Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anarcho - Capitalism

245

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Again, I'm not trying to claim that government is blameless. I'm arguing with the rather bizarre idea that regulation magically makes corporations do stupid things that they would otherwise carefully avoid.

    In a free market yes corporations would do stupid things and they would suffer the consequences by going out of business. The ones that didn't act stupid would last the longest. That's why you don't need a regulator pushing lending standards one way or the other in a free market.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    No institution is going to lend sub prime unless they can get those off their books.
    Correct. Read the quotes above: the GSEs got into subprime because lenders were getting subprime mortgages off their books in spades. Wall Street was buying AAA-rated subprime CDOs in the hundreds of billions for years before the GSEs got into the act.
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up by government and were the largest buyers of sub prime mortgages.
    That's a non-sequitur and a half.
    Their sole purpose since their inception has been to loosen lending practices.
    And that's a gross over-simplification. Loosening of lending practices (in the subprime sense) started to happen in the late eighties and early nineties, decades after the GSEs were set up.
    Here's a good assessment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ennn4Qq8MUY&playnext=1&list=PLC7C2D7AFFD62C0BA

    How you can call sub prime lending a product of the free market is beyond me.
    Maybe you should research using more in-depth sources than YouTube and Wikipedia before closing your mind to the possibility that the free market could ever possibly get anything wrong.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    In a free market yes corporations would do stupid things and they would suffer the consequences by going out of business. The ones that didn't act stupid would last the longest. That's why you don't need a regulator pushing lending standards one way or the other in a free market.
    Which is fine, once you assume that large Wall Street firms collapsing is devoid of consequences for anyone other than those firms.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Which is fine, once you assume that large Wall Street firms collapsing is devoid of consequences for anyone other than those firms.

    Any business that collapses will have massive consequences for more than the business itself, that does not mean you should save it. Leaving failing businesses fail is how the free market regulates.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Any business that collapses will have massive consequences for more than the business itself, that does not mean you should save it. Leaving failing businesses fail is how the free market regulates.
    Yes. I know. And preventing businesses from doing stupid things that cause them to fail is how governments try to prevent the often catastrophic collateral damage that their failures inflict on others.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Maybe you should research using more in-depth sources than YouTube and Wikipedia before closing your mind to the possibility that the free market could ever possibly get anything wrong.

    I am aware that these are not the most reliable sources and if anything that i have linked to is wrong feel free to tell me. I am not close minded to the free market getting it wrong. When the free market gets it wrong its self correcting and self regulating. I am pretty close minded to the possibility that government can do a better job at correcting and regulating the market, than just leaving it alone.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    I am aware that these are not the most reliable sources and if anything that i have linked to is wrong feel free to tell me.
    It's not a question of it being wrong; it's a question of you reading what you want to see into them - like the idea that the GSEs are responsible for subprime, which couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
    I am not close minded to the free market getting it wrong. When the free market gets it wrong its self correcting and self regulating. I am pretty close minded to the possibility that government can do a better job at correcting and regulating the market, than just leaving it alone.
    The evidence suggests otherwise. The US mortgage market worked fine for half a century under government regulation. When that regulation was eased, a subprime crisis ensued. Now, I'm sure there's a way to conclude from all that that the regulation was the problem in the first place, but I'm also pretty sure that such a conclusion fails every known test of logic.

    Again: if you're interested, read the book.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Yes. I know. And preventing businesses from doing stupid things that cause them to fail is how governments try to prevent the often catastrophic collateral damage that their failures inflict on others.

    I would have no problem with this if it worked but governments track records speak for themselves. The idea that we can put in strong regulation that will prevent people doing stupid things sounds great but it hasn't worked.

    Also, the idea of governments stepping in to stop businesses doing stupid things or stopping a business failing has shades of the broken window fallacy. You think great, we have spent a ton preventing a business failing with strict regulation, or we have spent a ton rescuing a business and jobs. But you don't see by spending a ton on regulating and stopping businesses failing, that money is denied the chance of funding businesses that do a good job at regulating themselves and don't need constant watching and regulation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Again: if you're interested, read the book.

    I am interested as to why wall street bought these junk sub primes? I presume they knew and just tried to pass these on?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    The evidence suggests otherwise. The US mortgage market worked fine for half a century under government regulation. When that regulation was eased, a subprime crisis ensued. Now, I'm sure there's a way to conclude from all that that the regulation was the problem in the first place, but I'm also pretty sure that such a conclusion fails every known test of logic.

    I am not concluding that regulation is the problem. Whether you believe in a self regulating free market, which is way different than light regulation or strict regulation the recession has a hell of a lot more to it than that. Government policies and political culture, corruption between government and private sector, education(the fact that most borrowers had no idea what they were getting themselves into) and economic understanding to start.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    I am interested as to why wall street bought these junk sub primes? I presume they knew and just tried to pass these on?
    The rating agencies rated them triple-A, and the big Wall Street firms (with the exception, to a point, of Goldman) got sloppy about risk management. They assumed (wrongly) that the ratings agencies knew what they were doing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    The rating agencies rated them triple-A, and the big Wall Street firms (with the exception, to a point, of Goldman) got sloppy about risk management. They assumed (wrongly) that the ratings agencies knew what they were doing.

    So it is incompetency and/or corruption on the part of rating agencies. Your philosophy is to bail out a incompetent and/or corrupt financial sector, and just put them under stricter regulation. The free market solution is to let them fail and remove barriers to entry, leave financial sector wide open to the competition, competition is the only way to improve quality and price. Regulation increases price and weakens competition. Competition is the best way support quality not regulation for those that believe in free markets.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    So it is incompetency and/or corruption on the part of rating agencies. Your philosophy is to bail out a incompetent and/or corrupt financial sector, and just put them under stricter regulation. The free market solution is to let them fail and remove barriers to entry, leave financial sector wide open to the competition, competition is the only way to improve quality and price. Regulation increases price and weakens competition. Competition is the best way support quality not regulation for those that believe in free markets.
    That's the word that troubles me. I see far too much faith, and not nearly enough logical argument, from proponents of unregulated free-market capitalism. I point out that a regulated mortgage market worked without problem for half a century, and that the relaxation of regulation led, step by step, to a financial crisis - you ignore that, and recite the creed that an unregulated market will work better.

    Sure, an unregulated market will work - like an ecosystem in a jungle works. I don't want to live in a jungle.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    That's the word that troubles me. I see far too much faith, and not nearly enough logical argument, from proponents of unregulated free-market capitalism.

    There is plenty of logic in unregulated(financially, I'm not against environmental regulations for example) free market capitalism. It is very logical to let failing business fail. Its very logical to have highly competitive industry with low barriers to entry. Competition is what produces quality and lowers prices.

    We do share something in common, we don't trust. I don't trust governments and regulations to steer businesses finances, i pointed out that its a broken window fallacy to spend money regulating and saving failing business, because ultimately it will be at the expense of businesses that are capable of regulating themselves. So its not only about trust, it is inefficient.

    You don't trust a system of a highly competitive open market that only allows successful businesses to survive, bad businesses fail. Competition drives the quality of products and services up, and the cost to the consumer down. The more regulations the less competition.
    I point out that a regulated mortgage market worked without problem for half a century, and that the relaxation of regulation led, step by step, to a financial crisis

    There are plenty of factors that lead to the financial crisis. There was regulators all along, there was regulation all along. They were loosened due to political pressure. In a self regulating free market there are no regulations to tighten or loosen due to political pressure.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    If a small business fails due to irresponsible decisions, it goes out of business. No government intervention, no extra regulation called for to save small business now or in future. Do you think we should call for more regulation in the case of small businesses?

    Why is it different for big financial institutions?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    According to that logic, would you equally support an extensive network of CCTV cameras on every street in every town of the country? Phone tapping? Email tapping? Surely the criminals need only worry.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Well, in the absence of a centralised government, a road company could make you sign some terms and agreements limiting your use on the road on the condition that you abide by their safety regulations.

    Also, I don't buy that the absence of a state would result in dozens of arbitrary road rules across the country. To suggest that we need the government to help us from veering all over the roads switching rules every ten miles is just the sort of paternalistic attitude that places the state on a pedestal of provision and rational order in the first place. I just don't see how this is the case.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    It is very logical to let failing business fail. Its very logical to have highly competitive industry with low barriers to entry. Competition is what produces quality and lowers prices.
    I don't disagree with any of the above. The bit you're leaving out is the human cost. Suppose you let a bank fail, and it takes with it my employer and my life savings. On the plus side, the highly successful bank that has the mortgage on my house is still in business.

    It's all very well to talk about letting the market sort out the winners from the losers, but it's somewhat more humane to put checks and balances in place to help prevent businesses from failing in the first place.
    We do share something in common, we don't trust. I don't trust governments and regulations to steer businesses finances, i pointed out that its a broken window fallacy to spend money regulating and saving failing business, because ultimately it will be at the expense of businesses that are capable of regulating themselves. So its not only about trust, it is inefficient.
    Sure, it would be more efficient to allow weak businesses to fail. It would also be more efficient to allow starving people to die. If your only measure of efficiency is the ability of a successful business to survive, you're missing a fairly important part of the picture.
    You don't trust a system of a highly competitive open market that only allows successful businesses to survive, bad businesses fail.
    Step back from the ultra-wide-angle, ideologically-driven view for a second, and tell me America (and, by extension, the world) would be a better place today if the entire banking system had imploded and taken the economy with it. Because we're not talking about a corner shop closing because it can't compete with Wal-mart, we're talking about every damn bank in the US (and, by extension, the world) closing down and taking every penny of deposits, stocks and bonds with them.

    Now sure, maybe we'd end up with a stronger market as a result - but I'm not interested in fighting tooth and nail to be a Darwinian survivor in a post-apocalyptic, dog-eat-dog world. Like I said: I don't want to live in a jungle.
    Competition drives the quality of products and services up, and the cost to the consumer down. The more regulations the less competition.
    You're falling into the trap of believing that the law of diminishing returns doesn't apply to competition. You subscribe to the view that if competition is good, more competition is better. That's not true of pretty much anything else in the world; why should it be true here?
    There are plenty of factors that lead to the financial crisis. There was regulators all along, there was regulation all along. They were loosened due to political pressure.
    Yes: political pressure from Wall Street. Wall Street firms said to their politicians, "we can't compete freely with all these regulations! We need a freer market!" The politicians obliged, and Wall Street competed itself into a credit bubble by believing their own bull****.
    In a self regulating free market there are no regulations to tighten or loosen due to political pressure.
    A self-regulating free market works in the same way as the self-regulating seismic/tectonic surface of the planet: if too much pressure builds up, a plate shifts, some magma flows out, and everything settles down again. If you take a long view, no harm is done. Right?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    There is plenty of logic in unregulated(financially, I'm not against environmental regulations for example) free market capitalism.
    Dealing with this separately: why aren't you against environmental regulations? If you can't trust the free market to look after the environment, why would you trust it to look after your financial well-being?
    SupaNova wrote: »
    If a small business fails due to irresponsible decisions, it goes out of business. No government intervention, no extra regulation called for to save small business now or in future. Do you think we should call for more regulation in the case of small businesses?

    Why is it different for big financial institutions?
    Big financial institutions are the engines of the economy. The consequences of failure of big financial institutions are too costly to the wider economy to be allowed to happen.

    If a florist in my town goes bust, nobody really notices apart from the handful of people directly affected. If Goldman had gone bust, can you honestly say the same?

    Small businesses are regulated plenty. Most of those regulations are there for a good reason. Yes, a small business would be more efficient without those regulations, but you've already argued in favour of environmental regulation as one example - putting the greater good ahead of the efficiency of a business. So why is unfettered and unmanaged competition good for the global economy, but bad for the environment?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    The only real point you have is the human cost. Every time that local business fails due to Wal Mart moving in there is human cost for that business and its supporting businesses, but it is far outweighed by the human gain provided by Wal Mart moving in. How can you say competition between Wal Mart and the small business was not a good thing? Competition is vital for improvement in an economy.

    How you compare something like the above to a jungle or letting starving people die is pretty silly. If you want to call the above competition a dog eat dog world that's fine, but realize that its a good thing.

    Your only point is that these financial institutions are just too big to allow to fail, as the human cost of letting them fail would be apocalyptic. We would see the human cost straight away. But many would argue the human cost will be far greater after bailing them out, we will see the effects slowly through inflation, austerity, and eventual default(your post apocalyptic scenario). Maybe this way is more humane on us, maybe not so much for our children.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    And whether it was Wall Street or government or mix of both that loosened regulation, what will make it different in the future, a better regulator? Whats to stop him being bought off or threatened in the future. And by putting the sole emphasis on the regulator and regulations, you have the perfect scapegoat the next time this happens. With bailouts and regulations you set up the too big to fail all over again. Its not a free market if wall street asks for freer regulations to run wild and then gets a bailout.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Well, in the absence of a centralised government, a road company could make you sign some terms and agreements limiting your use on the road on the condition that you abide by their safety regulations.

    Also, I don't buy that the absence of a state would result in dozens of arbitrary road rules across the country. To suggest that we need the government to help us from veering all over the roads switching rules every ten miles is just the sort of paternalistic attitude that places the state on a pedestal of provision and rational order in the first place. I just don't see how this is the case.

    While i don't entertain anarchism. I agree some of the fears people have of the government not being involved in things are way over the top. And i have heard plenty of interesting ways of increasing road safety that don't need government to carry them out.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Every time that local business fails due to Wal Mart moving in there is human cost for that business and its supporting businesses, but it is far outweighed by the human gain provided by Wal Mart moving in. How can you say competition between Wal Mart and the small business was not a good thing?
    Leaving aside the longer-term implications of Wal-mart driving smaller retailers out of business (not universally positive), you're missing my point. You're trying to claim that the big businesses that drive entire economies should be no more subject to regulation than small businesses - but the risks of not regulating big businesses are much, much greater than the risks of not regulating small businesses.
    How you compare something like the above to a jungle or letting starving people die is pretty silly. If you want to call the above competition a dog eat dog world that's fine, but realize that its a good thing.
    You keep bringing the competition straw man into it. I don't have a problem with competition. I have a problem with the idea that competition is the only thing that's needed to regulate a market.
    Your only point is that these financial institutions are just too big to allow to fail, as the human cost of letting them fail would be apocalyptic. We would see the human cost straight away. But many would argue the human cost will be far greater after bailing them out, we will see the effects slowly through inflation, austerity, and eventual default(your post apocalyptic scenario). Maybe this way is more humane on us, maybe not so much for our children.
    There are three things being implicitly compared here: the human cost of allowing businesses to collapse and bring entire economies with them; the human cost of allowing businesses to gamble with economies and then bailing them out, shifting the burden of their gambling debts to taxpayers; and the human cost of preventing the engines of the economy from acting like casinos in the first place.

    You're arguing for the first scenario: let the big firms use entire economies as chips on a blackjack table, and deal with the fallout when it happens. I'm arguing for the third, which would have the side effect of slightly reducing the opportunities for large financial firms to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. Boo hoo.
    SupaNova wrote: »
    And whether it was Wall Street or government or mix of both that loosened regulation, what will make it different in the future, a better regulator? Whats to stop him being bought off or threatened in the future. And by putting the sole emphasis on the regulator and regulations, you have the perfect scapegoat the next time this happens. With bailouts and regulations you set up the too big to fail all over again. Its not a free market if wall street asks for freer regulations to run wild and then gets a bailout.
    I'm not asking for a free market. You're asking for a free market, but without the bailouts. You're the one arguing that when we've dug ourselves out of the wreckage caused by unfettered competition, we'll all be better and stronger. I'm the one arguing for preventing the wreckage in the first place.

    I'm going to do something I'll probably regret, and invoke an analogy: imagine a world without building regulations, where property developers could build buildings in whatever way suits them. A free market for property development, if you will. Now clearly this would be a more efficient property market than the one we've currently got - no pesky engineers slowing things down by insisting on properly built foundations, for example.

    So we have a number of property developers, all competing to build bigger and fancier apartment blocks. There's demand for apartments, so the developer who gets them to market fastest and at the lowest cost will be the most profitable. Corners get cut, little things like structural integrity get overlooked. Eventually, apartment buildings start to show alarming cracks, and it becomes obvious that some of them are going to collapse.

    The conversation now turns to how to fix the situation. Some argue that the buildings have to be shored up and repaired - the bailout situation. Others argue that it's better to let them collapse - the free market solution. Sure, the collapse will leave a bunch of people homeless, but at least it will leave the site free to build another apartment block. It might even be a better-built apartment block, because collapsed buildings are fresh in people's memories. But how long before market pressures push the focus back towards cheaper, rather than better, buildings?

    I'm not arguing for a free market followed by a bailout. I reluctantly accept the need for bailouts, because I don't want to see the analogical apartment-dwellers homeless as a result of the builders' short-sightedness and greed. But the more important lesson is that building regulations are required, because you can't depend on the market to enforce them consistently.

    Regulatory failure is always a risk, but it's a risk that's relatively manageable. You could argue against building regulations on the grounds that the building inspector could be bribed, but that's actually not much of a vote of confidence in the integrity of the players in the market that you're putting all your faith in.

    And you still haven't explained why we can't trust the free market to protect the environment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    And you still haven't explained why we can't trust the free market to protect the environment.

    There is no punishment for businesses not protecting the environment in a free market, there is a reward for environmental shortcuts. Thus why i am for environmental regulation, and why everyone should be.

    As for financial regulation, there is punishment in a free market for being financially irresponsible, you go out of business.

    You want preemptive financial regulation for large financial institutions. I think that's fine until regulations and regulators are bent or changed due to Wall Street or government. You only increase the power of Wall Street by doing this. Eventually you will have a very small number of financial institutions with very few points of failure. Imagine if we go the way of one bank and one regulator, imagine the catastrophic consequences of such an institution failing.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    There is no punishment for businesses not protecting the environment in a free market, there is a reward for environmental shortcuts. Thus why i am for environmental regulation, and why everyone should be.
    If everyone wanted a protected environment, then businesses that act in an environmentally-sound way would be rewarded by the markets, and businesses that didn't would be punished. What makes you think you know better than the market where the environment is concerned?
    As for financial regulation, there is punishment in a free market for being financially irresponsible, you go out of business.
    That's a pretty abstract form of punishment, if the people making the decisions have already made enormous sums of money that they get to sit on even after the businesses they are running have failed.
    You want preemptive financial regulation for large financial institutions. I think that's fine until regulations and regulators are bent or changed due to Wall Street or government. You only increase the power of Wall Street by doing this. Eventually you will have a very small number of financial institutions with very few points of failure. Imagine if we go the way of one bank and one regulator, imagine the catastrophic consequences of such an institution failing.
    But regulation helps to prevent too much concentration of power, by preventing monopolies and oligopolies. Sure, regulation hasn't always worked effectively (especially when a political culture allows regulation to be undermined by the market players themselves), but that's an argument for better regulation, not for none.

    In the building example: if there are building regulations, and shoddy apartment blocks manage to get built, does that mean that we need better regulations, or better enforcement of regulations, or no regulations?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    If everyone wanted a protected environment, then businesses that act in an environmentally-sound way would be rewarded by the markets, and businesses that didn't would be punished. What makes you think you know better than the market where the environment is concerned?

    The market cannot assess how these business create products, they cannot physically go to the locations of the factories and plants. If the market agrees they want certain environmental standards there will be a demand for regulatory bodies.
    That's a pretty abstract form of punishment, if the people making the decisions have already made enormous sums of money that they get to sit on even after the businesses they are running have failed.

    If they have made enormous sums of money running a business why not go on making money?
    But regulation helps to prevent too much concentration of power, by preventing monopolies and oligopolies. Sure, regulation hasn't always worked effectively (especially when a political culture allows regulation to be undermined by the market players themselves), but that's an argument for better regulation, not for none.

    I dont know of any monoplies or concentration of power that came about from a free market.
    In the building example: if there are building regulations, and shoddy apartment blocks manage to get built, does that mean that we need better regulations, or better enforcement of regulations, or no regulations?

    Its a case of buyer beware, who wants to buy a ****ty apartment? People can hire the services of someone to assess any property before buying if they have no knowledge themselves. You are responsible for what you buy.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    The market cannot assess how these business create products, they cannot physically go to the locations of the factories and plants. If the market agrees they want certain environmental standards there will be a demand for regulatory bodies.
    You think we have environmental standards, and regulatory bodies to enforce them, because the market wants them? Seriously?
    If they have made enormous sums of money running a business why not go on making money?
    Oh, don't worry, they will. In a free market where businesses can collapse, the shareholders will pay the price, not the executives. Which is a form of moral hazard the market seems incapable, so far, of extinguishing.
    I dont know of any monoplies or concentration of power that came about from a free market.
    You think Microsoft's decades-long hegemony on computer desktops came about as a result of government regulation? What government body was responsible for De Beers' century-long monopoly in the diamond business?
    Its a case of buyer beware, who wants to buy a ****ty apartment?
    I've never met anyone who wanted to buy a ****ty apartment. I've met plenty of people who have bought ****ty apartments.
    People can hire the services of someone to assess any property before buying if they have no knowledge themselves. You are responsible for what you buy.
    Nice - shove all the responsibility for (and cost of) quality control onto the buyer. The free market at its most caring. I guess we should make parents bear the cost of chemically testing baby food too - after all, why should there be minimum standards there either?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    You think we have environmental standards, and regulatory bodies to enforce them, because the market wants them? Seriously?

    How did regulations come about? Because people wanted them, the market(the consumers are the market). Likewise with product safety. There should always be a sense of buyer beware. We have product reviews for every product on amazon, why can't people do this for developments from contractors, why can't we have reviews of banks and businesses and their practices? why do we need to put our faith in a group of very small individuals. We can waste our time on facebook and forums but not do a little research on products we buy.

    I'd rather promote a buyer beware culture than a culture of hoping that we get better government to look out for us.
    You think Microsoft's decades-long hegemony on computer desktops came about as a result of government regulation? What government body was responsible for De Beers' century-long monopoly in the diamond business?

    I have heard of the De Beers monopoly, they were criminals from the documentary i've seen. That monopoly has plenty of blood on its hands, nothing to do with people interacting freely.

    As for Microsoft, they were dominant for a long time because they offered the best products and services. There is nothing wrong with a monopoly in a free market, i.e. a market open to competition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Do you think that a nation-wide system of road rules could be achieved in the absence of a state?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement