Social Cooperation: Why Thieves Hate Free Markets

cactustactics Says:

May 17, 2012 - I'm not here to refute whatever ahistorical fantasies you come out with - back up your own claims. Put up or shut upAnd yes when there isn't enough labour to meet demand, wages start to rise. Put that's the opposite of the situation, because we have systemic unemployment - and this is *by design*, because (as in all things) businesses hate competition, and having to compete for labour means having to pay more, and get a lower return. This is like entry-level history of labour relations

cactustactics Says:

May 17, 2012 - And what are you even trying to say with that Intel line? Technology improves and obsolete products are basically worthless, therefore something something Intel pay?If you just want to talk about Intel then good choice, considering they were hit with a DoJ ruling against a group of companies conspiring to fix pay and not compete for workers, there's a class action suit running against them for the same reason, and they outsource heavily to developing countries (and pay badly there too). QED

DarkArtistKaiser Says:

May 19, 2012 - Isn't competitiveness suppose to be a good thing though? If corporations work together, than wouldn't that give them less incentive to develop new technologies and create monopolies? Not to mention working together basically allows them to destroy any new potential competition that would threaten them, as well as laws that would regulate their practices.Dunno, looks like them working together is more bad than good for a "free" market.

euroqusling Says:

May 23, 2012 - fortunately Prisoner's Dilemma breaks up loyalty between them (loyalty understood as maintaining collusion)

euroqusling Says:

May 23, 2012 - All you have shown is that corporations are self-interested - just as you are, expecting to buy ever better products at ever lower prices. Corporations follow their self interests, and then morons turn around and accuse businesses of doing what they do. "no, corporations should sacrifice and I should benefit!". Idiocy.

euroqusling Says:

May 23, 2012 - p.s. if you think obsolete products are worthless, you're in for a surprise: Z80 cpu is still in production for the simple reason it is so useful: predictable clock timing, low power, and where you don't need lots of computing power, it's still extremely useful. Pathfinder probe on Mars was using Z80 cpus (albeit with faster clocks than old versions).

euroqusling Says:

May 23, 2012 - your economics is idiotic. If businesses paid more, workers would have more money to spend, too. You treat dependent variable as if it were independent.Of course everybody individually (business, worker) tries to get a better deal: lower costs, higher revenues. Just bc some business goes for lower labor costs for itself does not mean everybody else loses, on the contrary: we gain.

euroqusling Says:

May 23, 2012 - businesses can no more collude to reduce wages than they can collude to raise prices. Both are subject to Prisoner's Dilemma: it breaks up, quickly, that is, businesses defect by paying higher wages and charging lower prices - not out of goodness of their hearts, but bc their competition will do that.Same with workers: we work more and ask for lower wages than our competing coworkers. That does not mean race to the bottom, however: it's race to the top.

euroqusling Says:

May 23, 2012 - how can you "push wages down" apart from government fiat?If that were possible, everyone would work at minimum wage, and demonstrably vast majority of people do not.Really, economic ignorants like you think they have rediscovered a world of meaning while they cannot even read with understanding -- UNDERSTANDING I said -- a basic textbook.

cactustactics Says:

May 23, 2012 - Wages are 'pushed down' because, in the labour market, the supply (workers) exceeds the demand (available employment), so the market moves towards equilibrium at a price (wage) where supply meets demand (people willing to work/positions offered at that wage). You'll find all this in your basic textbook. As I said before, government intervention (minimum wage/restricting worker rights/immigration control) historically acts to prevent the market from swinging too far in either direction

cactustactics Says:

May 23, 2012 - And did you miss where that guy brought up Intel, and that I pointed out that Intel and other large tech companies literally did collude to reduce competition in hiring so that wages could be kept down?And isn't it funny that even in a closed economic system *individual* businesses prefer to pay less rather than more, even though it's in society's interests for wealth to be spread more equally among consumers?Also if you're going to be tediously pedantic look up 'obsolete' thx

cactustactics Says:

May 23, 2012 - The free market is meant to be about rational actors and perfect competition, but in a profit-driven economic system competition is a threat to your success (or outright existence). Competition is meant to keep everyone in line, so obviously those with the most economic power seek to eliminate competition to make their lives easier and their profitability unrestricted.Cartels obviously exist, and price wars between similarly powerful competitors are rare, so costs end up cut elsewhere eg wages

cactustactics Says:

May 23, 2012 - Oh and while you're missing the point, the reason corporate profitability is seen as dangerous is because it pursues concentration of wealth and sheer economic power in a single entity, as opposed to the majority of the population wanting better lives for themselves. The problem is the system as a whole - it encourages and *relies* on exploitation, because capitalism is predicated on the expectation of eternal growth. That's why we get things like life-destroying speculation and financial crises

DarkArtistKaiser Says:

May 23, 2012 - But the sole goal of all economies is profit, to not be gaining profit would be a determent to any economy,corporation, and market. Humans by nature can become greedy, and so the free market you speak of is a pipedream due to the fact in the end we will constantly have those who will be constantly trying to monopolize. Even if competition works together, it creates a whole new problem, as that can form powerful groups as well that snuff out any other competition.

DarkArtistKaiser Says:

May 23, 2012 - There must be actual competition in order for technology to advance, as competitors will invest and try to come up with better products to be competitive. Working together eventually leads to monopolization as, again, the market is all about profits and power is vested in those with the most money. This is why I can never be a libertarian, cause less government means less regulation, which in term leads to abuses in economic power. It is just unfeasible to expect everyone to play nicely.

RichardWConrad Says:

May 24, 2012 - Gee, now I understand. So we don't really need regulations after all to prevent secret cartels from price-fixing, sabotaging new competitors and such because ... because ... no, I'm missing something here. Run that by me again?

marsglorious Says:

May 24, 2012 - Right then, let's completely get rid of the Government as see how things pan out.

cactustactics Says:

May 24, 2012 - Yeah exactly - I'm just pointing out that the ~magical free market~ as a self-correcting force relies on a bunch of unrealistic assumptions, like rational actors and perfect information and perfect competition. But it's in an individual entity's interest to eliminate their competition, to gain and control information and to behave more rationally - all of which is a lot easier when you possess a raft of experts, vast research and advertising budgets, and control over a slice of the economy

MsSexySocialist Says:

May 24, 2012 - No market economy can ever encourage cooperation unless usury, - in the original definition of lending money at any interest - does not exist and large concentrations of capital do not form.Both ensure risk-free investment for those who are involved in them, which in turn leads to:- Centralization of the means of production in the hands of tiny rich elite- Income derived from doing nothing of any social utility- Subordination of the capital-less to the wealthy.In other words, capitalism.

unity100 Says:

May 25, 2012 - Prof. Aeon Skoble, who is just another employee in pay of the current system, SURPRISINGLY, somehow, praises the current system. ......... So its ok when 1% of population is getting 72% of everything, and its not thievery that they own so much and at every step you take you pay them through indirect means, but, when people want those suckers to be taxed, its 'thievery' ? ok then lets abolish government and privatize army, military and police. because, well, free markets work, right ?

qpalzmGloop Says:

May 26, 2012 - This video is win

9avedon Says:

May 27, 2012 - Spelling error, I hate to nit pick but you misspelt Collectivism and wrote capitalism by mistake,Common error among free market deniers.

MsSexySocialist Says:

May 27, 2012 - There's no such thing as a "free market". There's nothing to deny. Every market economy that has ever existed has been a statist economy.And every CAPITALIST economy is based upon those three principles I listed. You're going to have to do better than throwing out vacuous buzzwords like "collectivism".Nice try though : )

blackmichael75 Says:

May 27, 2012 - Did Macys and JC Penney really decide voluntarily and spontaneously "from below" to share information, or did someone high up in their corporate hierarchies, a manager or C.O. decide?

CosmicFork Says:

May 27, 2012 - Professor, (Apologist For The Rich), makes me wanna puke! Propaganda from the crooks & thieves at the top like "Learn Liberty" doesn't fool anyone. Libertarianism is just their biggest scam yet to finish destroying Democracy and the rule of law, and complete the fascist plutocracy. It is an insane scheme that doesn't hold up to economics 101, unless your goal is to enrich a few at the expense of the wealth, health and freedom of the many. It is as stupidly utopian as Communism & a scam like it!