Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Well that's what a free market requires. It is impossible.and of course a freemarket is incorruptable; allowing for freedom of speech and understands individuals
Well that's what a free market requires. It is impossible.and of course a freemarket is incorruptable; allowing for freedom of speech and understands individuals
i'd argue that business leaders are required to be corrupt to succeed in a free marketLiberal Scum said:I never said it was incorruptable, merely that it is less so than a communist society purely because having 100+ business leaders conspire to do something radical is a lot harder than just sending an order from the party room and having it done, not to mention that even if all the major businesses agreed, there would still be minor ones that did not and the corruption, while undesirable, would not be absolute.
no, it just expresses the political views of the richLiberal Scum said:The press will publish any opinion that makes them money, whether it be for or against the owner of the publication's political views or not. This leads to a wide expression of political views.
thus why it is socially unviableLiberal Scum said:The market understands what individuals tell it through their purchases.
Which is why there would be certain laws to prevent corruption, insider trading etc. It falls in the same basket as private monopolies.walrusbear said:i'd argue that business leaders are required to be corrupt to succeed in a free market
If the poor can write a piece which expresses logical views in an appealing way then the private media will pick it up and publish it. Secondly, the diversity of views between the rich is huge anyway, and so even if your statement were true it still provides something of a free expression of ideas.walrusbear said:no, it just expresses the political views of the rich
You're suggesting that you know what I want for breakfast better than I do?walrusbear said:thus why it is socially unviable
Liberal Scum said:The market understands what individuals tell it through their purchases.
walrusbear said:thus why it is socially unviable
Well there is the issue of market failure, negative externalities and public goods that you have to deal with. It's not as clear cut when you look at it from the macro level.Liberal Scum said:You're suggesting that you know what I want for breakfast better than I do?
I'm not sure 'Liberal scum' has a grasp of the phases 'market failure' and 'public good'.Sarah said:Well there is the issue of market failure, negative externalities and public goods that you have to deal with. It's not as clear cut when you look at it from the macro level.
you're kind of missing the pointLiberal Scum said:If the poor can write a piece which expresses logical views in an appealing way then the private media will pick it up and publish it. Secondly, the diversity of views between the rich is huge anyway, and so even if your statement were true it still provides something of a free expression of ideas.
You're suggesting that you know what I want for breakfast better than I do?
I do agree that there are certain elements of society which can't be completely deregulated, however these are rather small in number, and certainly many of those which are heavily regulated now shouldn't be.erawamai said:I'm not sure 'Liberal scum' has a grasp of the phases 'market failure' and 'public good'.
Private press publishes everything from Mein Kampf through the Communist Manifesto through the Road to Serfdom through to the Anarchist Cookbook. What makes you think that this will change after further deregulation?walrusbear said:you're kind of missing the point
it's dubious to claim that private media will publish anything that is quality. you said earlier they publish what will make money. is that what you meant by 'appealing'. in any case, there i still doubt private media would publish 'anything' as long as it 'expresses logical views' - unless 'logical views' means consistent with the private media worldview.
in regards to your second statement regardless of how diverse the views of the rich are, it is still not the views of the marginalised. yours is an expression of ideas backed by money
i hardly see the point your making with your 'breakfast' call. are you telling me the market can uphold proper individual liberties because it can identify commercial practices??
these texts are deceptive examples because they are historic and cultural exceptions. they have commercial value attached to their 'canonicity'. it is in the majority of pressings where you will most likely see a homogeneity of print. for a real example look at the commercial media?Liberal Scum said:Private press publishes everything from Mein Kampf through the Communist Manifesto through the Road to Serfdom through to the Anarchist Cookbook. What makes you think that this will change after further deregulation?
this seems nonsensicalLiberal Scum said:And the market will not uphold individual liberties, individuals are perfectly capable of deciding which liberties they want, and the role of government should be to ensure that they do not encroach upon the liberties of others while exerting these rights. The market will identify commerical practices and deliver goods which the consumer desires.
Yes, minimal regulation is required, and I don't think you'll find anyone but anarchists claiming otherwise.walrusbear said:these texts are deceptive examples because they are historic and cultural exceptions. they have commercial value attached to their 'canonicity'. it is in the majority of pressings where you will most likely see a homogeneity of print. for a real example look at the commercial media?
this seems nonsensical
you pretty much admit that liberty can't exist without government regulation...
how minimal are we talking?Liberal Scum said:Yes, minimal regulation is required, and I don't think you'll find anyone but anarchists claiming otherwise.
If we want other examples we can look to papers and essays published online, there would be many of those with many different viewpoints, and they are accessible to just about anyone who wants them.
You have a very rose tinted view of the market.Liberal Scum said:Roles of govt
1. Protecting individuals from oppression and coercion from both within the society, and outside. Covers military defence of a country, policing against violent crimes, protections against monopolies etc.
2. Maintaining goods which are not feasible under the market, such as footpaths, small parks, non-highway roads, some public schools, some public hospitals etc
3. Recognise that the mentally disabled and orphaned children are unable to take care of themselves, and in this instance be paternalistic towards them.
Well there is a bit of a lag time, and he has reason to believe that if we keep our current laws tough times lay ahead, despite the current good times.oh wow the economy is so spectacular, but suddenly we have to set the labour movement back decades of progress because there is such a dire need to improve the economy
..........Costello hiding Treasury IR report
Brad Norington and Steve Lewis
November 05, 2005
THE Howard Government has been accused of concealing specially commissioned advice from Treasury that fails to show any economic benefit from the workplace changes unveiled in parliament this week.
Treasury was commissioned to provide cabinet with specific advice on the economic justification for proceeding with the historic reforms.
But the Government is refusing to release the advice, raising suspicions it did not match claims by John Howard and Peter Costello that the changes would boost employment, wages and productivity. [...]
Senior Treasury official David Tune has confirmed the department reached conclusions about likely changes to productivity as a result of its economic modelling. [...] Mr Costello refused to release the advice yesterday or say whether it supported the Government. A spokeswoman said: "Advice from Treasury to cabinet remains confidential."
But Opposition Treasury spokesman Wayne Swan said the Government had hidden the advice because it told the wrong story. The economic basis to proceed with changes was significantly weakened, he said. [...]
Economists have questioned whether there is any evidence that moving people on to the Government's individual contracts boosts productivity, with respected Melbourne Institute deputy director Mark Wooden saying, "I'm not sure there is any". [...]
- Full Article, The Australian