Top 4 lies about Laissez-faire...

[Anarchist420]

...that are so big and so repeated that a supermajority will always believe them:
1. Laissez-faire has existed in the U.S. throughout history.
The truth is that laissez-faire has never existed in the U.S. The closest the U.S. ever came to allowing to laissez-faire was from 1781-1788 and from 1837-1860 (after Jackson got rid of SBUS and before James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff).
2. Laissez-faire leads to bad big business practices (e.g., monopolies)
The truth is that if there is a monopoly, it is because the competition sucked, was inefficient, and/or was too damn expensive and because no one new came along and made decent efforts to defeat the monopoly.
3. Laissez-faire leads to 5% holding 95% of the wealth.
Bullshit. Think about how much corporatism and socialism we have now and how stupid it is to think that the results would be the same under a system completely the opposite. Wall Street could be nowhere near as rich. Neither could the MIC. While there would definitely be inequalities (although smaller) society would be better off, because those who were richer would be doing so by actually doing something good for society to earn their wealth.
4. Land and natural resources are God's gift to all of mankind and should therefore be socialized.
Well, how well off have we been with socialized natural resources? Would we have had the BP Oil Spill without water socialism? No, damn it. Secondly, if you mix your labor with it, then it should be yours. If the government ever has to sell currently public lands to pay off the Federal Debt, then those people who bought it will have paid for the land.

 

[Acanthus]

Congratulations, you don't understand economics.

 

[MikeMike]

(giant bag of popcorn)

 

[jman19]

How many more inaccurate Anarchist420 posts must P&N suffer?

 

[ebaycj]

OP, You are incredibly misled.

 

[MovingTarget]

I'll bite. Grab your lawnchairs, folks. We could be here a while.

1. True. Complete Laissez-faire policies have never existed. We've come close many times, but those didn't exactly end well.
2. It does lead to bad business practices such as monopolies. Past that, your statement is a load of horse manure. Monopolies perpetuate themselves because they distort the playing field to completely shut out competition even if their products are top-notch/innovative/inexpensive/etc.
3. Are you blind as a student of history? Do you recall the age of the robber barons? Do you see the recent results of deregulation and the massive increase in income inequality? Hint: it isn't because the lower classes have become lazier or that the rich as a whole have been working harder.
4. Tragedy of the Commons FTW! Who wouldn't love a wholly owned Gulf (or bay) of BP? Oil spills couldn't ever happen there! Do you understand that the environment is what sustains us on this planet? Fail.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What a fucking moron.

 

[bamacre]

3. Are you blind as a student of history? Do you recall the age of the robber barons?

Can you give us some examples? Names?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Congratulations, you don't understand economics.

Why should economics be different than any other subject?

 

[Anarchist420]

I'll bite. Grab your lawnchairs, folks. We could be here a while.

1. True. Complete Laissez-faire policies have never existed. We've come close many times, but those didn't exactly end well.
2. It does lead to bad business practices such as monopolies. Past that, your statement is a load of horse manure. Monopolies perpetuate themselves because they distort the playing field to completely shut out competition even if their products are top-notch/innovative/inexpensive/etc.
3. Are you blind as a student of history? Do you recall the age of the robber barons? Do you see the recent results of deregulation and the massive increase in income inequality? Hint: it isn't because the lower classes have become lazier or that the rich as a whole have been working harder.
4. Tragedy of the Commons FTW! Who wouldn't love a wholly owned Gulf (or bay) of BP? Oil spills couldn't ever happen there! Do you understand that the environment is what sustains us on this planet? Fail.

1. close doesn't count.
2. Monopolies only last as long as someone else doesn't come up with a better product at a better price.
3. What deregulation has there been recently? I sure haven't seen any. Hint: Repeal of Glass-Stegall was not deregulation. Also, you don't know the true story about John D. Rockefeller. Standard Oil was incredibly efficient, he sold at low prices, and right before they were broken up by the government, there was competition coming along. Standard Oil could never have become a monopoly if it wasn't so good or if there competitors weren't so lousy.
How did J.P. Morgan get so rich you may ask? Because of the state--the National Banking Acts.
How did Carnegie get rich? Because of the state. They awarded him a patent on his steel production techniques and the tariffs on steel were probably high at the time. I don't have anything against Carnegie, but he was rich because the state awarded him a patent.
4. While a BP-style oil spill could've happened without water socialism, it would've been less likely and it's a lot less bad for society when they damage private property than if they damage public property.

 

[Steeplerot]

Another libertarian trying to make up his own history to compensate for the glaring flaws of their juvenile idealism.

 

[Atreus21]

Another libertarian trying to make up his own history to compensate for the glaring flaws of their juvenile idealism.

Get back to me when the glaring flaws of his juvenile idealism lead to the deaths of 40 million people. Surely the Great Leap Forward was an act of adult-level idealism.

 

[MovingTarget]

Can you give us some examples? Names?

Most people learned about the Robber Barons in their middle/high school US history class, but here's another source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

 

[Phokus]

2. Laissez-faire leads to bad big business practices (e.g., monopolies)
The truth is that if there is a monopoly, it is because the competition sucked, was inefficient, and/or was too damn expensive and because no one new came along and made decent efforts to defeat the monopoly.
3. Laissez-faire leads to 5% holding 95% of the wealth.

Monopolies are created when barriers to entry are exceedingly high (i.e. the capital investment are enormous and only 1 producer can be profitable).

See: Utilities

Other monopolies are created when a producer has an overwhelming advantage due to the network effect: see Facebook/Open Table.

 

[evident]

the more i read your posts the more i think you're in HS.

 

[Siddhartha]

Get back to me when the glaring flaws of his juvenile idealism lead to the deaths of 40 million people. Surely the Great Leap Forward was an act of adult-level idealism.

What does the Great Leap Forward have to do with OP?

 

[Thump553]

I'd give this-at best- 2/10 for your daily thread. Better luck next time.

BTW, how about something dealing with flying saucers and (real) aliens posing as world leaders?

 

[bamacre]

Most people learned about the Robber Barons in their middle/high school US history class, but here's another source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

I didn't ask because I didn't know. I was hoping you'd provide some specific examples, not a link to wikipedia. How about one example, one name, and how that person abused free markets to get wealthy?

 

[fskimospy]

Remember guys, Anarchist420 believes in the Austrian school of economics.

That school is notable because they are economists that try not to use math or falsifiable theories in their study of economics.

This should explain all you need to know about his ideas.

 

[Steeplerot]

Let the genetically wealth-challenged masses tremble. For the landlords are back with a feudal vengeance. Coming to a libertopia near you. (see nearest unemployed IT guys parents basements for more info)

 

[Patranus]

2. Monopolies only last as long as someone else doesn't come up with a better product at a better price.

Actually that isn't quite the case.

When the government oversteps its authority and uses "progressive" policy to pick winners and losers, sometimes the government closes the marketplace to competition.

 

[Turin39789]

I didn't ask because I didn't know. I was hoping you'd provide some specific examples, not a link to wikipedia. How about one example, one name, and how that person abused free markets to get wealthy?

Jay Gould, The Erie Railroad, receivership, issuing stock in excess of a companies value and cashing out leaving more outstanding shares than assets after his pay day, The United States Express company...

 

[MovingTarget]

Actually that isn't quite the case.

When the government oversteps its authority and uses "progressive" policy to pick winners and losers, sometimes the government closes the marketplace to competition.

Not necessarily. There are also many issues with things like dumping product on the market to put competitors out of business. How can a startup compete when the big corp notices you and temporarily sells at below the cost of raw materials? What about exclusivity contracts with all potential suppliers of raw material? Part of why we have those laws today is because of those types of abuses in the past.

Also, I know you have a schtick against progressives, but this is something progressives rail against. The influence of money in politics allows companies to always choose themselves the winners by the laws they influence in being created. As a famous political cartoon of the industrialist (robber baron) Rockefeller once said, "What a funny little government!".

 

[MovingTarget]

I didn't ask because I didn't know. I was hoping you'd provide some specific examples, not a link to wikipedia. How about one example, one name, and how that person abused free markets to get wealthy?

Rockefeller and his Standard Oil company was a good example before it was broken up in 1911.
From the US Dept of Commerce:

"Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent."

Jones, Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States pp. 89–90 (1922)

 

[Narmer]

the more i read your posts the more i think you're in HS.

Maybe he learned something today and decided to run with it. That's how most of his posts come across.