Hey there. Do you think this is an accurate statement? If not, why?
The market is like a giant democratic voting machine where everyone gets to vote for what they want--if there's a need for it, the people vote with their wallets and purchase it. (Assuming some government middle man isn't standing in the way.) If this sounds wrong to you, you don't have a full understanding of the term "free market".
And for extra points (hah), how would you define the term "free market" in 2-3 sentences or less to someone who's a complete idiot or communist?
A free market is an economy that has no centralized command and control. People simply do what they can and buy what they need. A free market respects property rights, labor rights, and freedom of association.
A free market is more just than one controlled by governments or large corporations. This is because they are not trusted with other people's money or possessions, and are not allowed to change to rules at random. This makes the economy efficient and prosperous.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Prashanth Perumal:Talk of proportional representation.
What does this mean?
A market is not a zero sum game. Democracy is a zero sum game. Democracy has winners and losers. In a market, everyone is a winner, including the people who don't participate.
Even in a parliamentary democracy, representation is not proportional. In a market, every single individual's interests are represented, even if no two of them agree.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Ansury: If this sounds wrong to you, you don't have a full understanding of the term "free market".
I do not see any worth in this statement.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
liberty student:What does this mean?
I am surprised now. Please read this.
laminustacitus: Ansury: If this sounds wrong to you, you don't have a full understanding of the term "free market". I do not see any worth in this statement.
Agree
Prashanth Perumal: liberty student:What does this mean? I am surprised now. Please read this.
I covered it later in my response. I just can't believe you would advance proportional representation, when a democracy by definition has to yield less than 100% representation where there is more than 1 view, and more voters than representatives. A market represents EVERYONE whether they participate or not, whether they are completely alone.
C'mon. I don't think it is too much to ask you to think this through.
liberty student:I just can't believe you would advance proportional representation, when a democracy by definition has to yield less than 100% representation where there is more than 1 view, and more voters than representatives.
You are asking me for an exact carbon-copy of the market in the political sphere to accept my point?
liberty student:A market represents EVERYONE whether they participate or not, whether they are completely alone.
The market does not. Will somebody produce me an exotic variety of ice-cream which requires quite a heavy investment(because the capital required gets more votes from other people in the market place), and I being the only demander of the dish? If not, where's the worth of my vote? Isn't this a zero-sum equation too?
I am not being cynical, just trying to match up to the standards you've set just now for propoertional democracy.
Prashanth Perumal:You are asking me for an exact carbon-copy of the market in the political sphere to accept my point?
No, your point is wrong. I already gave you the closest model in the blog post. Panarchy.
Prashanth Perumal:The market does not. Will somebody produce me an exotic variety of ice-cream which requires quite a heavy investment(because the capital required gets more votes from other people in the market place), and I being the only demander of the dish?
Nonsense. You can have whatever you pay for. You get to vote. You don't get everything regardless of cost. Remember, scarcity is a constant.
Prashanth Perumal:If not, where's the worth of my vote? Isn't this a zero-sum equation too?
Yeah, if you're a socialist, then not getting everything you want, regardless of cost, would be worthless to you. Do you believe you are entitled to everything no matter how much or how little you contribute?
Prashanth Perumal:I am not being cynical, just trying to match up to the standards you've set just now for propoertional democracy.
I'm pointing out the fallacies in the market = democracy statement.
liberty student:You can have whatever you pay for. You get to vote. You don't get everything regardless of cost. Remember, scarcity is a constant.
That's the zero-sum game of the market. The same goes with the proportional representation system.
liberty student:Do you believe you are entitled to everything no matter how much or how little you contribute?
That's a strawman. My point is, even the market(like a voters democracy) is a zero-sum play field, obviously because we live in scarcity. Not EVERYONE can have a say to their vote. So, you really don't have a point to differentiate the market from a voters' democracy.
liberty student:I'm pointing out the fallacies in the market = democracy statement.
I'm pointing out that the voters' democracy and market share the same attributes - one of which is, a zero-sum equation.
Prashanth Perumal:That's the zero-sum game of the market. The same goes with the proportional representation system.
It's not a zero sum game. When you make trades in the market, both parties are better off. In a democracy, one party advances their agenda against the other, based on weight of the vote.
This is distressing to me, because you're well into AE, and yet this distinction should be obvious to you. I'm concerned that you think the market is zero sum.
Prashanth Perumal:That's a strawman.
No it isn't. I'm not making a claim about your position, I am asking if your position rephrased makes sense.
Prashanth Perumal:My point is, even the market(like a voters democracy) is a zero-sum play field, obviously because we live in scarcity. Not EVERYONE can have a say to their vote. So, you really don't have a point to differentiate the market from a voters' democracy.
Like I said, it is disturbing that you see the market as zero sum.
Prashanth Perumal:I'm pointing out that the voters' democracy and market share the same attributes - one of which is, a zero-sum equation.
And that is wrong.
liberty student:It's not a zero sum game. When you make trades in the market, both parties are better off.
I know that people exchange only when they have reverse preference scales.
liberty student:In a democracy, one party advances their agenda against the other, based on weight of the vote.
The same is with a democracy. Jon can't have bread for breakfast if Jim bids it away from Jon for picnic. As you said, it's because of scarcity.
liberty student:This is distressing to me, because you're well into AE, and yet this distinction should be obvious to you. I'm concerned that you think the market is zero sum.
Dude, I am very well an AE fan even now. But I find the market process to be a voting machine.
The market allocates resources, based on who has the most votes. If I vote and bid a loaf of bread away from you, you do not have it. As simple as that. I am not talking about the ezxchange that happens between me and the baker, which obviously is a positive-sum game.
liberty student:I am asking if your position rephrased makes sense.
Okay, I don't believe people are entitled to everything regardless of their contribution.
I give up.
liberty student:I give up.
I find myself agreeing with the crowd saying that democracy is not a good analogy for a free market. I do see it as a form of "voting system", but not in the same way as within a democracy.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap