Excuse me, but I explained my position in full. Forgive me if it was not windy enough for you. As for the "education," simply because Angrycat may have studied economics longer and in greater detail than I have, does not necessarily render his bias valid. Galbraith was invariably far better educated than Angrycat and yet I don't see Angrycat yielding to Galbraith...
I would think that a desire to be left alone (with a few STRICTLY enforced limits) might work in society as well as in markets....and does not constitute an aggressive stance of trying to "shape everyone and everything into their world image". Were you a philosophy major? Stosh
Galbreath would undoubtedly yield to my man Angrycat in a debate...........even if he wasn't dead. Stosh
Here is my short version of the exchange, excuse me for falling asleep. If you can, please point us to your actual answer, I missed it. Thanks.
Why do you think a lack of regulation creates a monopoly? You should take a different approach at understanding how monopolies are being made... and, if a provider is the best one - why shouldn't everyone want to go there for their purchasing? So - a monopoly is bad when one player is forcing the others out of business using various tactics. These tactics may include price dumping, but in the case of price dumping - customers get a short term benefit. The intelligent way to "defend" against such tactics - would be to employ various customer loyalty benefits, or some competitive edge with additional value. If a large provider uses tactics of price dumping, or some "starving/exclusion" tactics within a supply chain - then it's only unfair to competitors if they are unable to regain their equal standing. E.g if someone like Microsoft blocks others from delivering products, then this exclusivity of course is an unfair tactic. However, the problem does not lie in the free markets themselves - but in the corruptible choices and options that are open. If one sees the "market system" as a whole, and look at all the "corruption options" - then we can easily say that we still have a free market - even if we block all the corruptible tactics and ways market actors can employ, right? It would still constitute a totally free market - it would just not be possible to do the little dirty tricks like blocking with exclusivity etc. I don't think "total anarchy" is what constitutes free markets or laissez-faire... I think it's the freedom to create, choose and trade with whomever you want - and keeping this intact as a "market system". If someone tries to impose "exclusivity" - then it is no longer anything "free" - but just included something "non-free" and thus is a corruption of the free market notion. Well, I have some ideas along this line of thinking - and was writing about this earlier in the politics forum on ET, but then mostly with the approach of democracy, political process and government. There is a way to avoid the possibility of corruption - in government and the markets - all with out people regulating anything. And remember - when you put people in charge of regulations - then you open up for a well of corruption. Encumbering society with regulations and a well of legislation - that is the surest way to perpetuate corruption.
The difference with Objectivism - is that they employ aggressive principles and the use of "disciplinary institutions" (see Michel Foucault)... as opposed to anarchocapitalism or some types of minarchism. Objectivism does not respect the right of full privacy or being free individuals - when not in accordance to the Objectivist way of defining "what is right". Objectivism claims full ownership on "truth", and shows little leniency on critical reform of Objectivism itself. It is a static form of ideology, which strictly judges anyone with a different view - and condones aggression towards these. Objectivism is strongly bivalent - just like the logics it employs and like the Abrahamic religions - which polarize everything into "good or bad", "right or wrong", "us or them". Systemically speaking - it is a way of dividing the world into friends and enemies - just like the Abrahamic religions. Ayn Rand just "reformatted" the same concepts and used formal logics to fill in the blanks - and that is something which appeals to especially young people still seeing the world in "black and white" and wanting to "structure their newfound independence and newfound individuality aside from their family". I take Objectivism to the extreme here in my claims - but that is also where it goes, because it extrapolates everything from it's principles to saturate into any situation - and never deviate from the strict logic it deploys. And thus Objectivism is "political radicalism" (look up the concept if you like), but there is no denying that Objectivism is strongly logical. However the world and people themselves - society - are not by any means restricted to formalized logical systems. It just takes a quick understanding of Gödel and the accepting that the whole world has of Gödel's Incompleteness theorem to see this. The world is much more complex than any "logic" or abstract system can contain - it's an open system which changes and evolves regardless of what we humans "think of it." I've studied philosophy - periodically intensively - since around 1990 and also have done quite a lot of work regarding "knowledge representation" (for automated processing), epistemology and artificial intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation
Lack of regulation has lead the US into the mess that it is only now beginning to acknowledge.... so call it what you want. I have had 'Atlas' on the bookshelf for over thirty years and I have attempted it on various occasions with little success. It is a very very boring story. The point that Ayn is labouring to make could be summed up relatively simply, thus avoiding the obvious ... Ayn cannot write a story. Either, just give me the essence of your thoughts or better still captivate me with a cracking good yarn... but do not bore me. regards f9
Again, time does not permit a full exchange, but do you know how many full time regulators that Fannie Mae alone has? Hint: It is over two hundred.
One might be tempted to draw a conclusion from that fact.....but that would be too simplistic, I'm sure. Glad to know Congress was looking out for us little people.
The reality is that human corruption holds no prejudice nor preference towards either ideology. On the one hand, you have the above version tainted by corruption. On the other, we have the copious benefits of deregulation manifested in such great thinkers as Kenny Boy and Andrew Fastow of Enron fame with their rolling blackouts in Cali. Just ask any Californian how much they appreciated the wonderful merits of deregulation that Enron utilized. What we really need, IMO, is punishment that deters such corruption in the first place. The disparity in penalty amounts bestowed upon the music pirate (1000s of % X the crime), and that of the white collar thief (fraction of the crime) is what needs to be fixed. The problem with choosing between ideologies is that all ideologies are just that-- ideal.