Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
You gotta love Ron Paul. I don’t know if he is Presidential, but he isn’t afraid to ask questions and likes to cut out the bull.
If we had more Ron Pauls and less RushAcolytes and ObamaBots, we would all be better off.
I live in the UK. I just visited the US. Reading your press was like reading mine. Too many bills, not enough money. And our own bunch of scandals (BBC execs).
If you guys don’t want Mr. Paul, can we have him for awhile? We need him.
I’d love a transcript of this if there is one online, the audio is a bit painful in the clip.
Ron Paul demonstrates complete BS. “The marketplace will protect consumers by the bad businesses going bankrupt.”
Can’t you idiots tell crap when its served up on white bread?
Here’s the existential question: do you have any rules if they aren’t enforced?
5,
If all the grocery stores raise prices..are you going to go hungry?
the first store to drop prices 10% will get TONS of business, but the prices went up 20-30%??
BUSINESS PAYS FOR NOTHING..any thing that ADD’s cost to the corp is sent to the customer..PERIOD.
“Any rules” thats true. and the enforcement has gotten LESS over the past 20 years. Its very entertaining when you look at it.
The Gov CUTS COSTS to balance the budget and Kills off our regulatory agencies. FDA, Agriculture, and others..They DONT CUT THEIR OWN PAY. After cutting costs, the COSTS still go up??
we need to go back to the stipend system. PAY BASIC wage, and living/travel expense, then SEND them back home to ANOTHER JOB.
#6–Pedro==YOU and I agree. Its RON PAUL who think regulations stifle businesses. Its RON PAUL who fails to recognize the rules he is so against are meaningless because the aren’t enforced.
Hope that puts us on the same page now, making your post #2 a bit of mindless personality worship. Glad to help.
#7–ECA==I did my best. Read your post twice. Still doesn’t make any sense beyond stating the obvious without a point. Care to rephrase for those of us who can’t keep up with you?
Even if the Fed was totally transparent I doubt many would be able to unravel the financial mess. The architecture of the financial system is built on sand and to top it off the blueprints have coffee stains obscuring the details. Gaining true insight on how the economic system will react is like reading tea leaves, today’s tools are almost like guessing. So, while this dog and pony show is great theater I think it will not avoid future problems. While regulations are great for problems we know about they do little to prepare us for future problems we don’t.
#9–gf==silly. You START regulations knowing the LIEBERTARIAN/Repuglican/Dumbass position of “letting the marketplace decide” is a recipe for just what we have: disaster. Businesses going bankrupt is not a regulatory scheme, it is a failure of various sorts.
Just to start: go back to all the rules that were in place 30 years ago and adjust from there.
Criminal or stupid to think the economy is as wishy washing as you propound.
Can we not afford decent mics/recorders?
#5:
An free market is not necessarily an unregulated market. We haven’t had a free market for a while.
bobo,
If all the stores raise prices by 1/2, the first store to drop 10% will be swamped. and we will feel proud that we saved money.
IF we could FORCE a business plan/ideal onto ALL BUSINESS we might have a chance. Only problem is that, at the TOP, most of those running the business are the SAME 2-4 Corps.
There is no competition. Even Walmart, who BUYS DIRECT from the makers in China, Japan, and soforth, marks price JUST UNDER the other stores and makes BUCKS.
You cant FORCE the companies in ANY WAY. For every person that FALLS in the store and hurts themselves, and the STORE has to pay…WE PAY. for every regulation that is required..WE PAY. For every light bulb in the ceiling..WE PAY.
Regulations for business and manufacturing have gone in the DUMPER over the past 20 years..EPA, FDA, Agro, and other agencies, have been CUT to the bone, as well as FINES that they give are so LOW, its like asking for pocket change, and EVEN IF it did hurt the company, it would come out of the CUSTOMERS POCKET..
Legislators should go back to the OLD ways, a stipend system. Get paid living expense and travel..After they are done, they GO HOME TO ANOTHER JOB..
#12–brm==serious dude, I don’t think you know what you are talking about AT ALL. I’m not saying I can guess what you are saying and I disagree, I mean you don’t know what you are gibbering AT ALL!!
I suspect with some follow up questions and refinements that YOUR free market has NEVER existed and never could.
The better lead-in and conceptual start for your ass-backwards world is that ONLY highly regulated markets are “fair.” Think transparency, full disclosure, complete records and reporting, limitations based on historical experience, non-conflict of interest relationships etc. Take on either approach you wish.
For grins: define a free market of any relevance outside of a small island with 4 coconuts and 2 canoes.
#13–ECA==same boat as brm. I do see slightly more about what your animating point is. From what I can tell, you make simple minded assumptions beneath anyone that has ever read a book on economics/markets. I’ll give you one and stop.
“For every person that FALLS in the store and hurts themselves, and the STORE has to pay…WE PAY.” /// No. Presumably, the store raises prices to pay for slip and falls. Their prices go UP. Stores with better safety practices do not raise prices for laxs safety. I shop at NewEgg for computer components. I don’t think they have too many customer slip and falls which is part of why they have the lowest prices.
My worthy opponent–when you restrict your world view to very artificial and limited scenarios, your appreciation and understanding of the market is similarly limited.
#14:
“I suspect with some follow up questions and refinements that YOUR free market has NEVER existed and never could.”
I’m talking about a market where:
– *all* prices are determined by the market
– labor and capital move freely
which, as far as I understand, are the defining qualities of a free market. Which we don’t have.
Do I think we can have a free market where we also make it illegal for financial companies to fraudulently report assets and cheat customers?
Yes.
#15–brm==I’ve never studied economics and I don’t think I can learn enough to intelligently contest an issue by doing quick google searches. But I have studied “words.”
“Market” is a theoretical construct. There is no such “thing” for real. Yes, there is an aggregations of individual transactions–but still a construct. Does the market mean that all participants know all the other terms and conditions of the transactions going on? ie–add “informed” buyers and sellers to your definition. And once you add “informed” what you get is a whole bunch of people trying to avoid those conditions of a free market leading to – – – – rules and regulations.
As to labor and capital moving freely, isn’t lack of labor mobility, if you must then as compared to capital, one of its hallmarks? If I live on the East Coast I can’t take a day job on the West Coast, but the money transfers quite easily. So yes, I accept your terms.
Applying your terms, I see that theoretically there can be no free market.
Your advocacy then for a free market is for what purpose?
#16, bobbo
Wow, it’s a very rare occurrence to see you respond to someone without using any name calling or belittling/snarky/sarcastic remarks. It’s a lot easier to take you seriously when you show some respect to who you’re responding to.
Couple questions regarding your post.
Why would a whole bunch of “informed” market participants avoid the conditions of a free market?
Also, how does living on the east coast prevent you from taking a day job in the west coast, regardless of ability or practicality? For instance, someone may prefer to live on the east coast and a really high paying job allows them to take a plane to commute to their job on the west coast. Of course, if the job isn’t high paying enough they couldn’t make this work without going bankrupt. Still, this doesn’t stop him from being able to move to the west coast to get a job, people do this all the time. Therefore labor is able to move freely and is only bound by the free market regulation. Or am I missing something?
14,
NewEgg, USED to be Egghead software, IF you didnt know. and had locations to patronize.
All they are now is a Drop shipper, and package handler. If a hired person cant fill 100+ orders a day, he gets fired.
They have only 1 problem. BAD products, and BROKEN stuff. To many BAD products can lead them to UPDATE prices. But considering there is a 400-600% markup..that shouldnt happen.
AND then I wonder whats the reasoning behind GAS going up in price. I dont see one.
ECA said: If all the stores raise prices by 1/2, the first store to drop 10% will be swamped. and we will feel proud that we saved money.
That’s EXACTLY what happens then gas prices go up and some lone gas station that isn’t ran by a franchise decides to drop prices for a while so he can empty his underground tanks and let the tanker trucks fill up those tanks so he can raise the fees on that gasoline on the next go around.
Applying Ron Paul’s philosophy to law enforcement says we should get rid of Police Departments because we still have crime.
#17–DA==I’m not a saint. Just responding to the stimulus. Like YOU for instance. You said “rare” not “never.” I agree.
“Why would a whole bunch of “informed” market participants avoid the conditions of a free market?” /// You have garbled my point which is that in order to be a free market place worthy of any contemplation, the participants must be informed. Otherwise, you have a marketplace but it has been captured by the unscrupulous as the other participants are not informed as to their malignant motives/effects. ((Just what our current meltdown has demonstrated.)) I think you will find “informed” in many variations of the definition of a free market. To that end, correcting my post, “fair” is very analogous to “free”– just not always. A free market is not one that is free to lie, mislead, misinform, cheat, steal etc. You can use words that way if you wish, but its not consistent with that other free markeplace==the one of ideas.
I reject the unstated assumption of your question–that bootleg products should be “legal” and part of the market process with buyers protecting themselves ONLY by slowly over time identifying the bogus goods and “choosing” to not deal with that vendor. Takes too long. No reason to allow such manipulations to exist. Regulate the participants, what they say, how they do business. Otherwise you don’t have a market, you only have a free for all.
The analogy is a good one: basketball. Without rules fully enforced, you cannot play basketball. There is NO GAME if you can hold the ball, punch, tackle and so forth. Its playing within the rules that actually makes the game. No rules, no game. Same with the free market.
On your last point, regarding the immobility of labor, YES, you are missing the point. Not “missing” it so much as using your skills to avoid the obvious point being made. Such manipulation invites a snark, but I’m in a pedantic mood and I’m still coasting from the good will of your first few lines. Its fine to use your skills to disagree. I sense you know what I mean when I counsel you to use the same skill set to see the validity of what I posted, then contrast that position with the special circumstances you advance, weigh and contrast, make your own conclusion. At the end of the day, a dollar can be instantaneously wired transferred while bodies need biological support while being moved around with much greater effort==ie, don’t argue against the obvious.
#18–ECA==silly.
#19–Pedro==”The problem is, you cannot go the extreme opposite of no regulation (which we’re not there right now) to excess regulation.” /// Well you demonstrate what is usually so wrong in these discussions: setting up straw men that don’t apply.
If you don’t like a certain regulation, does that mean the situation is OVER REGULATED or more precisely, mis-regulated? Is the solution to remove the subject being regulated or is it to modify the regulation so that it has greater utility?
Example: Lets not allow free market farmers to put pig shit in our food. Lets make a rule requiring clean shit free food. Who is offended by this regulation? Now, if the rule is you cannot have any shit at all, and laboratory process can find one microgram per trillion parts, effectively, all food is contaminated and none can be sold. Is that over regulation calling for removal of the ban on shit in food, or is it mis-regulation calling for a modification of one part per million shit in food?
When you argue for “no regulations” / free market you are arguing for shit in your food. Silly, and it gives you bad breath.
I DEFY you or anyone else to give a single example of “over regulation” (other than outright banning as with drugs) that doesn’t actually mean mis-regulation.
#16:
““Market” is a theoretical construct. There is no such “thing” for real.”
The same can be said for the words ‘nation’, and ‘government’, and ‘law.’
“Applying your terms, I see that theoretically there can be no free market.”
I think you’re confusing a free market with one where there is no asymmetric information and transport time is instantaneous. And when that’s not possible, you say there is no free market.
The problem of ‘informed’ buyers and sellers gaming the system is taken care of by laws prohibiting things like collusion, monopolistic behavior, and insider trading.
If you think about it, a free market *can’t* exist without the proper regulation. Without laws regulating it, a market probably won’t be free.
Bureaucracy is based on greed, hence the bigger the bureaucracy… Does not mater if it is Government or Corporate.
In a free market economy the system is self regulating because too much greed is self defeating. In the end, the consumer wins.
Some of you are confusing corporate cronyism for free market.
Never mistake the answer for the problem i.e. Government.
Oh, you’re a GENIUS, Ron. No, of course regulation has no effect at all — which is why the contemporary business landscape looks exactly like that of the totally unregulated nineteenth-century industrial revolution.
Here we still have all that child labor, no overtime rules, zero workplace safety rules, companies are allowed to dump their toxic soot into whatever waterway is nearby, etc. etc. Yes, our whole world looks exactly like the industrial hellscape of 1800 robber-baron industry.
Idiot.
#26: Capitalism is based on greed as well, and has been hammered by its greed as well. Take the recent situation of many oil tankers held in the Gulf Coast so the oil companies can artificially jack up the price of petroleum. And then there are the companies last fall that manipulated the subprime housing market…which put us in the hole we’re in today.
#22 bobbo,
Rephrasing your points as I understand them…
—All market participants must be informed or they will be taken advantage of by the informed market participants. Since it is impossible for all market participants to be completely informed we therefore need government regulators to step in and protect them from the evils of the “free market”. The government regulators are preferable because they can take action quickly and stop any informed market participants from taking advantage of the uninformed participants.—
In my original question I was hoping you’d give me a better answer than the market “moves too slowly” (in so many words…). The market has many forms of self regulation. In each sector of the economy there is going to be a small number of very informed and scrupulous consumers who will, can and have repeatedly found wrongdoing in the market when government was completely silent and often approving of the wrongdoings (Enron and Madoff for example). The businesses have the built in incentive to provide the best products at the lowest price possible to consumers or they’ll lose market share…unless of course they are able to get GOVERNMENT bailouts or special GOVERNMENT regulations or even special contracts with some other GOVERNMENT supported industry etc. As long as an industry has free entry into the market then a business can’t fuck up or it will lose big time to some new hot shot entrepreneur. Free entry into the market (as far as I can tell) is NEARLY ALWAYS inhibited by government in some way or another and I’ve yet to see even a remotely good example of a supposed “free market monopoly” running rampant and taking advantage of consumers.
—You also touched on the ability of the market to sniff out “bogus” products and eliminate them.—
The more bogus the product/service is the faster the market finds them and eliminates them. This job is made increasingly difficult when government intrudes and places it’s official stamp of approval on bogus products. Especially since those same government agencies were put in to protect and regulate markets…so when the FDA puts its stamp of approval on a company or the SEC says Bernie Madoff is legit, suddenly the market gets careless and corruption is allowed to enter the picture. The government is almost never the one to actually uncover people who are committing fraud in the market, it’s almost ALWAYS the market itself that finds the ones committing fraud because it’s in their best interest to know if the company is unsound or committing some sort of fraud, or putting goat shit in their product. Naturally it’s just as important for competitors to expose companies that are committing fraud in order to remove that unfair competition from the market.
concerning you point on the immobility of labor relative to the mobility of money…
I honestly fail to see what that has to do with anything…Are you trying to say that labor is less mobile and because of that it hinders the ability to have a free market?
Maybe im just completely missing the boat again.
Whatever level of regulation you think should exist on private individuals engaging in commerce, can we at least all agree that the Federal Reserve should be regulated?
At the moment, Ron Paul is trying to just get it audited. Even that’s a fight. Whatever you think about private acts being regulated, I can’t understand being less than outraged at the lack of oversight and regulation of the Fed.