Skip to main content

View Diary: 90 Percent of us are Unrepresented (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This, I'd agree with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greeseyparrot
    A free market is one in which the information required to make informed decisions is readily available (not the case in health care), entry into the market by providers is not obstructed (again, not the case in health care), and market choices are free of duress (again, not the case in health care).

    For many markets, some oversight is required to maintain those conditions.
    For some "markets", it may not be possible.

    but otherwise, touting "free markets" means empowering your enslavers.

    I guess my make-or-break question for your would be this:  would you have a strong and aggressive Anti-Trust Division of the DOJ?  I've got an MBA, so I think I've got a little leg to stand on here.  But if your opposition to government regulation includes letting companies get as big and powerful as they can, yeah, this progressive will oppose you all the way.  

    I think we need a lean but aggressive government, powerful enough to maintain the conditions within which a "free market" can operate.  Think of it like a referee--if they don't keep the contest within the rules or favor one (e.g. the most powerful) contestant over others, that's not a free market--it's a rigged match.  We need a fair ref, not one bought and paid for by plutocrats, one whose focus is the middle class and those struggling  to join or remain in it.

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 11:22:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Failure to tout free markets empowers my (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pee dee fire ant

      enslavers.

      From where I sit, the markets have been more responsive to my needs than the government of late, and that is quite an indictment.

      The reality is that free markets are no more a panacea than government. Each does certain things better than the other.

      Where free markets work well, or the risk of an unregulated market is relatively small compared to the risk of a regulated one, I prefer the greatest possible freedom.

      Where other concerns intervene -- such as the postal service and it's mandate to serve everybody in the nation -- free markets don't work as well.

      Absolutism may be fun when debating, but is destructive to diverse societies.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 11:42:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would you enforce strong anti-trust laws? (0+ / 0-)
        ...I prefer the greatest possible freedom....Absolutism may be fun when debating, but is destructive to diverse societies.
        Whatever.

        "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

        by bartcopfan on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We might differ on the definition on what a (0+ / 0-)

          good antitrust law looks like, but, yes. A market that keeps out new sellers is not a free market by any definition I can think of.

          It's one of my problems (on the energy front) of fascination with "big wind" and "big solar" -- big installations that would send their power over *cough* low-loss transmission lines, etc.

          I would much rather give up a little efficiency and have power come from every freakin' place and greenhouse-neutral place we can get it.

          It would be nice to have learned something from our over reliance on coal and oil.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 12:21:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure if you mean Gov't or Monopolists here (0+ / 0-)
            A market that keeps out new sellers is not a free market by any definition I can think of.
            but I certainly agree w/ this.  One of the (routinely violated) major assumptions of a "free market" is that no one (neither buyers nor sellers) has market power, i.e. can dictate prices.  As a simple example, when I read years ago that  1/3 of all disposable diapers in America were sold at Walmart, that's not an example of a free market.  We've all heard how WMT extracts price cuts from its suppliers.

            Free entry and exit to and from markets is another major assumption, as you suggest.  I'm not sure if you're talking about blocking entry by means of government regulation or by an oligopoly of major players.  Either method performs the market-blocking function, but one uses government and the other doesn't.  I'm opposed to either, not solely the government version.

            I'm not sure I'm following your Big Wind/Solar comment unless you mean you prefer distibuted generation instead of isolated large projects.  I don't have a strong opinion on that discussion.  I guess I'm a (distributed) passive solar home heat, active solar water heat and PV, but (centralized) wind farm kinda guy (instead of a small windmill in every backyard).

            "Low loss" transmission lines would be awesome (I assume you mean something along the lines of room-temperature superconductivity?)--it just doesn't (yet) exist.  If we didn't have the resistance losses of electricity transmission and distribution lines, we'd "suddenly" need less generating capacity, which, again, would be a good thing.  

            That to me was one of the tragedies of the recently diaried stories about cutting basic physics research at  Fermilab (and we never even built the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC)).  That kind of basic research might lead to understanding of superconductivity, leading to higher temperature superconductivity, leading to what I'm talking about.  But no, we couldn't afford $36M (IIRC), because the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars and billionaires are juuuust scraping by.

            Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish--and sending that high-tech R&D (and profitable spinoffs) to CERN in Europe....dammit!

            "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

            by bartcopfan on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 03:34:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pretty much Yup. (0+ / 0-)

              Don't care if its monopolists ore companies restricting entry, it's a bad deal.

              Sorry about ranting on big projects.  Just seems that the "big boys" want to di big boy projects, presumably because they can control them and, by extensions, us.

              And -- yeah. When those low-loss transmission lines that don't need right of ways, etc, are available -- for a price that makes sense -- people should get back to us. In the meantime, a nation of busy little bees can probably find ways to generate non-monopoly energy without somebody's big fat thumb on the scaler, er, meter.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 03:54:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site