The Economics Thread

Cyth, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I think you know we have a similar stance on things and you articulate it better than I ever could, but anyway:

Do you find monopolies inherently bad for a free market system? Don't you think they detract from a 'voluntary exchange' of goods since, if it's something like a car (say GM has a monopoly on the car market, for instance) and cars are a necessity for so many people, they can't really voluntarily exchange money for a car at a reasonable rate since the business wouold jack up the price, correct?
 
Cyth, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I think you know we have a similar stance on things and you articulate it better than I ever could, but anyway:

Do you find monopolies inherently bad for a free market system? Don't you think they detract from a 'voluntary exchange' of goods since, if it's something like a car (say GM has a monopoly on the car market, for instance) and cars are a necessity for so many people, they can't really voluntarily exchange money for a car at a reasonable rate since the business wouold jack up the price, correct?

Sure, yeah. What you say is understandable but honestly the whole fear of genuine monopolies is blown way out of proportion. In a free market what's stopping an entrepreneur from getting in on the action and breaking up the monopoly in that way? And anyway, the only genuine monopolies I can think of off the top of my head are those that are created through government force.
 
In a free market what's stopping an entrepreneur from getting in on the action and breaking up the monopoly in that way?

The fact that the monopoly-holding corp can price-cut and out-market the entrepreneur into oblivion?
 
The fact that the monopoly-holding corp can price-cut and out-market the entrepreneur into oblivion?

And that's bad for whom? And how exactly is that sustainable over a period sufficient to eliminate all competition?
 
In a free market what's stopping an entrepreneur from getting in on the action and breaking up the monopoly in that way? And anyway, the only genuine monopolies I can think of off the top of my head are those that are created through government force.

I was going to say something like this. In Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto, he talks about (if I remember correctly) how the New York shipping industry was a monopoly and Vanderbilt came in and tried to compete with the monopolist and succeeded.

In 1818, he turned his attention to steamships. The New York legislature had granted Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston a thirty-year legal monopoly on steamboat traffic. After a time, Fulton went to the legislature with accounting that purported to show that the line was unprofitable at the price set by the government, and was allowed to double his price.

Working for Thomas Gibbons, Vanderbilt profitably undercut the prices charged by Fulton and Livingston for service between New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Manhattan—an important link in trade between New York and Philadelphia. During this period, his wife Sophia operated a very profitable inn and tavern near the New Jersey mooring, adding significantly to the family fortune.

Livingston and Fulton repeatedly sent constables to arrest Vanderbilt and impound his ship because Vanderbilt had violated their monopoly, but were unsuccessful. Livingston and Fulton offered Vanderbilt a lucrative job piloting their steamboat, but Vanderbilt rejected the offer. He said, "I don't care half so much about making money as I do about making my point, and coming out ahead." For Vanderbilt, the point was the superiority of free competition over the government-granted monopoly.[5] Livingston and Fulton sued; the case went before the United States Supreme Court and ultimately broke the Fulton-Livingston monopoly on trade.

Your view on monopolies is pretty much my view too.
 
How in the world do such transfers go from legitimate to illegitimate if there's no theft, coercion, or fraud going on? Also, who denied them any benefits? They didn't have any of the benefits to begin with.

Being an adovocate of Austrian economics and seemingly, anarcho-capitalism as well you will probably reject this notion but I think it is worthy of consideration in any case. I am of course speaking of wage slavery, as it has been historically labeled (now more commonly referred to simply as wage labour), which puts forth the idea that as subordinates to capitalists, wage workers' labour is exploited since they are not given full access to the fruits of that labour--i.e. the profit falls solely, or at least disproportionately (in the case of commission), into the hands of the capitalists. In some ways this of course relates back to the Enlightenment notion of the labour theory of value (Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc. being early supporters of this theory), which according to anarcho-capitalist and the Austrian school has been usurped/rejected by the subjective theory of value (though other theories also exist). This latter theory means, as far as I understand it, that the value of something is what a particular person is willing to pay for it, and not what it cost to produce (i.e. the LTV). Thus, the argument goes, if the supply is weak and the demand is strong and the price soars far beyond what it cost to produce due to market fluctuations, selling this good to the consumers at that inflated price is considered legitimate (i.e. not extortion). I have a problem with this, but that is getting away from what I really want to ask you.

What do you make of the inherently statist structure of capitalist businesses in which the workers seemingly do not gain access to the full value of the products which they produce, rather they are blocked from this by hierarchy and the nature of wage labour? Is not the economically and philosophically superior position to do away with hierarchical structures (hierarchy defined here as illegitimate authority, a la the state) within businesses (i.e. the Capitalist mode) and replace it with something more democratic so that workers are not simply subordinates, paid to be obedient (where the term slavery as used historically becomes relevant), but have an active say in how the business is run and a more equal share in that business's success (and, in contrast, failure)?
 
Or they could go out and start their own business and get paid what they are "worth".

Based on what I said in my previous post, that would just perpetuate the system of dominance (where the workers simply become the new capitalists)--which is what I have issue with.
 
What do you make of the inherently statist structure of capitalist businesses in which the workers seemingly do not gain access to the full value of the products which they produce, rather they are blocked from this by hierarchy and the nature of wage labour?

You're going to have to explain in more detail what you mean by the 'inherently statist structure of capitalist businesses.' I don't see what hierarchy has to do with anything. Presumably, you think it's relevant to identifying something as statist, but I don't understand why.

Is not the economically and philosophically superior position to do away with hierarchical structures (hierarchy defined here as illegitimate authority, a la the state) within businesses (i.e. the Capitalist mode) and replace it with something more democratic so that workers are not simply subordinates, paid to be obedient (where the term slavery as used historically becomes relevant), but have an active say in how the business is run and a more equal share in that business's success (and, in contrast, failure)?

You're going to have to explain to me how such a position is economically superior, because it's far from obvious to me. I'm also not sure why you think it's philosophically superior. If some kind of egalitarianism is your motivation for thinking this, it should be obvious by now that I would reject such a motivation. At any rate, people should be free to organize firms in the way you describe if they wish.

Anyway, I really don't take the notion of wage slavery very seriously if that's supposed to be just another term for wage labor. It seems intellectually dishonest to me to characterize that as slavery even if the wage in question is below the market value of a worker's labor. As you probably have already figured out, I have no truck with the labor theory of value. I have to admit, though, that I haven't thought much about this issue of "wage slavery".
 
I'll get caught up in this thread eventually. I just wanted to say:

It's really creepy that Google ads have begun appearing in the post-views of Youtube videos.

Goddamn, Google. How big do you need to fucking get?
 
Based on what I said in my previous post, that would just perpetuate the system of dominance (where the workers simply become the new capitalists)--which is what I have issue with.

I am going to assume based off of this and your last statement, that you haven't been in management much, or started your own business. Most of the "slaves" as you put it, are there by choice. The average person wants to do as little as they can, work wise, to get their paycheck. Without any kind of incentive to do more (ie: everyone is paid the same), what incentive is there for either hard work/ taking on any kind of extra responsibility.

This "lets all just share the work load equally/for equal pay" would be nice, but it is 100% impractical.
 
I am going to assume based off of this and your last statement, that you haven't been in management much, or started your own business. Most of the "slaves" as you put it, are there by choice. The average person wants to do as little as they can, work wise, to get their paycheck. Without any kind of incentive to do more (ie: everyone is paid the same), what incentive is there for either hard work/ taking on any kind of extra responsibility.

Assuming that most people are inherently lazy (in so many words) is ridiculous. And claiming people are there 'by choice' masks an entire system based on power being concentrated in the hands of the few. I should also say that your understanding/characterization of leftist notions of equality is not entirely accurate.

This "lets all just share the work load equally/for equal pay" would be nice, but it is 100% impractical.

I've posted this before, but it is worth considering again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operatives

If you want a theoretical background on the subject look up Mutualism, especially the work of Kevin Carsons.
 
Assuming that most people are inherently lazy (in so many words) is ridiculous. And claiming people are there 'by choice' masks an entire system based on power being concentrated in the hands of the few. I should also say that your understanding/characterization of leftist notions of equality is not entirely accurate.

Why is it ridiculous? I've got some diverse work experience, and everywhere I have been, 20% of the people do 80% of the work. It's a cliche because it's true.

People are there by choice. No one forced them to work for someone else. The only system forcing anyone into anything they don't want to be in is the overbloated government beaurocracy, not Coca-Cola.

The general gist of socialistic ideas reminds me of "crabs in a bucket".
 
Obvious: Inflation to reach levels rivaling that of ZImbabwe

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy will enter “hyperinflation” approaching the levels in Zimbabwe because the Federal Reserve will be reluctant to raise interest rates, investor Marc Faber said.

Prices may increase at rates “close to” Zimbabwe’s gains, Faber said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Hong Kong. Zimbabwe’s inflation rate reached 231 million percent in July, the last annual rate published by the statistics office.

“I am 100 percent sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation,” Faber said. “The problem with government debt growing so much is that when the time will come and the Fed should increase interest rates, they will be very reluctant to do so and so inflation will start to accelerate.”

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser said on May 21 inflation may rise to 2.5 percent in 2011. That exceeds the central bank officials’ long-run preferred range of 1.7 percent to 2 percent and contrasts with the concerns of some officials and economists that the economic slump may provoke a broad decline in prices.

“There are some concerns of a risk from inflation from all the liquidity injected into the banking system but it’s not an immediate threat right now given all the excess capacity in the U.S. economy,” said David Cohen, head of Asian economic forecasting at Action Economics in Singapore. “I have a little more confidence that the Fed has an exit strategy for draining all the liquidity at the appropriate time.”

Action Economics is predicting inflation of minus 0.4 percent in the U.S. this year, with prices increasing by 1.8 percent and 2 percent in 2010 and 2011, respectively, Cohen said.

Near Zero

The U.S.’s main interest rate may need to stay near zero for several years given the recession’s depth and forecasts that unemployment will reach 9 percent or higher, Glenn Rudebusch, associate director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said yesterday.

Members of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee have held the federal funds rate, the overnight lending rate between banks, in a range of zero to 0.25 percent since December to revive lending and end the worst recession in 50 years.

The global economy won’t return to the “prosperity” of 2006 and 2007 even as it rebounds from a recession, Faber said.

Equities in the U.S. won’t fall to new lows, helped by increased money supply, he said. Still, global stocks are “rather overbought” and are “not cheap,” Faber added.

Faber still favors Asian stocks relative to U.S. government bonds and said Japanese equities may outperform many other markets over a five-year period. “Of all the regions in the world, Asia is still the most attractive by far,” he said.

Gloom, Doom

Faber, the publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom report, said on April 7 stocks could fall as much as 10 percent before resuming gains. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has since climbed 9 percent.

Faber, who said he’s adding to his gold investments, advised buying the precious metal at the start of its eight-year rally, when it traded for less than $300 an ounce. The metal topped $1,000 last year and traded at $949.85 an ounce at 12:50 p.m. Hong Kong time. He also told investors to bail out of U.S. stocks a week before the so-called Black Monday crash in 1987, according to his Web site.
 
Been reading about the Zimbabwe comparisons since at least February on "alternative media" sites and financial blogs.

I am just wondering at what point the US's "credit card" gets completely cut. When no country can or will finance our debt, you are going to see things get ugly, which will probably lead to a public outcry to do whatever will fix the problem. The proffered solution will be something along the lines of a NAU and "Amero", or we may just jump straight to a world currency, although that is less likely.