leaves some Banker Credit Money in supply, and cycle begins anew.
This is just a wonderful market mechanism isn’t it? It is free for predators, but not free for producers of goods and services. Wealth is stolen by sophisticated “private” schemes.
Of course, the entire bubble period of the last 20 years was designed to allow housing to asset inflate, to make new loans, to cause more asset inflation. Asset inflation allowed banker’s ledgers look good…and wow what profits could be taken! This inflation and profits had no counterpart in productivity, and the bubble eventually collapsed. Even better, loans were socialized so taxpayer had to bail out the banks. Government has been parasitized and hosted by private money masters. The Austrian response would be to say.. oooh ooh if only we used GOLD that wouldn’t have happened.
Our current paradigm is a classic pincher movement: One side of dialectic is to use Chicago School Monetarism (debt contracts – asset grabbing) and the other side of the dialectic is to use Austrianism (deflation –asset grabbing). Each side claims the other is Baaaaad. But both sides have masters who are our ancient friends herding us in the way we should go. Ironcially they herd us using our very own wealth, which was stolen with their private money schemes.
To add insult to injury, our parastized government is denigrated with paid for mouthpieces (press), so money powers can continue their parastic hosting.
usury takes its toll.
Good points on the RRs name789. Mussolini called that Henry Clay whig American System “style of business”, FASCISM, which, with enough socialism to keep the natives restfull, we have full blown today that Il Duce would be very jealous of.
Napolean also ended the paper travesty that was the source of the starving that brought on the revolution.
The rest about trade balances is BS. The flow of specie between nations levels those as free markets will do when allowed to unintervened by govt.
If you were not a moron, one day you could make a jesuit priest –unfortunately for you, they require brain capacity before they take someone in
You are just as un-able to reason, to think logically, read & comprehend, as these groupies around Ellen Brown and Bill Still.
So, you hate the nation and gene-pool that gave you everything you have; Karl Marx would be proud of you for your internationalism (no country, no nation is one of the pillars of marxism;p Marx also recommended free-trade because it is a good way to put society into a revolutionary mood)
You hate the very idea of balanced trade, you hate your own nation so much that you would sell them to the lowest bidder; were your grand-parents African slavers, is that why this resident enemy alien morality is in your genes ?
Hopefully some day someone ties your 8-year-old daughter to a power-loom or a sewing machine, and work her for 11 hours a day.
Napoleon fought for 12 years against the enemies of humanity, the free-trader british oligarchy
“Hopefully some day someone ties your 8-year-old daughter to a power-loom or a sewing machine, and work her for 11 hours a day.”
Name789 is right MarxBites. It’s annoying, but this is what Austrianism is all about. You’ve seen Tom Woods explain how wonderful the industrial revolution was, didn’t you?
The usury/deflation issues are real. You’ve been had. And that’s no problem. We all get suckered all the time, when we find out it’s time to move on. Many people recovered from Austrianism, they are now among the best of the real reformers. Growth requires pain.
Man up, no harm done!
Anthony
In the post I put a link to a picture of child labourers, but it did not show up…..
I see no code whatsoever in your post, when checking it in my wordpress ‘dashboard’ name789!
(the mystery of cyber)
http://www.yamaguchy.com/images/facgirls.gif
Good article.
Ideology by its nature is a priori.
Please, Libertarians, understand that ideology is always subject to fallacy. Human nature is not science as in Chemistry or Physics. That is why in the late 18th and 19th century the study of the production and trading of goods & services was referred to as Political Economy, not Economics.
Dropping the ‘Political’ from the term of study was done to suggest the study of the production and trading of goods & services was a science. It is not a science because human behavior can not be reduced to fixed physical relationships expressed in mathematical language (symbols).
Regarding some issues I lean towards libertarian positions, but I recognize there are other issues where pure Libertarian positions lead to the Law of the Jungle and not the Rule of Law.
Pure Capitalism does. in many circumstances, lead to monopoly.
The ‘Free Market’ is not perfect because Man is not perfect. The strong strive to dominate the weak — resulting in the Law of the Jungle.
Historically, Libertarianism first developed in Europe as a response to government domination of the political economy and its true that Strong Private Parties often controlled the government and thus regulation of the political economy to the detriment of weaker private parties, but at times weaker private parties gained control of the government to restrict Strong Private Parties.
Thus, Libertarianism was born to justify unrestricted Capitalism as desired by Strong Private Parties.
Libertarianism, by and large, did not “jump the pond” to America in a meaningful way until the 1930’s because Libertarianism in America was a response to the New Deal — the New Deal, by and large, restricted the Strong Private Parties.
Pratical expericence must be humanity’s guide, not a priori ideology.
So, again, please, libertarians, recognize not all situations should be left to the Law of the Jungle.
Also, if political economy can be analogized to a game between numerous private parties, then there needs to be a referee to make sure the rules are followed and there needs to be a governing body to set the rules that the referee enforces upon the private parties.
Ideology can help make sense of a multiplicity of sensory information by ranking importance, but it can not be a substitute for practical expericence.
This is true for Libertarianism, Capitalism, Socialism or any “ism” that is advocated as being the final word in human behavior.
The truth? There is no “final word” in human behavior only general guidelines subject to revision upon experience that falsifies the general guidelines.
All hard & fixed ideologies will lead to failure in the world of experience because, as stated at the top, ideologies by their very nature are a priori.
Libertarians claim they are opposed to war and that their ideology leads to peace, but the ravenous struggle for gold, as gold seemingly is libertarians’ avatar, leads to war, time and time again down through human history.
Here is a video, both the song and the visual is symbolically instructive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doeJSspVL5Y
(Title song from Kelly’s Heroes, Burning Bridges.)
Notice the gold bar at the start, and the rest is the condensed trail of the quest…
Gold is limited, in fact it is one of the most limited ‘goods’ on Earth (as opposed to the vast majority of other goods & services). What happens when Man is fixated on appropriating such a limited resource?
War.
Why would we want to make the medium of exchange be a ‘good’ that has been the source of such misery?
great Jim, thanks!
Jim Evans wrote: “I recognize there are other issues where pure Libertarian positions lead to the Law of the Jungle and not the Rule of Law. Pure Capitalism does. in many circumstances, lead to monopoly. The ‘Free Market’ is not perfect because Man is not perfect. The strong strive to dominate the weak — resulting in the Law of the Jungle.”
———————————–
No Austrian/Libertarian claims that Man or the free market are perfect. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
However, since mankind is what it is, the best, most REALISTIC, REAL-WORLD option available to minimize the harm done by Man to their fellow beings, is to have a maximum of freedom, an absence of rule of men over men. Go figure!
“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern”
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Both by Lord Acton
Ah, about that “free-market jungle” thingy – Here’s Murry Rothbard for you:
“A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes “the law of the jungle,” of “dog eat dog,” that it spurns human cooperation for competition, and that it exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone’s living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit.”
Murray N. Rothbard, “What Is the Free Market?”
http://mises.org/daily/1973
“The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone’s living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit.”
And what makes you think that this is true? Just because the “great” Rothbard said it?
Besides, the fact that there is something wrong with communism doesn’t mean that the extreme opposite is the best solution. And then you don’t understand why we are talking about a Libertarian-Communist dialectic…
Memehunter wrote: “And what makes you think that this is true?”
—————————
History does. Todays world does. You may want to consider both sometime …
In the late 1800’s, the American Economic School had to explain to the world how America was growing rich. It did it with polices that protect markets:
1. Protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
The American School’s key elements were promoted by John Q. Adams and his National Republican Party, Henry Clay and the Whig Party, and Abraham Lincoln through the early Republican Party which embraced, implemented, and maintained this economic system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s.
All hail the heroes of the system between 1861 and 1932: Harriman, Schiff, Warburg, Morgan, Hill, Carnegie
during the same period, how much did France, England, Germany invest in internal improvements ? and why standard of living was not as high ?
How much would the internal improvements of the United States between 1861 and 1832 have cost without the help of central bankers and robber barons ? would the U.S. have not had rail roads without giving 200million acres to criminals ? (and why build 4 times the mileage ?)
Could it be that the highest standard of living was achieved inspite of these Whig policies ?
The Federal Reserve System, perpetual debt, debt-based currency, monopolies, are blessings, then ? (not to mention the civil war and world war 1)
Exactly. But the premise remains. Tariffs and protected markets are necessary in the face of mercantilism. That is the lesson.
Please read:–
http://name789.wordpress.com/journal-of-banking/
Yes. No problem. But all monetary periods have lessons. Civil war period, the south was becoming economically intertwined with England. Buy slaves, profits go to England, make cotton, sell cotton to England, buy finished industrial goods from England. All profits go to England and landed aristocrats in south. Population increases in South may swing the country to a slave system. The North was evolving in a different direction. Hence tariffs and national banks. This protection gave industry time to ramp up. Workers began to get wealthy as their money (somewhat) served labor. It is an important lesson when we squint and look at it. Of course debt free would be better.
Today we suffer Mercantilism from China and Germany. This is why we loose jobs as we export dollars for their goods. They hold dollars, said dollars come back as a TBILL and thus does not stimulate main street. Dollar as reserve insures Triffin’s dilema, and here we are. Our money does not serve us, the producers.
Reblogged this on Recovering Austrians.
The concept of free market competition requires continuous free market entry by competitors. BUT, we all know that free entry is an impossibility. Once a market position is established the rules change. The idea becomes protect and expand market share at “all costs.” We all know this. Why this disinfo-pretnese about free market competition? Just a thought. Thanks Rduanewilling
I think we agree, like so often, rduanewilling!
“But clearly ‘free markets’ do not exist.” -Anthony Migchels
“However, Austrianism completely ignores the monopolistic tendencies of capitalism and puts all the blame for monopolies on Governments being used by corporate elites to create cartels and monopolies. Why they don’t blame the owners of these monopolies remains an open question.
It is also amazingly simpleminded to assume that these monopolies would not exist without Government mandate, as Austrian Economists proclaim. I believe everybody thinking this over calmly will quickly realize that dominant market players will always disable small time competition and that they will quickly take over the maiden ‘free market’. If it’s not Government that should stop this, Austrians should explain who should.” -Anthony Migchels
An example of monopoly that exists without government subsidy would be a really handy addition to inject somewhere into your article. Walmart doesn’t fit the bill. Your example of Walmart actually supports the Austrians’ arguments.
These links to Walmart subsidy merely scratch the surface…
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/index.html
Oh, and…
“Why they don’t blame the owners…”
To my recollection, Sam Walton has never provided Walmart with public subsidy.
“Austrianism completely ignores the monopolistic tendencies of capitalism and puts all the blame for monopolies on Governments being used by corporate elites to create cartels and monopolies. Why they don’t blame the owners of these monopolies remains an open question.
It is also amazingly simpleminded to assume that these monopolies would not exist without Government mandate, as Austrian Economists proclaim. I believe everybody thinking this over calmly will quickly realize that dominant market players will always disable small time competition and that they will quickly take over the maiden ‘free market’. If it’s not Government that should stop this, Austrians should explain who should.”
—————————-
Well then, take a look at this video (or the link to a book chapter below) There you will see a man named Murray Rothbard, talking about the myth of “free market cartels”. Since you apparently never read or listened to the man, you may want to listen or read NOW in order not to embarrass yourself continuously by writing about issues you clearly do not comprehend – let alone by denouncing a man you obviously know nothing about whatsoever.
“The Myth of Free Market Cartels by Murray N. Rothbard”
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/10/the-myth-of-free-market-cartels-by.html
“Man, Economy, and State, Chapter 10, Monopoly and Competition”, by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp
Abu, my friend and brother, take it easy. Even I have other things to do sometimes than moderate comments. If you would put in less links to the thoughts of others and focus more on expressing your own ideas and feelings you would not even need moderation: with two links or more you must wait. I’ve not posted only two comments here on real currencies out of 4204. I even posted all your tantrums.
you know I love you, even though I tackle your heroes head on.
Well, I think it’s quite a stretch to label it “tackle your heroes head on”, when in fact your modus operandi consists of erecting straw man and trying to shoot them down instead of serious critique based on actual writings of Austrian/libertarian thinkers.
However, since I mostly prefer to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness, I warmly recommend the following, very timely article:
“Fiat Money Means Fiat Freedom: Greenback Dollars”
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10233.cfm
Gee, Anthony, fighting “Free Market Fundamentalism”? Really? Right now you seem more interested in fighting dissent … or why don’t you unlock my first feedback?
Comments “need to be managed” too – in particular when the feedbacker disagrees with you, right?
Again, this, apparently, is what happens when you guys are in charge. Great outlook … NOT.
I agree overall but…”…clearly ‘free markets’ do not exist. Not for longer than one minute, anyway.”
I think this is capital-money’s fault (often the state too), not the free market itself.
I believe free monies (cash monies with demurrage and mutual credit monies, that is, monies that don’t spring interest) will beat gold (and other new capital monies such as bitcoin) on the free market. Am I a free market fundamentalist?
For what I have to say about your comments on monopolies see my post on your “mistakes of Austrianism” piece. I’ll add here that having a monopoly is not a crime. Why is it that if someone produces corn they are fine since there are many corn producers, but they are criminals if they produce something no one else produces. They’re both just out to make a buck. You also avoid the logical conclusion that if all monopolies are inherently evil, that every company with a market share of over 1% should probably be disbanded because they have undue market power and influence, since the problem is not monopoly, it’s the higher prices that come out of this.
As I showed before, monopoly can emulate other levels of competition out of fear of competition, as well as establishing positive economies of scale. It is also not at all obvious that large competitors will be at an advantage when dealing with smaller start-ups. New firms can worry less about national trends to focus on local areas, aren’t likely to have a bureaucracy that makes them less efficient, which many larger firms fall into, and they can also launch in direct opposition to the larger firm. They can launch a product looking cooler, more efficient, or more attractive to the larger counterpart. Standard Oil was on the retreat before it was forcibly broken up, Microsoft came into the market with competition from many larger and better established companies, there are no shortage of car manufacturers despite the initial domination of the market by Ford and GM, big breweries have been losing market share since deregulation of the beer market, airlines in America, a government enforced oligopoly, succumbed to competition from several newer competitors, with the giant Mohawk going under. Something similar could be said about phone service in the United States.
As we move to your point about free trade, we see another set of fallacies. First of all, your post about Keynes poses two problems: why you’re using it at all since it contradicts your own position, and why you were writing this article instead of smoking crack. If it is unprofitable for a local firm to start up then this means that it’s instead cheaper to purchase from abroad. If individuals cared more about the long run picture, that is to say if the opportunity cost of money was lower, then they would be more willing to invest in the local companies. However, in the short run they benefit from buying abroad because it means that what they are buying is cheaper and so they can enjoy a higher standard of living. Introducing trade barriers markedly harm the inhabitance of a nation in the short run by decreasing real wages through rising prices. Therefore, ironically, because you argue that the long run is not worth pursuing because we’re all dead in the long run, this logic instead proves that we should be interested in preventing trade barriers, because we’re all dead in the long run.
It’s also necessary to point out that if you’re invoking Keynes’ argument that it’s unclear why you’re not doing crack or some other type of drug. I understand that crack grants the user a great amount of pleasure while one is high off of the drug, it is only in the long run that there are negative ramifications. Therefore if you’re really interested in arguing this, I don’t understand why you’re not interested in satisfying your own wants to the greatest extent in the short run… And doing crack.
Secondly, you cut short the implications of your own argument. If competition from abroad is negative internationally, then why is it not also true within a nation? Why shouldn’t each of the fifty states erect trade barriers against one another, allowing nothing other than natural resources that can’t be provided locally to come through? Why don’t we have a car company, computer company, railroad company, and telephone company for each state? Why not each city?
The true answer to all of this is that it would cause a massive deadfall and decrease in output. If I am an experienced carpenter and you are an experienced baker, it probably doesn’t make sense for us to attempt to learn each other’s trade. Instead it makes sense for us to specialize and trade in our respective fields. Since there are firms abroad that are focusing upon certain industries, that allows other nations to focus upon the industries they are best suited for. If you buy rails from Britain your nation might be down a certain amount of money, but if you put up trade restrictions and buy rails from inefficient American companies, you’re probably down a lot more money.
As for your point on choice, Murray Rothbard isn’t the spokesperson for all libertarians on all fronts, and the rights of children is a touchy subject, even within statist circles. Focusing upon this inflammatory issue solely takes away from other points libertarians have on choice. You could just as easily say “because libertarians want the choice of selling children to be an option, all choice is evil and should be prohibited, because when we allow choice to occur people sell children”. It’s unclear where exactly the anti-choice attitude stops, and indeed your whole argument falls apart if someone were to come along and say “I am a libertarian and I don’t support selling children”. Perhaps most disingenuously, you don’t even clarify why it is that Rothbard supported his position, when he did write a whole book attempting to outline a coherent basis for ethics, which indicates to me that he probably had better reasons for believing his ethics, as well as more coherent ethics, than you yourself do, regardless of which is “correct”. In this same vein it’s totally unclear what, according to you, the moral duties of the government are. Is it just to provide protection? Shall it destroy monopolies? Shall it outlaw usury? Shall it guarantee a minimum income? Shall it guarantee free healthcare? Housing? A job? Middle class income? Shall it provide transportation? On and on we go. Exactly what the government’s moral duties are and where they stop are wholly unclear and arbitrary.