Forum Post: free markets or fair markets?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 15, 2012, 2:45 p.m. EST by jph
(2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
freedom,. what does that mean? freedom to rape and pillage, plunder and steal? freedom to manipulate and lie, freedom to mislead and abuse?
FAIR is what we are after. freedom is so loosely defined as to have little meaning,. supporting freedom is good but fairness is much more logical.
We are not free if we are not treated fairly.
To me freedom is to be able to live your life however you want as long as you don't harm someone or intrude on their freedoms.
That is true yet we live in concert with a society, we are born in it, and we are dependent on it, and it is created by us.
Contrary to some radical dogma, there are no 'rugged individualists' in a vacuum. We are all interdependent as is all of life. We do well to realize and embrace the reality of our privileged position as a small part of this one life force project that is out planet.
Applying limits that soviet agrees with keeps more people happy. You know, we all agree to drive on one side of the road when going one direction, yet we are all 'free' to drive on any part of the road,. however if we do, we cause mayhem, probably kill some other folks, and go to jail for being a dip-sht. This is how we maintain a fair society, we come to consensus on issues to make life better for all,. yes we loose the freedom to drive in any direction we please,. is that a great loss? is that too much freedom gone? or is that fair?
I would say that falls under the "intruding on others freedoms" if you drive on the wrong side of the road - you're putting others in physical danger.
Other examples we've gotten away from that I think are ridiculous - the right to ingest whatever you want - be it raw milk, marijuana, a questionable alternative treatment for a medical condtiion ect. Who is someone to tell me I can't fuel/treat my body the way i see fit? Or restrictions on how much soda i can drink (new york)..
In our society of the near future, the one I am pushing for,. we have a minimum and a (near) maximum income, (everyone gets 10k a year if they do not make that, and any income over 900k is taxed at 90%, with a log curve in the middle) this increases freedom.
Not freedom of the few individuals at the top massive incomes but the freedom of ALL people is increased, by keeping money/power more evenly distributed. Society is more balanced, and the general happiness in increased. This also keep the economy more balance from the boom/bust cycle, as the 1% wealth hoarders are thwarted form stockpiling wealth, more therefore is in circulation.
Fairness for all is greater than freedom for a few.
I think its a noble cause, and i understand why you would want that. I think history shows, however, that when you try to force equality on the people, it works....but they all become equally poor and supressed.
I think the veiw that hoarding money in society is misunderstood. Hoarding money doesn't hurt you as a consumer....one could argue it might even help the poor and middle class. People think of money as static - meaning the more money you have, or the less in circulation - the less to go around and the poorer people are. Not really how it works. Say tomorrow i decided to be a hoarder, and for some crazy reason i was able to hoard 50% of the money in the economy. By hoard it i mean it isn't in use at all....i burried it in my backyard or something....it isn't being invested etc (because if it is invested, its actually back in the economy for other people to use). So if i hoard 50% of the money, prices in the market would actually fall by 50% making up the difference from me hoarding everything....making all your goods 50% cheaper. So while there is 50% less money to go around, your goods are 50% cheaper negating that fact.
Prices do not drop by the amount hoarded. Where do you get that from.?
Money should not be hoarded. If it is hoarded we will have to impose a 'wealth tax'. 5% on money sitting around doing nothing.
That'll learn 'em.
"Prices do not drop by the amount hoarded. Where do you get that from.?"
Yes, they do...I get it from basic economics - or the theory of exchange equation (MV=PQ). It would put deflationary pressure into the market because there is less money to go around and prices would fall. Econ graph:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_d4aL5xTH0xg/SXs-yceRstI/AAAAAAAADX4/ekRPuFaxvwA/s400/money+supply+chart.PNG
Or specific examples similar to this can be found at:
http://www.sparknotes.com/economics/macro/money/section2.rhtml
Hoarded money in our society isn't really hoarded money. Like a rich person like bill gates controlling upwards of 40 billion - that isn't being hoarded. Even if gates puts this in a private bank account that money isn't hoarded - the bank loans that money out to people via fractional reserves - the only way to hoard now days is by literally keeping it in cash at your house.....and if this was the case then the equation i showed above would kick in and prices would fall for everyone else in the proportion being hoarded by said individual.
What about all the fed money printing does that play into your 'basic economics'?
Keeping in the bank for investing & livin off ofinterest ain't good enough. if it ain't bein used to create real jobs in America then we ought to impose a wealth tax on the principle.
The Fed money printing absolutely does....fits right into that same equation above. The more they print, the higher your prices are for everyday goods (especially for food and energy - the areas with the highest money velocities).
"Keeping in the bank for investing & livin off ofinterest ain't good enough."
That's what i'm saying - it isn't in the bank - the bank loans out that money to someone else to "create real jobs" - whether you want the bank to or not. Seriously, i'm not making this stuff up - it's from fractional reserves. Your money isn't actually in your bank account - it has been loaned out to a third party and is working in the system.
No the bank ain't "lending it out to create real jobs" The crash is the best illustration of that. That is the critisism we have with financial industry these days. They ain't creatin anything. And on those rare occasions there are jobs created it's outside of the US. Seriously. I'm not makin THIS stuff up.
These financial criminals ain't building factories in America, their makin money out of thin air. derivitives, cdo's. Who knows what the fuck their doin.? They ain't creatin jobs and their gonna crash the economy again.
And the Feds been printing trillions for years now. What prices have gone up? Housing prices are still half of what they were, inflation was 2% in sept, CPI came in @ 0.1% for Oct.
If energy is up that would be dishonest fossil fuel corps tryin to affect the election, or general gauging more than the Fed, Food? extreme weather more likely to blame than the Fed.
Peace
Yes, the banks were lending that money out....the crash is the best illustration of that - everybody in the economy was leveraged out like crazy.
The fed hasn't been printing trillions for years....they've only started that trend in the last few. Look at all these graphs that show food prices vs. the money supply VQ - there is a direct correlation....every economics professor in the world knows that if you increase the supply of money - the stuff that you buy will go up in price.
http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html
I'm sorry you're graphs are not convincing. They list M2 but none of the price increases are exactly in line with the M2 supply.
In any event for years (3 since the crash) the Feds been printing trillions but inflation has been historically low.
How does that fit with your theory?
"I'm sorry you're graphs are not convincing. They list M2 but none of the price increases are exactly in line with the M2 supply."
Yes they are - right when we got off the gold standard (which forced stability in the money supply) the price of your goods has experienced massive volatility in the upwards direction with the increase in the money supply.
The CPI is a BS judge of inflation. It has been tweeked many times over the years to falsley understate inflation. There are economists that calculate it based on its old equations and have shown inflation 9-10% in recent years. The middle and lower class know this is true- because their paychecks can't keep up with what they need to purchase in their daily lives.
Here's proof for you though. What is the only stable currency in the world that's been around for 100 years - its gold. Its value cannot be manipulated because it is impossible to reproduce - so we would say that the supply of gold has been relatively constant during this time period. Now, have prices been stable under gold? This would be proof that the rising prices are indeed from an expansion of the money supply if this is true. Yes...absolutely. You can buy the same amount of gas with the same amount of gold as you could 100 years ago. Can you do that with the dollar?? NO way ---->
Over the last 100 years the dollar has lost 96% of its value through inflation - and this is by the governments CPI reporting (which i think is BS...but we'll be conservative here). So if you had kept 100$ in your attic back in 1912 - you would only be able to purchase 4$ worth of goods with that money in todays market. You can check this for yourself on the governments website if you don't believe my numbers:
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Education IS important.
Good luck.
Ok. the cpi is bullshit. got it! It is however what we have used to measure inflation.
I'm not gonna use gold as the standard because it ain't. WE ain't on the gold standard. And we ain't gonna be!
I WILL accept that prices have increased, of course. (They NEVER go down). And the illustration of how our paychecks buy less is useful.
I suggest we focus our energy on fighting for job creation, higher wages (living wage), and cutting taxes/debt of working class.
I'm not sure what you suggest as a solution (reinstate gold standard?), but I wonder do you support these goals.
"reinstate" the gold standard- nah, i wouldn't do that....all i'd say is just legalize it. The people who want to use the depreciating currency can - the rest of us will have another option.
"m not gonna use gold as the standard because it ain't. WE ain't on the gold standard."
That wasn't what i was trying to suggest - what i'm doing is taking a stable currency (one whos supply can't be increased like the dollar can) and showing you that you can still buy the same amount of goods with it as you could 100 years ago....which proves that prices are going up in dollars because its supply is being increased - because if you switch to a stable currency prices haven't gone up at all.
I'm all for cutting taxes and debt for the working class....i'd support anyone trying to do that.
Do have some idea/plan to make gold an alternate currency?
Education of the masses is the only way to change it I can think of...has to start with people wanting it before that will be reflected in washington. Unfortunately it's not the easiest topic to explain to people so i see it as an uphill battle....but more and more peeps seem to be understanding it these days so that's a plus.
Well good luck getting gold as an additional standard. To be honest I can't see that happening.
And you know there isn't a whole lot of gold around. Not really enough to go around. Does it matter that most people have that advantage.?
"And you know there isn't a whole lot of gold around. Not really enough to go around"
Thats kind of like the hoarding example - there is more than enough gold to go around...again prices would just go down to make up the difference.
"To be honest I can't see that happening"
I agree with you...i don't either - because the people with the monopoly on the money supply know people would drop it like a rock for a stable currency. You have to force people to use a depreciating currency for it to work.
I got one for you. So price collusion is illegal, but prices are "set by the market" so can anyone define what "the market" is and how they set the price, can we know of the mechanisms that do this price setting work? I have a suspicion that it looks a lot like collusion.
The most important market on earth, the energy market is run by a Cartel and the price of crude is set by OPEC.
Interest rates in banking is set by a cartel. Diamond prices are set by a cartel. Even pharmaceuticals are set by a cartel.
Price collusion may be illegal but its still alive and well.
Fair to regional-economy markets.
Good comment - good discussion topic. Conclusion would seem to be obvious(?) Right? Fair Markets.
So what is fair? Who will decide this? And what does this have to do with OWS?
occupy is building alternatives to the broken system,. we need to be thinking about how to move humanity forward how to get out of the rut of too late capitalism and create a brighter future for all. I think you know what fair is. we decide.
Well I have to say there is a distinction between what "freedom" means and what "fair" means but it has been muddeled.
Todays society think that it is their right to own everything they want without having to work for it and as a result think it "infringes on their freedom to have and own things" and that's not fair.
From what I see we are tired of monpolies setting prices so they make outragous profits. I am getting to the point that I believe it should be illegal for profits to be a certain percent higher then cost.
Well, you can start your own business and make profits off your own labour.
Then you can set your own price and decide your own profit margin.
Or we can break up the large businesses that collaberate on price control. That way we have competition and profit margins will go back down to a fair level.
It's the governments job to prevent monopolies but they haven't been doing a very good job have they?
No they have not. It's our fault for ignoring the corruption for so long.