Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

In the context of "free market" countries (I can't speak to ones that are explicitly non-free, ruled by warlords, caste systems, etc): I hear this argument about "those with financial power to ... create slavery" argument all the time, but I don't see many examples, except in a few areas - which oddly enough are heavily regulated: health care is the one major example, because there is just no way for any individual or even sizable group to combat the mess of regulatory capture.

The only other place I see such abuse is in really small towns, which aren't dominated by giant corporations but usually some local family.

Everywhere else, I feel like people just have this idea blared at them loudly by media, giving them a feeling of helplessness when they really do have power to oppose the system.

[wobbly]

In the context of "free market" countries (I can't speak to ones that are explicitly non-free, ruled by warlords, caste systems, etc): I hear this argument about "those with financial power to ... create slavery" argument all the time, but I don't see many examples, except in a few areas - which oddly enough are heavily regulated: health care is the one major example, because there is just no way for any individual or even sizable group to combat the mess of regulatory capture.

Don't see because it's not there, or don't see because you are not looking. Or don't see because what I classify as slavery is different to what you classify as slavery. If I work and over 50% of my wage goes to my landlord is this slavery or not? Depends on your definitions. I'm looking at this from a lived perspective of what its actually like to have over 1/2 of your labour hours going into supporting your land lord instead of you. And I suspect my definitions of slavery are very different to yours. You are rambling about what the "media" reports on the issues, when I am talking about the lived experience, and I am debating in my head whether to even argue, because I know from experience arguing with people who have lived a different life experience (on these matters) is pointless.

I have the weird (but not too uncommon experience) of having been born into a middle class family and living in poverty. I know too well how the middle class deliberately ignore/ don't look at the problem, because I have 1 foot in both worlds. I regularly chat to friends excited about buying their 1st investment property, and don't bring up the awkward topic of the game they are entering, is depriving working poor of basic dignity.

It's a long rant but consider 2 things. The reason you don't see is because you aren't actually looking, and the 2nd is expecting this to be fixed by free market economics is expecting the problem to be solved by the thing that created the problem in the 1st place.

Everywhere else, I feel like people just have this idea blared at them loudly by media, giving them a feeling of helplessness when they really do have power to oppose the system.
[/quote]

[McTraveller]

I definitely look, and I see suffering all around me... I look at trying to understand why that suffering happens, and what are the ways to pull people out of suffering, even if the deck is stacked against you.

I would be hesitant to call your situation "slavery;" usually that's called "wage slavery." You technically have the freedom to change to a different residence (for example), but it's really difficult because basically all of your income is going to just barely meeting your needs. You also don't want to move; you want to stay in the general geographic region.

You are right that my worldview is colored by my experience; I went from living in a house where we had to grow a big chunk of our own food, my parents had to barter for health care, and we relied on anonymous cash gifts for Christmas, to every single one of us is now in the "comfortable" middle class. So because I experienced "digging out of a financial mess" firsthand, I always see it as a possibility.  And also because my family moved 600 miles in the process too. It can take significant personal sacrifice... but in our case, it was worth it, in my opinion. So I just don't see it as "hopeless."  Hard, yes, but not impossible.

[wobbly]

I definitely look, and I see suffering all around me... I look at trying to understand why that suffering happens, and what are the ways to pull people out of suffering, even if the deck is stacked against you.

I would be hesitant to call your situation "slavery;" usually that's called "wage slavery." You technically have the freedom to change to a different residence (for example), but it's really difficult because basically all of your income is going to just barely meeting your needs. You also don't want to move; you want to stay in the general geographic region.

You are right that my worldview is colored by my experience; I went from living in a house where we had to grow a big chunk of our own food, my parents had to barter for health care, and we relied on anonymous cash gifts for Christmas, to every single one of us is now in the "comfortable" middle class. So because I experienced "digging out of a financial mess" firsthand, I always see it as a possibility.  And also because my family moved 600 miles in the process too. It can take significant personal sacrifice... but in our case, it was worth it, in my opinion. So I just don't see it as "hopeless."  Hard, yes, but not impossible.

So likely your understanding your understanding on these matters is probably better than I thought it was on the other hand, I have zero faith win what you believe in economically. I'm looking at this from a non-American view point, from a country that has become more Americanized, the changes at ground zero aren't good.

[McTraveller]

I am curious to know what policies or behaviors you are referring to as "Americanized." Since I have a predominantly US perspective on things, I don't know what this means in your context.  I'd like to learn!

[wobbly]

I am curious to know what policies or behaviors you are referring to as "Americanized." Since I have a predominantly US perspective on things, I don't know what this means in your context.  I'd like to learn!

It's a hard question to answer as I'm talking about  a lot of different things, and I'm talking from an old person's (technically middle aged, creeping on 50) who was born into a different country to the 1 I see now.

So I could talk about American dominance of movies/TV industry. Obviously when everyone around the world watches American films/ listens to American music part of your countries culture seeps in. We actually have regulations requiring a minimum amount of local TV but this was weakened by the switch to streaming services.

I could talk about the end of protectionism/economic liberalism. The more our business climate has been dominated by international megacorps, the more business culture has become international (and American by account of America's business dominance) and that's not just business culture, but industry lobbying, think tanks, economic societies. The US can bitch all it likes about Russian/Chinese electoral interference, but the amount of legal US dollars disrupting other countries political systems is higher.

On the subject we are arguing about on whether housing/health care is better handled.by government or the "free market", the worse our public healthcare system has got, the worse (my view, you can do your own research), the worse I've seen the offer from private insurance. When our public healthcare system was strong insurance companies had to offer a deal worth buying. Why are you buying private insurance if you don't need it? The weaker public healthcare has become, the worse the "free market" offer has become.

I saved the biggest point for last. Australia has always been Conservative (like the US), but it's not US conservatism, just like UK conservatism is not US conservatism. I used to be able to laugh at "crazy Americans" and their conspiracy theories and now I can't, because normal, seemingly sane, seemingly intelligent people are pushing that BS at me in private conversations. With the internet and social media, right wing crazies (and also left wing crazies) hang out together. You can compare the population numbers for the USA and a smaller country like Australia. This is one way traffic. I'm chatting to Australian conservatives pushing very American retric and this was not happening around 5 years ago.

[wobbly]

I'm considering that I may not of explained what I mean about "Americanized" vs "Australian culture". A long time ago, in a galaxy not too distant Australia had a working class culture and was the country of a "fair go". It didn't matter what class you were (well it did, this story leaves out certain facts), short story we aren't that country any more, the poor are just lazy and the rich are successful people to be admired.

[wobbly]

I would be hesitant to call your situation "slavery;" usually that's called "wage slavery".

On this topic we definitely disagree. Slavery is slavery whether you put the word wage before it or not.

Edit: Look ultimately I do not care less how you define this behaviour, I care because the status quo is a sickening and revoulting way to treat human beings. I get annoyed because you are arguing definitions instead of looking at what people have to deal with.

[McTraveller]

Sorry I was using "wage slavery" as a way to more precisely define it, rather than the more general use of the word. It's important because if you just use the most general term, especially in the US, people fly off the handle and basically just shut down any discourse, because of course these situations aren't the same as stealing people and forcing them to work and treating them like property.

I'm sorry I come across as not "looking at what people have to deal with."  My intent is to look at where people are and try to come up with practical steps that individuals can take without having to overthrow entire socioeconomic systems. Perhaps maybe overthrow is indeed required, but I believe such "overthrow" can be done gradually through a series of stepwise improvements, even on very local levels, rather than all at once in some kind of cataclysmic event.

[wobbly]

You didn't necessarily come across as "not looking at what people have to deal with", to a degree this is me finding it harder and harder to contain my anger and be chill, it's watching big businesses behave worse and worse, while society just accepts it. And they weren't behaving that nicely to start with.

I do think the idea that free market economics can solve these problems is incredibly naive. The last 50 or so years of western politics has been spouting this ideogy and where we are now (both good and bad) is the result. Look the retric ignores how power imbalances actually work. The concept that "might makes right", is usually used in a military framework but it equally applies  to financial/economic imbalance, or any situation which isn't a level playing field.

A large proportion of free market economics is just exploiting the fact that wealthier countries can't compete with poorer countries when it comes to cheap labour or poor environmental / safety standards. And poorer countries can't compete on technology / education. The retric talks about efficiency, but in my view point it's actually built on something else.

[McTraveller]

First: well, another Fed interest rate cut, even though inflation has been persistently higher than 2%, and looks to be going to rise rapidly next year.  I really don't buy that they are trying to set expectations or that they are more concerned about employment.

- - -

As for the ability for free markets to address societal ills: As we currently have them I agree that our "free market" systems have some really detrimental aspects. Academically, however, the argument goes that what we have now are not really the "ideal" type of free market, because the players are not on equal footing due to asymmetry in information availability and due to the fact that markets have consolidated due to lack of regulation preventing said consolidation.  Basically there is too much market capture and too much socialization of costs.

The increasing protectionism and weaponization of economies for political gain instead of trying to ensure economies serve the greater public is also terrible.

Basically too many people have indeed, as you have observed, figured out how to use state enforcement agencies to sustain rent-seeking instead of using those regulatory powers to foster a more free and flexible marketplace.  Until there is enough collective pressure from the "consumers" to push back on abusive practices, nothing will happen.

[anewaname]

The concepts of free market economics fail when used concurrently in multiple systems of law (e.g. national laws), because the organization that can operate within two systems of law can always out-compete the organization that is limited to one system of laws. The organization exploits differences in the laws to increase their profit margin, then uses that profit to gain political and economic leverage in their own wealthier country.

[hector13]

It’s just like any other system; it looks good on paper, but whenever people get involved it gets messed up, because people don’t act in optimum ways for the system, they act in optimum ways for themselves.

[wobbly]

For me the subject of "free market economics" holds a funny place, I was about to say that "I believe in it", but it's more "I believe in it more than the alternatives". Where I definitely don't believe in it is basic services like housing, energy, healthcare, aged care, infrastructure, basic social services.  My default stance is to ignore the ideology 
 and to look at different countries, look at different solutions tried, and look at the different result. When ever I compare: Housing is better handled at state level. Electricity/Road, other infrastructure is better handled at state level. Aged care better handled at state level. Other people can make their own lists that differ from mine, but please do not try and theoritise about things that have have been tried around the world, without looking at what had been tried and what the result was

[anewaname]

State controlled organizations work better when they are, and remain, transparent enough that grift can be exposed.