Al Gore, what a loser.

[Bruce Wayne]

Just in the same way that you criticize government intervention and social redistribution because it doesn't work (in the way that you would like) you then give a free pass to the unbridled market system.

Free markets are the same as most religions, a nice idea if ever anyone ever tried it. Unfortunately, most of what we have promoted as a "free market system" is the same pattern of business which has led to monopolistic or oligopolistic behaviour contrary to the free market ideals, whether that has been in raw materials, the defence or auto industries, software, sports or retail franchising. And then appealed to the despised central or local government for funding whether it is in term of pork-barrel politics or in taking advantage of social welfare programs.

Can you give examples?

 

[atrottel]

Microsoft

McDonalds

NFL teams

Auto industry retail price maintenance, purchase of industry patents, differential national pricing, control of distribution network

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Microsoft I'll grant you, even though both Linux and Apple are widely available.

McDonalds. Huh? I havn't eaten in the place in years. If I want a takeaway there are dozens of places I can go.

NFL teams aren't any example of a free market because the whole league is designed as a closed shop. I wasn't aware that they even marketed themselves as an example of a free market, but I don't really follow the sport so who knows, maybe they do.

Retail price maintenance. Pretty much all retailers offer a recommended retail price. They have to make a profit, what's your point? I remember there being accusations of price fixing in the 1990's but with cars increasingly being sold over the Internet I hardly think that applies today.

Could you be more specific about patents? I'll assume you're in support of the concept of intellectual property rights and don't wish to see a Chinese style free for all.

Differential national pricing is another no brainer on the very basis that countries are all different. Take a simple example of the American/British property markets. For the price of a bedsit somewhere in Britain you can quite comfortably afford to buy a 4 bedroom house in America.

Control of the distribution network is again one of those things that depends greatly on the industry. Simple Porters five forces stuff. There are many more industries that have a free and fluid supply and logistics network than those that don't. Even industries like grocery retailing that have had long running supply issues have delivered food at lower prices than any time in history.

 

[atrottel]

McDonalds. Huh? I havn't eaten in the place in years. If I want a takeaway there are dozens of places I can go.

Free market doesn't just apply to the retail market.

NFL teams aren't any example of a free market because the whole league is designed as a closed shop. I wasn't aware that they even marketed themselves as an example of a free market, but I don't really follow the sport so who knows, maybe they do.

No, but they market themselves as one of America's most successful businesses but avail themselves of vast subsidies from national and local government. In a similar way to the defence industries.

Retail price maintenance. Pretty much all retailers offer a recommended retail price. They have to make a profit, what's your point?

Firstly, retail price maintenance is to do with price-fixing and not a recommended retail price. Secondly, surely in a "free market" the market would magically adjust to allow distributors to sell at whatever price they wished. Unless of course, there was something disrupting the free market such as legal restrictions.

Could you be more specific about patents? I'll assume you're in support of the concept of intellectual property rights and don't wish to see a Chinese style free for all.

Surely a free market wouldn't support intellectual property rights?

Differential national pricing is another no brainer on the very basis that countries are all different. Take a simple example of the American/British property markets. For the price of a bedsit somewhere in Britain you can quite comfortably afford to buy a 4 bedroom house in America.

They are different how? Again, the free market surely takes care of undeserved monopoly overpricing. Unless you believe that price differentials on software are based on the effort of translating American to English?

Distribution networks

Again, this is something that goes over various industries, but really I was referring to independent distribution networks not being allowed to sell rival products. And "house" distribution networks given preferential wholesaling pricing and distribution advantages.

 

[monty]

For the record, I would do Kerry Katona.

I understand that you'd be number 482

 

[atrottel]

I understand that you'd be number 482

For the record, recent (non-pregnant) photo...

 

[chicoazul]

She's quite clearly filth.

 

[TX Bill]

I'd rather vote Ron Paul. Republicans are far too religious for my liking. Politics should be secular.

Ooof Bruce.

You've struck me as a pretty intelligent individual so I chalk up your Ron Paul comment as a windup.

We're talking about a guy whose a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. He'd make a much, much better Democrat than Republican. As it stands, he's nowhere near Presidential material at all as he doesn't have a serious view about anything in this country. In short, he's a crackpot (kinda like Al Gore).

As for Republicans being religious, let's look at it this way.

In country X, if political party A supports positions that are considered "anti-religous," it would stand to reason that political party B would garner support from people who consider themselves religious.

In this country, the Democrats have deliberately put themselves on the side of ideas and platforms that are considered "anti-religious" (i.e. Pro-Choice, Homosexual Marriage, etc...) so it would stand to reason that if anyone would be against those types of ideas would gravitate towards a party who's members don't support those ideas.

I find it curious (and unfortutnately quite common) that many subscribe to that same line of thought, that Republicans are too religious or cater to the religious right. However, what I find equally interesting is that the same line of thought isn't applied to the Democrats regarding their anti-religious views and pandering.

The biggest concern, and hence the mass support for the Republicans by "religious" people is that the left wing in this country has seen their ideas consistently fail in the court of public opinion. This isn't a newsflash to anyone as we've seen it over and over.

So, if your ideas fail in the court of public opinion (i.e. letting your citizens vote on a particular idea or subject), what's your next option as a liberal in the USA? That's right, take it to the courts. Yes, let's let the courts decide what's best for the people since the people obviously don't know what's best for themselves.

Well in order to make that work, you've got to stock the courts full of people who think like you and agree with your ideas. Hence, the libs need to get a Democrat elected so that when Supreme Court openings come about, they can get a left winger in who looks at our Consititution as a "living document" (that's code speak for we can make it say whatever we need it to say and not what the founding fathers intended). That way, they can overrule the people by getting the courts to legislate from the bench.

As a Republican and someone who's religious, I find that very distasteful. That a small group of people could determine "what's best" for everyone and bypass the voting mechanism altogether. It's been done once with Roe vs. Wade and let's hope it never happens again. Anyone who's part of a democracy sees the big problems here, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on or what your personal beliefs are.

Sorry for the longer than intended post but in short, religion will never find it's way out of politics and for me, that's a good thing.

 

[atrottel]

That a small group of people could determine "what's best" for everyone and bypass the voting mechanism altogether.

Surely the whole idea of the constitution written by the "founding fathers" overriding the will of the people expressed in Supreme Court appointments, state decisions, or Congressional or Presidential decrees or laws is directly contrary to your quote above?

I'll pass for the moment on Texas redistricting scandals...

 

[Rob]

Regardless of whether fossil fuels are harming the world or causing climate change or not, we need to stop using them because they are bad for us.

Can I just ask a question Bill?

Why do you treat people in such a manner that if returned to you, you get angry?
You dismissed Bruce's opinion as a wind up.... that is shocking.

Is it ok for me to assume that because I think you are an intelligent guy that your opinion that a bunch of blokes 400 years ago knew what was best for the people living today is just a wind up?

Allow gay marriage, why shouldn't they get married if they love each other?

Allow Abortion, its the womans body and IMO she is entitled to do what she wants to herself and SHE is the one who has to live with it for her whole life.

Land of the free, well.... stop telling people what to do then.

 

[atrottel]

Rob, remember the Twelve Steps! It's not too late to start again. "My name is Rob and I am a political postaholic. Today is the first day where I shall refrain from remarks on any threads involving the USA, politics, or its constitution..."

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Ooof Bruce.

You've struck me as a pretty intelligent individual so I chalk up your Ron Paul comment as a windup.

We're talking about a guy whose a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. He'd make a much, much better Democrat than Republican. As it stands, he's nowhere near Presidential material at all as he doesn't have a serious view about anything in this country. In short, he's a crackpot (kinda like Al Gore).

As for Republicans being religious, let's look at it this way.

In country X, if political party A supports positions that are considered "anti-religous," it would stand to reason that political party B would garner support from people who consider themselves religious.

In this country, the Democrats have deliberately put themselves on the side of ideas and platforms that are considered "anti-religious" (i.e. Pro-Choice, Homosexual Marriage, etc...) so it would stand to reason that if anyone would be against those types of ideas would gravitate towards a party who's members don't support those ideas.

I find it curious (and unfortutnately quite common) that many subscribe to that same line of thought, that Republicans are too religious or cater to the religious right. However, what I find equally interesting is that the same line of thought isn't applied to the Democrats regarding their anti-religious views and pandering.

The biggest concern, and hence the mass support for the Republicans by "religious" people is that the left wing in this country has seen their ideas consistently fail in the court of public opinion. This isn't a newsflash to anyone as we've seen it over and over.

So, if your ideas fail in the court of public opinion (i.e. letting your citizens vote on a particular idea or subject), what's your next option as a liberal in the USA? That's right, take it to the courts. Yes, let's let the courts decide what's best for the people since the people obviously don't know what's best for themselves.

Well in order to make that work, you've got to stock the courts full of people who think like you and agree with your ideas. Hence, the libs need to get a Democrat elected so that when Supreme Court openings come about, they can get a left winger in who looks at our Consititution as a "living document" (that's code speak for we can make it say whatever we need it to say and not what the founding fathers intended). That way, they can overrule the people by getting the courts to legislate from the bench.

As a Republican and someone who's religious, I find that very distasteful. That a small group of people could determine "what's best" for everyone and bypass the voting mechanism altogether. It's been done once with Roe vs. Wade and let's hope it never happens again. Anyone who's part of a democracy sees the big problems here, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on or what your personal beliefs are.

Sorry for the longer than intended post but in short, religion will never find it's way out of politics and for me, that's a good thing.

I havn't really been following the US presidential elections in any great depth, unless you regard what you read in the Economist as great depth, so don't know a great deal about any of the policies on offer. I know that Hillary seems to have sewn up the Democrat nomination but economically at least her healthcare plans and general anti-globalization don't do anything for me, not to mention the Bush/Clinton political dynasty her election would create.

On the Republican side, it seems as though McCain and Guiliani are front runners. As I've said before I don't think religion has any place in government so the mormon guy is out. As a libertarian Michael Bloomberg sounds quite good but it doesn't seem likely that he'll run, despite seeming to do a good job in New York. Likewise, the limited footage I've seen of Ron Paul has been quite positive. I forget his name but there's an interviewer on Fox who's overwhelmingly Republican and he gave him a most obnoxious interview.

When you consider that America was founded largely on the libertarian principles of people such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson it seems only natural that the nation should continue along the path of free market liberalism.

 

[Rob]

Rob, remember the Twelve Steps! It's not too late to start again. "My name is Rob and I am a political postaholic. Today is the first day where I shall refrain from remarks on any threads involving the USA, politics, or its constitution..."

yes yes ok.

some people need to look in the mirror and realise that they behave just the same as the people they choose to dislike.

The way politics is, they force you to choose a side and stick with it because thats what they want you to do, vote Jedi I say.

 

[Rob]

I havn't really been following the US presidential elections in any great depth, unless you regard what you read in the Economist as great depth, so don't know a great deal about any of the policies on offer. I know that Hillary seems to have sewn up the Democrat nomination but economically at least her healthcare plans and general anti-globalization don't do anything for me, not to mention the Bush/Clinton political dynasty her election would create.

On the Republican side, it seems as though McCain and Guiliani are front runners. As I've said before I don't think religion has any place in government so the mormon guy is out. As a libertarian Michael Bloomberg sounds quite good but it doesn't seem likely that he'll run, despite seeming to do a good job in New York. Likewise, the limited footage I've seen of Ron Paul has been quite positive. I forget his name but there's an interviewer on Fox who's overwhelmingly Republican and he gave him a most obnoxious interview.

When you consider that America was founded largely on the libertarian principles of people such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson it seems only natural that the nation should continue along the path of free market liberalism.

So that when republicans watch it they can denounce him as looney right?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No, but they market themselves as one of America's most successful businesses but avail themselves of vast subsidies from national and local government. In a similar way to the defence industries.

As you said in an earlier post, we don't really have a free market at the moment because governments around the world continue to wield such power. As long as so much power is in the hands of so few it's inevitable that people will seek to exploit this. I'm a great supporter of the Thatcher 'no lame duck' policy. If a company can't stand on its own two feet then it shouldn't expect bail outs from the tax payer.

Firstly, retail price maintenance is to do with price-fixing and not a recommended retail price. Secondly, surely in a "free market" the market would magically adjust to allow distributors to sell at whatever price they wished. Unless of course, there was something disrupting the free market such as legal restrictions.

The invisible hand doesn't really work like that because despite sellers obviously wanting to charge as much as they can, buyers want to pay as little as they can, hence you get a trade off. In a competitive marketplace you thereby have companies segmenting this market to offer value to different sections of it. Some will be cheap and cheerful, some will offer premium services, some will provide the technological edge and so on. This is the principle advantage of a free market because where a monopoly (be it public or private) assumes that everyone is the same and provides them with whatever they deem fit (the Henry Ford any car you like as long as it's black mentality), in a competitive market each company has to offer something unique and the nature of numerous companies each striving for uniqueness means they have to tailor things to a niche of that whole.

Surely a free market wouldn't support intellectual property rights?

A free market isn't the equivalent of the wild west Governments should provide law and order, I just don't think they should provide much else.

They are different how? Again, the free market surely takes care of undeserved monopoly overpricing. Unless you believe that price differentials on software are based on the effort of translating American to English?

Well Microsoft being such a well publicised case is perhaps proof that they are the exception rather than the rule. I generally use Linux at work so have bypassed their software for a number of years without any great difficulty. It surely stands to reason that you're not going to charge the same price for a can of cola in Britain as you would in Zimbabwe though? As I mentioned earlier, companies have to sell their products at a price that will ensure a reasonable market in a particular territory. As an advocate of governments who take, by force, money from us all not based on what we consume but on what we earn I would think this point is made on fragile ground.

Again, this is something that goes over various industries, but really I was referring to independent distribution networks not being allowed to sell rival products. And "house" distribution networks given preferential wholesaling pricing and distribution advantages.

Sure, I suspect it goes on. I believe AMD have sued Intel for this kind of thing before. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that a free market would provide some kind of utopia because that's patently nonsense. Any system with human beings in it will be far from perfect due to our very nature. However the provision of choice and the freedom to make choices on a frequent basis provides the checks to keep things reasonably honest and power reasonably decentralised. A free market provides a damn site more choice than a government 'democracy' does.