I was thinking about where i stand as far as government regulation of the market, etc as i was talking to some people about why i don't shop at walmart, starbucks, etc (its simply because there are better choices and different people id rather support) and i came to this conclusion:

People seem to be lazy so the one and only thing they think about when shopping is price and how much they can get for a dollar. They never think about who or what they're supporting.

So i was just thinking that itd would be nice if consumers realized evey purchase is a "vote"? There wouldnt be a need for any regulation at all for the free market. But this is pretty silly and if people deserved that amount of credit we probably wouldnt need any laws. But i like some of the 'hands off' theories, so i'm curious.

So my question is for the libertarian/right wingers who are for deregulation, etc. Whats the 'nongovernment controlled' solution? How do you think it'd work and what would happen? Is there or will there ever be a nonfinancial motivator for people?

/noob post

10/7/2005 10:45:48 AM

every individual doesn't have to consciously realize that every purchase is a vote for the system to work, or at least work better than the alternative.

10/7/2005 11:22:41 AM

dannydigtl,

Quote :

"So i was just thinking that itd would be nice if consumers realized evey purchase is a "vote"? "

I think people already see their purchases as votes (even if they don't), you just don't like how they're voting.

They base their "vote" on price (and quality). You base your vote on your misguided social consious(sp).

Deal.

10/7/2005 11:30:44 AM

Quote :

"Is there or will there ever be a nonfinancialnon-self interest motivator for people?"

No. People will almost always act in their own self-interest. Or, at least act in what they perceive to be their own self-interest.

I think that most people do realize that every purchase is a vote of sorts--if enough people don't spend money at a particular store (vote no), then the store will eventually change to suit consumers or go out of business. Most people get that.

Also, I wouldn't say that people are lazy (well they are, but...). I'd say that most people don't place the same value on whatever ideals you have that keep you from shopping at Walmart or Starbucks. Or, at the least, people place a higher value on other things (e.g. most value for the money, affordability, etc).

10/7/2005 11:31:17 AM

Quote :

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes"

10/7/2005 12:16:03 PM

^ source? never heard that one.

I'd have to think there is a context that quote is being taken out of, because Keynes can be considered nothing if not a capitalist.

10/7/2005 12:20:33 PM

I think you are answering your own question. If you read some of Ayn Rand's work you realize that in a perfect world Free Market would benefit everyone as long as they had "moral clarity" you know the whole ethics thing.
You have probably figure out that the free market isn't perfect but is slightly better than the socialist alternative.
With that said, choices like Tanzarian pointed out are driven by your social status if you are from the working class you will probably shop at walmart out of necessity because your dollar would go further there.

10/7/2005 12:27:45 PM

I wish someone smart like dannydigitl could make purchasing choices for me.

I'm not smart enough to boycott Walmart to help the people that work there.

Thinking for myself reall IS too much responsibility.

10/7/2005 12:30:55 PM

Quote :

"I think you are answering your own question. If you read some of Ayn Rand's work "

That's where you lost all credibility.

10/7/2005 12:32:24 PM

explain?

10/7/2005 12:33:46 PM

dannydigtl, I have thought about it fully and come to a conclusion. I am happy to boycott any company I disagree with. However, I fully agree with what Wal-Mart stands for and demonstrate my support by shopping there even when it is inconvenient (I just need one thing).

Why not boycott some companies that are doing real harm to the world, such as Dog Eat Dog Films.

10/7/2005 12:38:25 PM

because Ayn Rand is an ignorant cunt. Why? That's not a topic for this thread.



So let's make a new one!

10/7/2005 12:39:04 PM

Quote :

"because Ayn Rand is an ignorant cunt"

you are a sad thing........that's all.

10/7/2005 12:40:24 PM

Quote :

"source? never heard that one. I'd have to think there is a context that quote is being taken out of, because Keynes can be considered nothing if not a capitalist."

It's a fairly famous quote, granted it could possiblity be misatributed, but I doubt it. I think it is fairly obvious that Keynes is refering to classical free markets. Keynes' capitalism is a great bit different from classical capitalism.

10/7/2005 12:44:13 PM

i guess i just want to discuss how libertarians, etc feel about the amount of govt control in our free market and what ideas they have on the topic. if it were totally uncontrolled i would think eventually there would be one dominant company controlling every particular sector, but maybe not. if not, why not? how would the system be checked? i just want to read about alternate ideas i guess.

if i were presented with two choices, one which was to let the government regulate business for me and one was to allow consumers to maintain a 'level' playing field naturally, id pick the latter.

i know neither is plausible, but i shop were i shop to at least do what i think i should/can to help the choice i would choose.. why? well as some said, yes, because i can. i can afford not to shop at walmart, some can't. i'm not saying that is stupid, its reality. walmart exists and should exist for this reason. i just don't want to live on Walmart road in walmartsville, U.S. of Walmart. hah. i like to see variety and have choices. Why should i go to another starbucks when i can go to a neat little entreprounership like that Turkish coffe shop downtown? they have what i personally value so i support it. all of my motives are selfish so i dont think other ppl doing the same is rediculous. its just a matter of priorities. but thats really not my point.

what if the market was left totally unregulated and the world turned into walmart world? well maybe people would suddenly realize that it sucked so theyd stop going and turn to different stores. maybe thats a libertarian idea, i dont know.


oh yeh, and my point. if humans cant be trusted to do whats right and only do whats in their interest, than how can a market be setup to function for everyone in a society?

[Edited on October 7, 2005 at 1:24 PM. Reason : adfadf]

10/7/2005 1:20:23 PM

A libertarian would argue that only government can bring you your nightmarish "WalMart World" because only the government can create a monopoly. Also, they would argue that by letting the government regulate business is the surrest way to create a monopoly. It most likely wouldn't be under WalMart, but possibly Sears or some other legislatively chosen entity.

I often find their argument persuasive not because it argues that a monopoly would be impossible, which of course it wouldn't be, but because it would be impossible to abuse.

You see, people are not computers and we do not have perfect information. One day I was in WalMart and they were sold out of an item, so I went down the street to KMart where it was priced over 20% higher! From that day on, I never shop at K-Mart when a WalMart is available.

Now, if WalMart through low prices and high quality managed to bankrupt every other retailer in the city then WalMart is in a quandry as to whether or not to raise prices substantially and take advantage of the monopoly. If they do then they risk making their customers feel as I do about K-Mart, eager to never shop at there again.

In any capitalist system there is rarely a shortage of rich people willing to take advantage of the market. In this case, a city full of people who feel abused by the city's sole retailer would be a no-brainer. Even if Wal-Mart lowered prices again to defeat this new competitor it would be too late, when people think of WalMart they think of high prices, it could take months or even years to rebuild their image. In that time, whatever competitors that open up can charge higher prices than WalMart and still win customers. (high prices or not, it is the perception that matters).

Quote :

"oh yeh, and my point. if humans cant be trusted to do whats right and only do whats in their interest, than how can a market be setup to function for everyone in a society?"

If everyone is taking care of their own interests then everyone's interests are being taken care of.

[Edited on October 7, 2005 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2005 1:45:10 PM

The whole point of the free market is to allocate resources efficiently. Regulations, including environmental and workplace laws as well as tariffs/quotas, have both a tangible cost (dollars) and an intangible cost (lost opportunities). The government is going to decide how clean of an environment and how short of a work week we are willing to pay for through legislation and enforcement.

As far as one company controlling every industry... well it depends on the nature of that industry. It makes more sense for one company to provide an area with power, under government regulation. It's a huge waste for a whole other company with a whole other set of power lines to compete or something.

Despite what everyone thinks, Wal-mart has something like a 20-30% market share in retail. It's the most powerful but people still have choices. One of the things you learn in economics is that prices in large part are a measure of efficiency. That's why it's such huge bullshit when some American company cries to the government about competitors "dumping" cheap goods over here. It's really just a way for companies to get help at the expense of the consumer. Predatory dumping, where someone might hypothetically sell goods below cost to drive a competitor out of business, hardly ever happens.

[Edited on October 7, 2005 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2005 1:49:17 PM

I'm more of a utilitarian

things are done for the maximum benefit of the most people
but when free trade doesn't regulate itself the government should step in

10/7/2005 2:57:14 PM

Quote :

"if humans cant be trusted to do whats right and only do whats in their interest, than how can a market be setup to function for everyone in a society?"

Define "right".

Who decides what's right? My own self-interests are right to me and yours to you. Who weighs our interests and decides what's right?

10/7/2005 3:51:28 PM

i used to knock Ayn Rand

until I read The Fountainhead

...

great book

10/7/2005 4:12:00 PM

some people lurk like it's a profession

10/7/2005 4:15:27 PM