A fairy tale of free market public services

[saxitoxin]

I'll ask you for the same example I asked of everyone else- for an important public service that works better and costs less under the completely free market, unfettered by regulations. The system that you seem to advocate.

That one's easy. Food. The most essential public service of all, the provision of food.

Owing to a relatively low level of government participation in food production, you have an enormous number of food choices available. Whether you're a rabid carnivore or a finicky vegan, whether your diet is restricted for medical or religious reasons, whether your tastes run to the blazing hot or the icy cold, some merchant is out there, pandering to your needs and wants. A worldwide network of millions of farmers, tens of thousands of wholesalers, and hundreds of thousands of retailers ensures that exotic foods from all over the world are delivered to your neighbourhood, sometimes even directly to your door. And the cost is so ridiculously cheap! Whereas our ancestors spent close to 90% of their efforts just staving off starvation, the average person in the industrialized world today spends less than 10% of his income on food, and the percentage falls further with each passing generation.

Even in the poor countries, although obviously the percentage is higher, it is rapidly falling. Real starvation is becoming rare even in the third world, and usually driven by political interference, as in Darfur, for instance. According to the WHO, in 2010 we passed a significant milestone: for the first time more people died from obesity-related illnesses than from starvation or malnutrition. (Not claiming that obesity is a good thing; but it is a telling measurement of how rare real starvation is becoming.)

Quality food everywhere, in abundance, delivered promptly and enthusiastically and at ridiculously cheap prices. That's what a (relatively) unfettered free market delivers.

But this goes against your definition of what a free market model is. Relatively unfettered is not unfettered. I can sort of accept your points, but I'm not sure it's the easy example of the free market you proposed. That and a lot of food production is heavily subsidised and controlled by governments.

Aside from the fact that - as breathlessly presented to you by 6 different commenters - your OP example is not one of "free market", it also is not one that's free of fettering so, by the standards you've just applied to Dukasur, we would have to proclaim "all inefficiency in British rail is the result of a regime of government regulation." (The Office of Rail Regulation must approve route changes, inspect safety standards and so forth.)

At this point it's unclear exactly what you're asking for, other than for everyone to agree with you whereupon you become extremely angry and frustrated when people do not. This seems to be the typical route most of your threads take.

Then your argument is with Dukasaur's definition, which was, to quote Dukasaur:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

• By not accepting the very easy dismissal that your OP was simply based on a sophistic understanding of free market - which it was - you've created a path of complex convolution of infinitely self-negating arguments that would require you to sit here and present definitions and re-definitions to sustain your initial assertion for eternity - which seems to be what you're going for ... I'm sure this thread will easily continue for another 200-300 pages just like Scott's healthcare thread which depends on a similar level of fanaticism (albeit from the other side) to sustain it.

[Symmetry]

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

• By not accepting the very easy dismissal that your OP was simply based on a sophistic understanding of free market - which it was - you've created a path of complex convolution of infinitely self-negating arguments that would require you to sit here and present definitions and re-definitions to sustain your initial assertion for eternity - which seems to be what you're going for ... I'm sure this thread will easily continue for another 200-300 pages just like Scott's healthcare thread which depends on a similar level of fanaticism (albeit from the other side) to sustain it.

Fanatic, cryptic, sophist, angry and frustrated, intellectually dishonest, a snake oil salesman, arguing for British intellectual poverty,... I've had a few accusations thrown at me on this subject. Your response comes across a little angry yourself, perhaps because you got this one so wrong. My argument was to subject the example of a free market that Dukasaur provided to his definition of a free market. They are not compatible. Which do you think was wrong, if you feel like adding to the discussion, the definition or the example, or perhaps both?

[saxitoxin]

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

• By not accepting the very easy dismissal that your OP was simply based on a sophistic understanding of free market - which it was - you've created a path of complex convolution of infinitely self-negating arguments that would require you to sit here and present definitions and re-definitions to sustain your initial assertion for eternity - which seems to be what you're going for ... I'm sure this thread will easily continue for another 200-300 pages just like Scott's healthcare thread which depends on a similar level of fanaticism (albeit from the other side) to sustain it.

Fanatic, cryptic, sophist, angry and frustrated, intellectually dishonest, a snake oil salesman, arguing for British intellectual poverty,... I've had a few accusations thrown at me on this subject. Your response comes across a little angry yourself, perhaps because you got this one so wrong. My argument was to subject the example of a free market that Dukasaur provided to his definition of a free market. They are not compatible. Which do you think was wrong, if you feel like adding to the discussion, the definition or the example, or perhaps both?

The discussion ended 3 pages ago with the consensus decision you made a common, and forgivable, cognitive error.

When one finds one is embarrassed as the result of an elementary mistake one can admit fault, ignore fault and slink away or engage in argumentum ad nauseam. You've chosen the latter, which is fine. To each his own.

[Lootifer]

^ time for funny pictors and gifs!!!

[saxitoxin]

^ time for funny pictors and gifs!!!

[Symmetry]

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

• By not accepting the very easy dismissal that your OP was simply based on a sophistic understanding of free market - which it was - you've created a path of complex convolution of infinitely self-negating arguments that would require you to sit here and present definitions and re-definitions to sustain your initial assertion for eternity - which seems to be what you're going for ... I'm sure this thread will easily continue for another 200-300 pages just like Scott's healthcare thread which depends on a similar level of fanaticism (albeit from the other side) to sustain it.

Fanatic, cryptic, sophist, angry and frustrated, intellectually dishonest, a snake oil salesman, arguing for British intellectual poverty,... I've had a few accusations thrown at me on this subject. Your response comes across a little angry yourself, perhaps because you got this one so wrong. My argument was to subject the example of a free market that Dukasaur provided to his definition of a free market. They are not compatible. Which do you think was wrong, if you feel like adding to the discussion, the definition or the example, or perhaps both?

The discussion ended 3 pages ago with the consensus decision you made a common, and forgivable, cognitive error.

When one finds one is embarrassed as the result of an elementary mistake one can admit fault, ignore fault and slink away or engage in argumentum ad nauseam. You've chosen the latter, which is fine. To each his own.

So, a dodge then? And it seems a few .gifs. And all I asked was whether you felt Dukasaur's definition was wrong, or his example of a free market was wrong, or if you thought both were. Not a difficult question.

[saxitoxin]

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

• By not accepting the very easy dismissal that your OP was simply based on a sophistic understanding of free market - which it was - you've created a path of complex convolution of infinitely self-negating arguments that would require you to sit here and present definitions and re-definitions to sustain your initial assertion for eternity - which seems to be what you're going for ... I'm sure this thread will easily continue for another 200-300 pages just like Scott's healthcare thread which depends on a similar level of fanaticism (albeit from the other side) to sustain it.

Fanatic, cryptic, sophist, angry and frustrated, intellectually dishonest, a snake oil salesman, arguing for British intellectual poverty,... I've had a few accusations thrown at me on this subject. Your response comes across a little angry yourself, perhaps because you got this one so wrong. My argument was to subject the example of a free market that Dukasaur provided to his definition of a free market. They are not compatible. Which do you think was wrong, if you feel like adding to the discussion, the definition or the example, or perhaps both?

The discussion ended 3 pages ago with the consensus decision you made a common, and forgivable, cognitive error.

When one finds one is embarrassed as the result of an elementary mistake one can admit fault, ignore fault and slink away or engage in argumentum ad nauseam. You've chosen the latter, which is fine. To each his own.

So, a dodge then? And it seems a few .gifs. And all I asked was whether you felt Dukasaur's definition was wrong, or his example of a free market was wrong, or if you thought both were. Not a difficult question.

In keeping with your approach of argumentum ad nauseam, I'm happy to repost my answer to your reposted question, if you'd like. Here:

You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

By not accepting the very easy dismissal that your OP was simply based on a sophistic understanding of free market - which it was - you've created a path of complex convolution of infinitely self-negating arguments that would require you to sit here and present definitions and re-definitions to sustain your initial assertion for eternity - which seems to be what you're going for ... I'm sure this thread will easily continue for another 200-300 pages just like Scott's healthcare thread which depends on a similar level of fanaticism (albeit from the other side) to sustain it.

Perhaps you can just do a daily copy/paste on the last few pages of this thread? It would be easier than requiring we retype the same stuff for the next 17 weeks.

[Phatscotty]

I'm pretty sure the blame does not lie in the private sector, in this instance or any other, at least is Britain.

The private sector will NEVER work in ANY country where the public sector bankrupts the entire nation.

Britain is broke. DAMN YOU PRIVATE SECTOR!

[saxitoxin]

Oh great, now Scott's arrived. I will quietly slink out so Symmetry and Scott can have this thread to themselves.



Please shut off the lights and lock the door when you're done. Thank you!

[Symmetry]

I'm pretty sure the blame does not lie in the private sector, in this instance or any other, at least is Britain.

The private sector will NEVER work in ANY country where the public sector bankrupts the entire nation.

Britain is broke. DAMN YOU PRIVATE SECTOR!

Hey PS, was kind of surprised you stayed out of this one. I'm not sure I share your faith that the private sector can't be blamed for anything, even if that's only within Britain, for some reason.

[AlgyTaylor]

But the trains are the issue. The Conservative government, in their wisdom, decided that free markets would be better than a nationally held rail system. It'd be a brighter tomorrow, one more efficient, and cheaper!

Sadly we have reality, and free market fantacism didn't quite live up to the hype.

Indeedy. BR had it's hands tied for the majority of it's existence (see Christian Wolmer's excellent "Fire and Steam" for more details), yet just prior to privatisation was still the least subsidised rail network in Europe. Now it's privatised and one of the more heavily subsidised networks in Europe.

You can't get round the facts - privatisation has been bad for the rail network, an abject failure

[Phatscotty]

I'm pretty sure the blame does not lie in the private sector, in this instance or any other, at least is Britain.

The private sector will NEVER work in ANY country where the public sector bankrupts the entire nation.

Britain is broke. DAMN YOU PRIVATE SECTOR!

Hey PS, was kind of surprised you stayed out of this one. I'm not sure I share your faith that the private sector can't be blamed for anything, even if that's only within Britain, for some reason.

The overall point was if a country is bankrupted by the public sector, the private sector will not work very well, if at all. Your country is broke, so I was just saying blaming the private sector for failure is silly. In a bankrupt country, the pressure will be immense to squeeze as much cash out of profitable companies as possible, in the name of survival of course, and failure of a sector becomes more likely since a bankrupt government cannot very well subsidize failing businesses. Of course, when the public sector is taking almost half of the profits, is it really a surprise when the entity fails?

This is a general argument, not in any way targeting your specific topic matter. Also, generally speaking, mass transit rails are a big loser.

[Symmetry]

I'm pretty sure the blame does not lie in the private sector, in this instance or any other, at least is Britain.

The private sector will NEVER work in ANY country where the public sector bankrupts the entire nation.

Britain is broke. DAMN YOU PRIVATE SECTOR!

Hey PS, was kind of surprised you stayed out of this one. I'm not sure I share your faith that the private sector can't be blamed for anything, even if that's only within Britain, for some reason.

You twisted my words, albeit just slightly. My second statement impacts the first.
The overall point was if a country is bankrupted by the public sector, the private sector will not work very well, if at all.

Apologies, 'twas not my intention, at least not this time, but your phrasing was a bit vague, and I did quote you fully.

Now, there's the obvious point that the UK is not bankrupt, and the private sector does pretty well...

...wait, what was your point? That private sectors can't work in bankrupt nations, or just if the bankruptcy is due to public spending? Can you give an example?

[Dukasaur]

I'm not sure at what point exactly I should jump back in here. This seems a decent start:

Then your argument is with Dukasaur's definition, which was, to quote Dukasaur:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

Exactly right. In the real world nothing is 100% perfect. Even the "vacuum" of deep space contains something like four particles per cubic metre, and much sophistry can be wound around whether that is close enough to a perfect vacuum to be treated as such for the purpose of this-or-that theory.

Sophistry aside, I think we can (or at least I hope we can) all agree that some markets are essentially free and full of raucous competition, while others are essentially unfree and controlled. That is not to say that a free market is 100.00000% free of any government meddling, nor is it to say that a controlled market is 100.00000% absolutely under government control, only that clearly there is a preponderance of either freedom or control.

Millions of players are competing for the right to bring food to your table. Governments do their share of meddling, to be sure, but the market in food is boisterous enough to drown them out, so you get high quality products at a low price. Only a few players are competing for the right to transport you on the rails, and they are very intimately intertwined with government regulators, so you get little competition at best, and in many areas no competition at all. This guarantees shoddy quality and high prices.

Ease of substitution is a very large contributor, too. When the American government plays regulatory games to jack up the price of American beef, people can switch to Brazilian beef. But someone who wants a ride from Newcastle to Brighton can't really be satisfied by a ticket from Manaus to Bogota.

This poor substitutability of transportation as a good has always made it a target for government exploitation of the people. That's why castles were built beside river fords, so the parasites in power could get their cut from every honest peasant heading off to market with his bag of onions. Today the games being played are more sophisticated, but their core remains the same. Restrain free trade, grant "exclusive license" to bottlenecks that should allow free passage to all, exploit the poor bastards who have no realistic choice but to pay the toll and pass through.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure at what point exactly I should jump back in here. This seems a decent start:

Then your argument is with Dukasaur's definition, which was, to quote Dukasaur:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

Exactly right. In the real world nothing is 100% perfect. Even the "vacuum" of deep space contains something like four particles per cubic metre, and much sophistry can be wound around whether that is close enough to a perfect vacuum to be treated as such for the purpose of this-or-that theory.

Sophistry aside, I think we can (or at least I hope we can) all agree that some markets are essentially free and full of raucous competition, while others are essentially unfree and controlled. That is not to say that a free market is 100.00000% free of any government meddling, nor is it to say that a controlled market is 100.00000% absolutely under government control, only that clearly there is a preponderance of either freedom or control.

Millions of players are competing for the right to bring food to your table. Governments do their share of meddling, to be sure, but the market in food is boisterous enough to drown them out, so you get high quality products at a low price. Only a few players are competing for the right to transport you on the rails, and they are very intimately intertwined with government regulators, so you get little competition at best, and in many areas no competition at all. This guarantees shoddy quality and high prices.

Ease of substitution is a very large contributor, too. When the American government plays regulatory games to jack up the price of American beef, people can switch to Brazilian beef. But someone who wants a ride from Newcastle to Brighton can't really be satisfied by a ticket from Manaus to Bogota.

This poor substitutability of transportation as a good has always made it a target for government exploitation of the people. That's why castles were built beside river fords, so the parasites in power could get their cut from every honest peasant heading off to market with his bag of onions. Today the games being played are more sophisticated, but their core remains the same. Restrain free trade, grant "exclusive license" to bottlenecks that should allow free passage to all, exploit the poor bastards who have no realistic choice but to pay the toll and pass through.

I'm guessing that means that you don't think free markets should be free of government interference and subsidies now, so what would your revised definition of a free market be?

[Dukasaur]

I'm not sure at what point exactly I should jump back in here. This seems a decent start:

Then your argument is with Dukasaur's definition, which was, to quote Dukasaur:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.

No. You've just started asking that only Black/White, 100% in one column or the next, examples be used. There's nothing outside of a laboratory or thought experiment that meets this latest standard you've introduced in the revolving door of standards you've demanded (as one fails to sustain your argument you retreat and introduce another). Even in the face of your newest standard your own argument still fails. The extreme to which you've taken his definition - if applied to your OP - realizes that British rail is a regulated creature and any inefficiencies in it are the result of the state.

Exactly right. In the real world nothing is 100% perfect. Even the "vacuum" of deep space contains something like four particles per cubic metre, and much sophistry can be wound around whether that is close enough to a perfect vacuum to be treated as such for the purpose of this-or-that theory.

Sophistry aside, I think we can (or at least I hope we can) all agree that some markets are essentially free and full of raucous competition, while others are essentially unfree and controlled. That is not to say that a free market is 100.00000% free of any government meddling, nor is it to say that a controlled market is 100.00000% absolutely under government control, only that clearly there is a preponderance of either freedom or control.

Millions of players are competing for the right to bring food to your table. Governments do their share of meddling, to be sure, but the market in food is boisterous enough to drown them out, so you get high quality products at a low price. Only a few players are competing for the right to transport you on the rails, and they are very intimately intertwined with government regulators, so you get little competition at best, and in many areas no competition at all. This guarantees shoddy quality and high prices.

Ease of substitution is a very large contributor, too. When the American government plays regulatory games to jack up the price of American beef, people can switch to Brazilian beef. But someone who wants a ride from Newcastle to Brighton can't really be satisfied by a ticket from Manaus to Bogota.

This poor substitutability of transportation as a good has always made it a target for government exploitation of the people. That's why castles were built beside river fords, so the parasites in power could get their cut from every honest peasant heading off to market with his bag of onions. Today the games being played are more sophisticated, but their core remains the same. Restrain free trade, grant "exclusive license" to bottlenecks that should allow free passage to all, exploit the poor bastards who have no realistic choice but to pay the toll and pass through.

I'm guessing that means that you don't think free markets should be free of government interference and subsidies now, so what would your revised definition of a free market be?

Huh? How do you "guess" that?

[Symmetry]

Because you're going with the example you provided rather than the definition you gave. Have I misread?

US farming subsidies, EU fishing quotas, health and safety laws...

I'm assuming you're not fully on board with the:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

argument anymore.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, Sym, the official Dodge King of the thread. I know you're digging in your heels real hard, but while you're down there, could you answer this question:

How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?


I'm just trying to see if you understand what you're attempting to criticize. That's all, thanks!

[Symmetry]

So, Sym, the official Dodge King of the thread. I know you're digging in your heels real hard, but while you're down there, could you answer this question:

How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?


I'm just trying to see if you understand what you're attempting to criticize. That's all, thanks!

I've yet to see a free market solution, although I've asked often, and of many posters, so I'm not sure how I can claim equivalency. I can only repeat the argument I've made fairly often, that free markets were the proposed solution, and then there's the reality of what actually happened.

You would have to ask the members of the Conservative Party who proposed that the privatization of the rail network would be a free market solution. I'm dealing with what actually happens when people who propose fantasy free market solutions get their way. It's not pretty, but perhaps you can provide an example of an actual case of privatisation to a free market model that works well, and costs less.

No hurry.

[saxitoxin]

So, Sym, the official Dodge King of the thread. I know you're digging in your heels real hard, but while you're down there, could you answer this question:

How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?


I'm just trying to see if you understand what you're attempting to criticize. That's all, thanks!

I've yet to see a free market solution, although I've asked often, and of many posters, so I'm not sure how I can claim equivalency. I can only repeat the argument I've made fairly often, that free markets were the proposed solution, and then there's the reality of what actually happened.

You would have to ask the members of the Conservative Party who proposed that the privatization of the rail network would be a free market solution. I'm dealing with what actually happens when people who propose fantasy free market solutions get their way.

Symmetry's now descended to "they" ... the mysterious "they." It's the barroom politicking of the lower echelons in caste-based societies like Britain: "they ain't doing right by us" where "they" is never defined - an unseen, unidentified force that exists somewhere filled with cartoonish Scrooge McDucks and Gordon Geckos. This is kind of a lowest common denominator argument. That is, an argument advanced by society's lowest common denominator. The lumpenproletariat. The rag classes.

• "The UK Conservative Party incorrectly labeled X as Y, therefore, everyone in every party in every country incorrectly labels X as Y."

perhaps you can provide an example of an actual case

You've been given several examples and, each time, you change the standards you'll accept and dismiss the examples presented.

Your OP presented - what you'd hoped would be - simple, straightforward evidence of why X+Y=Z. In order to sustain your conclusion you've now had to layer more than a dozen amendments, caveats and and corollaries onto what was initially presented to us as a simple, natural law so that it now reads:


This gets more ridiculous with each post. But it's fun to watch.

[Dukasaur]

Because you're going with the example you provided rather than the definition you gave. Have I misread?

US farming subsidies, EU fishing quotas, health and safety laws...

I'm assuming you're not fully on board with the:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

argument anymore.

I don't know if you're joking, or if this is a genuine misunderstanding.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're sincere, since usually you tend to be. He're an analogy:

You're basically a warm-blooded creature. Sometimes, when you go out in the winter, the surface of your face is exposed to cold wind, and the blood in the capillaries of your facial skin becomes cold. As long as this cooling trend doesn't penetrate too deep into your core, as long as your basic metabolism is strong and healthy, it won't negate the basic fact that you're warm-blooded. People aren't going to point and say, "look at that cold-blooded creature" just because there's a few microlitres of frozen blood up above your cheekbones.

Similarly, if a market is basically strong and healthy, if there are many participants and they are vigorously competing, it will continue to function as a free market despite a few corrosive blasts of farm subsidies.

Of course, if the subsidies are pervasive enough, they can cause the market to succumb, just as you might eventually succumb to hypothermia if you stay outside in the cold long enough. But a little chill here and there won't kill you.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, Sym, the official Dodge King of the thread. I know you're digging in your heels real hard, but while you're down there, could you answer this question:

How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?


I'm just trying to see if you understand what you're attempting to criticize. That's all, thanks!

I've yet to see a free market solution, although I've asked often, and of many posters, so I'm not sure how I can claim equivalency. I can only repeat the argument I've made fairly often, that free markets were the proposed solution, and then there's the reality of what actually happened.

You would have to ask the members of the Conservative Party who proposed that the privatization of the rail network would be a free market solution. I'm dealing with what actually happens when people who propose fantasy free market solutions get their way. It's not pretty, but perhaps you can provide an example of an actual case of privatisation to a free market model that works well, and costs less.

No hurry.

I've already shown you how countries step toward a "free market" solution, yet that apparently was ignored--maybe it contradicts your position, so you refuse to accept it?

Maybe you don't understand what the "free market" is? If not, then wouldn't it be more productive for you to simply ask me?


RE: other parts in your response, we already been through this:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... g#p3622225

Except that your example was not a proposed free market solution. It was a proposed crony capitalism solution. Which no one here (in this thread) likes.

It was proposed as a free market model, what actually happened was crony capitalism. That being why the free market solution was a fairy tale. It didn't happen. the Conservative government didn't say, "we're breaking up the national rail network for crony capitalist reasons", they said that the free market would take over. Hence what was proposed was different to reality. If you're proposing a free market model for healthcare, I think it's fair to ask for an example, or to expect that the result will be similar.

If I may, it sounds like you're trying to discuss the psychology of political advertising, and the rest of us are discussing the opportunity costs of market regulation, which seems to be the source of most of the confusion here.

I've not seen any of you discuss anything like that with each other so far, but perhaps you're right. If someone made a point that free markets are the best way to go in terms of driving down healthcare costs, would you also be skeptical that they've bought in to a nice piece of political advertising?

Would you like to keep flip-flopping like a dying fish? It's becoming difficult to address your various, incoherent points.

If you wish to discuss free market solutions, then it would help to explain how the privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions is equivalent to a "free market" solution.

If you don't wish to discuss free market solutions but instead wish to discuss how a particular political party engages in political marketing, or specifically "the psychology of political advertising," then please say so.