Craig Sanders wrote:
To start with, their foundational article of faith, the "free market" that they bleat on and on about does not exist, never has existed, and never can exist - it's a theoretical ideal that assumes a perfectly frictionless market with perfectly *rational* actors (both buyers and sellers) who *always* act in their own best interest, and that there are no systemic factors that inhibit competition. It's a thought-experiment, not a description (or even a prescription) of the real world.
A free market does not require that people behave as perfectly rational actors who always act in their own best interest. If people act contrary to their best interests, it is still a free market. The point is, people who act contrary to their best interests will face consequences that are contrary to their best interests. And if they choose to improve their actions they will improve the consequences of their actions. There is no requirement of perfection or frictionless interaction.
ps: please read up on real libertarianism, as defined in the rest of the world, and before american anarcho-capitalists hijacked the term. here's a good starting point:
No thanks. I do not see how you can have compulsory central planning and still call it a system of anarchy. Rohan McLeod wrote :
-the consequence of globalisation is to move jobs to places with low labor costs and raise unemployment elsewhere. -the consequence of inadequately regulated stock-markets are non-productive booms and busts there is a longer 'rant' here:
Those two points are largely due to fractional reserve lending, central banking and fiat currency. All of which are forms of intervention in the market by governments. Peter Ross said:
It seemed to matter to the public then. It still does?
I would say that the ones who care are are a minority. But what do you suppose the public should do? Cheers, Alex