Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1
Jebby, I hear you saying that you studied at LSE. Did they teach you the myth that there ever was a totally "free market' in world history (where/when)??...
|
Have I ever said we've ever had a totally free market completely free of any state interference. Taxation in and of itself is an interference in the "free market" but I'm not completely against taxation to fund the basic roles of government, such as the guaranteeing and protection of property rights, contract enforcement and arbitration in civil courts, for example.
I, however, think that strict enforcement of property rights is a more effective tool to achieve many of the policies you probably advocate in favor of. For example in the case of pollution control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1
or that free markets can actually exist (without government regulation at some point)?
|
I'm not an an-cap so I don't believe that is desirable or feasible. Although you don't necessarily need the state for regulations to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1
Further, where did you learn that the "state"/government never/doesn't produce wealth? So LAX or the Ports Authority of New York/New Jersey which are all government enterprises don't generate wealth/GDP at the city/state levels? Really!? In Los Angeles light/water and power are produced/sold CHEAPLY to most of the city's residents by the city government (re: LADWP).
|
Everything the state has it takes from private citizens. It does not create anything on it's own. Even when it takes from the productive sector to build, for example, a port it is not the creator of wealth. Those that use the facilities to engage in commerce create the wealth and prosperity. And if we take into account the opportunity cost and the inevitable inefficient use of resources by government agents (due to the lack of profit motive) it is always a net destruction of wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1
Where did you learn that monopolies are always created by the state/government? Maybe that might be the case in corrupt Mexico but not here. If that were true why would the U.S. government pass the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890 to curtail the creation of business monopolies (which were/are the natural outgrowth of UNREGULATED MARKETS AS EXISTED DURING THE GILDED AGE OF AMERICA'S ROBBER BARONS)????
|
The Sherman Anti Trust Act merely aids inefficient businesses at the expense of more innovative ones. It was passed by special interests and harms consumers and the economy.
This is a really good article that looks at the causes and consequences of the Sherman Act:
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-sherman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1
By the way, in case you missed that part of your economic history lesson the Gilded Age of the late 19th century America was characterized by little or no government taxes or regulations,..thus precipitating horrendous levels of income disparity and poverty.
|
The Gilded Age was the largest expansion of the American economy, it raised millions of people out of poverty and created a massive middle class of consumers. I know you're a leftist and obsessed with "income disparity" but it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Take this example:
Quote:
Jones makes $10,000 a year, while Smith earns $20,000. Assuming no inflation, a year later Jones is earning $15,000 and Smith makes $30,000.
It is clear that both Jones and Smith are better off than they had been before, although in absolute terms Smith has earned a greater increase in income than has Jones. According to the "inequality" economists, only Smith is better off. In fact, according to their logic, Jones is actually worse off after he has increased his income because the income spread between Smith and him has grown. No matter that both men are better off. Economists have declared, instead, that inequality has become greater.
|
Prev
The Steve Nash's of the world, and the Nowitzki's of the world. 
Linear Mode
