Do you believe that the market is more democratic than government?

why/why not.

2/9/2007 3:38:50 PM

Because the market votes every single day and provides a staggering diversity of options and enjoys a voter participation rate close to 100%.

Government holds elections every two years and you get to choose from two options and enjoys a voter participation rate close to 54%.

2/9/2007 4:20:12 PM

^ He puts it better than I could.

2/9/2007 4:25:12 PM

Clearly there's higher participation, but that's only one aspect of it.

Are purchases coequal with votes? Do people consider the same things when making purchases as they do when casting a vote?

2/9/2007 4:38:03 PM

Are votes counted 1/person or does the amount of money one posesses effectively buy votes in the market?

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 4:53 PM. Reason : *]

2/9/2007 4:53:37 PM

In a free market economy, the price of each item or service is arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers--rather than a centralized government. I prefer the invisible hand to an iron fist any day of the week.

"By pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the [common] good" (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations).

BTW, is this a sneaky way to get people to admit that they are libertarians?

2/9/2007 5:26:39 PM

so when does the invisible hand become real and fuck everyone over?

2/9/2007 5:28:58 PM

The minute your Firestone tires asplode and your family dies in a firey death.

2/9/2007 5:33:16 PM

or when Enron powers down California.

2/9/2007 5:41:02 PM

Quote :

"The minute your Firestone tires asplode and your family dies in a firey death."

Because government projects are known for their utmost reliability and there are no coverups.

2/9/2007 5:47:36 PM

And the apparatchiks appear right on cue. Fly your flags proudly, comrades!

2/9/2007 5:49:59 PM

As we all know, Firestone is a rediculously profitably company today only because it killed a few people.

Nothing sells tires like firey death!

And Enron, another one of those companies which is going to out-live us all.

Quote :

"Are votes counted 1/person or does the amount of money one posesses effectively buy votes in the market?"

You only have money because someone gave it to you, in effect they voted to give you voting power. In a way it is like google's page ranking system; the more people vote for you the more votes you get. Millions of people cast billions of votes for Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart gets to cast billions of votes for whoever it wants, be they suppliers, employees, builders, or charities.

2/9/2007 5:51:41 PM

so the people of a country are expendable in the world of industry fuck ups.

but oh those companies disappear because no one will buy their stuff because ... oh wait it doesn't matter because ur dead.


also i'm a fan of democracy hooksaw.

2/9/2007 6:01:42 PM

^ But not capitalism? You don't come across as a fan of either.

2/9/2007 6:08:03 PM

oh I love capitalism.

Im listening to my ipod and typing on my IBM.

i just don't believe in an invisible hand and masturbate to William Sumner every night.

2/9/2007 6:10:58 PM

^^^^ Well put, actually. However I don't buy into the notion that consumers have the ability to acquire the required perfect understanding of a product to spend their money / votes efficently, and thus government plays an effective regulatory role.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM. Reason : *]

2/9/2007 6:11:11 PM

^^ For God's sake, if you fantasize about an economist when you masturbate, you have more problems than I thought.

2/9/2007 6:16:47 PM

^^ Caveat emptor

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 6:29 PM. Reason : PS: A "perfect understanding" of a product is not required; just some research and/or a warranty.]

2/9/2007 6:18:16 PM

^^ is Heidi Klum an economist?

maybe

2/9/2007 6:24:00 PM

^^ You're obviously not familiar with the concept of a truly free market. It assumes that consumers have all the information necessary to make an educated and rational decision. It is completely ludicrous to assume that individuals have the kind of resources to acquire that knowledge in today’s market.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 6:35 PM. Reason : *]

2/9/2007 6:34:32 PM

So what of it?

Do people consider the same things when purchasing and voting?

Is the remoteness of a particular issue the same for both? Can the free market really be used to decide lofty issues when said issues are relatively removed from from your buying decisions and directly conflict with your immediate benefit?

Example: I buy gas at the Exxon down the street every now and then. I imagine many of you have a feel for my stances on corporate responsibility and the environment. I feel very strongly about these things, but I know that $20/month is a molecule in the bucket for Exxon, and the $5 I might save by not going out of my way is more important.

Personal savings is not more important to me than the environment and corporate responsibility, but $5 is more important to me than the impossibly small difference my gas-buying decision would have on the issue as a whole. Therefore, it's not really a vote. I'm not voting with dollars for disgusting business practices. I'm choosing saving a few bucks over having basically zero affect on the issue.

(Yes, I know the power of people in numbers, but I still go to Exxon once in a while. This should tell us something, too)


There is no immediate and financial interest conflicting with your overall views on an issue when voting. When I refuse to buy gas at Exxon, I may pay more, and probably make zero difference in regards to the issues I care about. When I vote for an environmentalist presidential candidate, I know my chances of affecting positive environmental policies are equal to my chances of having to pay a little more at the pump. The latter is worth it to me; the former is not.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 6:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2007 6:36:32 PM

^^ That's a laughable statement. Ever heard of a viva-voce (word-of-mouth) report? The Better Business Bureau? Consumer Reports? The Internet?

2/9/2007 6:48:50 PM

All good resources.

But the notion that consumers as a whole research all their purchases is ridiculous.

2/9/2007 6:52:43 PM

^ Caveat emptor

2/9/2007 6:53:52 PM

^ "A witty Latin saying proves nothing"

I'm kind of dissapointed in myself that I responded to you at all, but enough people got the point.

2/9/2007 6:59:05 PM

^ Sure, let's just dismiss the wisdom that has stood the test of time for over a thousand years because you say so. I never said it proved anything, and you have certainly proved nothing. By the way, self-loathing is unbecoming. FYI.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ^ PS: "dissapointed"]

2/9/2007 10:29:01 PM

Quote :

"There is no immediate and financial interest conflicting with your overall views on an issue when voting."

Sure there is. The gov't confiscate a third or more (if you're successful) of your income every year. You are voting on how much more will be taken and how it will be spent. You are voting on the people who will use your money to buy themselves power by spending it on others.

Quote :

"Do people consider the same things when purchasing and voting? "

When purchasing a product or service, I think you are trying to satisfy a desire or need. With voting, I feel you are picking the type of behaviors you want your gov't to display.

That is why you should always vote/purchase your conscience even if you don't think it will have much of an effect. The important effect is that you are doing something to support and promote your own individual value system. You are being true to yourself.

So much of the progress of man can be traced back to solitary individuals who bucked the system in the face of overwelming odds, persevered and overcame great hardship to follow their personal beliefs. At the beginning of every great idea, one person is right and everybody else is wrong.

2/9/2007 11:15:18 PM

Quote :

"But the notion that consumers as a whole research all their purchases is ridiculous."

Which is a failing of the consumers, not the system. In fact, one could argue that if there weren't things in place to mitigate the stupidity of consumers, they would be a whole lot smarter about their purchases.

2/9/2007 11:24:09 PM

Quote :

"Sure there is. The gov't confiscate a third or more (if you're successful) of your income every year. You are voting on how much more will be taken and how it will be spent. You are voting on the people who will use your money to buy themselves power by spending it on others."

But there's equal likelihood of the positive and negative affects of your outcome when voting; the costs to you and the costs to society are on equal footing.

When making a purchase, the cost to you is immediate and guaranteed. The price to society is removed and unlikely. There's no way people consider them equally when making purchases.

[Edited on February 9, 2007 at 11:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2007 11:26:50 PM

Quote :

"And the apparatchiks appear right on cue. Fly your flags proudly, comrades!"

2/10/2007 12:07:25 AM

^ Shit, I can stomach anarchists a hell of a lot better than communists.

2/10/2007 12:16:54 AM

Quote :

"When making a purchase, the cost to you is immediate and guaranteed. The price to society is removed and unlikely. There's no way people consider them equally when making purchases."

No need. The costs to society of providing a good are already factored into the price of the good for sale, so no need for the consumer to consider anything but their own costs.

Externalities have institutions built into any free-market. We have police to halt property damage. Courts to gain restitution. Some institutions are better than others at internalizing externalities, but that does not change the value maximizing ease of free-markets.

2/10/2007 12:56:32 AM

The market will always be democratic, unless in a communist country (ironic!)

2/10/2007 1:16:10 AM

Quote :

"The costs to society of providing a good are already factored into the price of the good for sale, so no need for the consumer to consider anything but their own costs."

Do you really believe that this is the rule rather than the exception?

I mean, of course you could say that markets determines the value of things like humanity and the environment, but then we'd be running around in circles.

Quote :

"Externalities have institutions built into any free-market. We have police to halt property damage. Courts to gain restitution. Some institutions are better than others at internalizing externalities, but that does not change the value maximizing ease of free-markets."

Agreed, but why is it that Libertarians cry foul whenever these organizations step in?

2/10/2007 1:17:46 AM

so, where are the questions for (D)ibertarians and (R)ibertarians?

2/10/2007 1:48:18 AM

Capital "L"

as opposed to lowercase "l"


You're a (Q)uick one

2/10/2007 2:52:41 AM

Quote :

"Agreed, but why is it that Libertarians cry foul whenever these organizations step in?"

Because they usually get it horribly wrong, internalizing political costs and ignoring real externalities.

2/10/2007 7:39:50 AM

Quote :

"^ Shit, I can stomach anarchists a hell of a lot better than communists."

you do know the basic ideas of communism are firmly rooted in the writings of Godwin and other Classical Anarchists.

you obviously don't believe in positive freedom.

2/10/2007 10:13:34 AM

Quote :

"you obviously don't believe in positive freedom."

Gov't imposed positive freedom for someone else usually requires the infringement of my negative freedom- the right to be left alone by authority.

2/10/2007 11:18:43 AM

Well. This thread has pretty much convinced me the soap box is not worth my time anymore. Peace.

2/10/2007 1:05:08 PM

ooooooh shit

2/10/2007 1:05:59 PM

Quote :

"Which is a failing of the consumers, not the system. In fact, one could argue that if there weren't things in place to mitigate the stupidity of consumers, they would be a whole lot smarter about their purchases."

Perhaps, but few consumers have the time or resources or expertise to research all of their purchases. Sure, they'll research the major ones, but they'll find it quite impossible to research the worker conditions, environmental impacts, and personal safety considerations of each of their purchases. Yes consumer groups exist to research and publish their findings on products, but they are not always effective when coupled with the overwhelming resources at the disposal of a multi-national corporation. So to simply say "buyer beware" and wipe your hands of it is ignorant.

Furthermore, in a global market, a multi-national corporation can pass off environmental costs to a poorer nation where a strong and informed public does not exist, thereby hiding the real cost of a good. Accepting the fact that all future costs are discounted, the real cost of a good to an individual may not equal the overall cost to society in the long run.

The reason that carbon cap and trade systems are becoming popular among businesses is not because these companies see the writing on the wall and seek to fashion the law to best benefit them. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, but to believe that they would have arrived at this point on their own is ludicrous. Setting aside the validity debate about global warming for the sake of this argument, and assuming that it is real; the discounting of possible future costs compared to definitive current profits would not give those businesses any reason to change. Indeed, for them to sacrifice current profits on account of unproven future losses, could be considered criminal in that it was not in the best interest of its shareholders. In that sense, government must intervene and adjust the market price by forcing the involved parties to accurately account for long term costs that are currently being ignored.

2/10/2007 1:49:15 PM

Quote :

"Which is a failing of the consumers, not the system. In fact, one could argue that if there weren't things in place to mitigate the stupidity of consumers, they would be a whole lot smarter about their purchases."

Perhaps, but few consumers have the time or resources or expertise to research all of their purchases. Sure, they'll research the major ones, but they'll find it quite impossible to research the worker conditions, environmental impacts, and personal safety considerations of each of their purchases. Yes consumer groups exist to research and publish their findings on products, but they are not always effective when coupled with the overwhelming resources at the disposal of a multi-national corporation. So to simply say "buyer beware" and wipe your hands of it is ignorant.

Furthermore, in a global market, a multi-national corporation can pass off environmental costs to a poorer nation where a strong and informed public does not exist, thereby hiding the real cost of a good. Accepting the fact that all future costs are discounted, the real cost of a good to an individual may not equal the overall cost to society in the long run.

The reason that carbon cap and trade systems are becoming popular among businesses is not because these companies see the writing on the wall and seek to fashion the law to best benefit them. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, but to believe that they would have arrived at this point on their own is ludicrous. Setting aside the validity debate about global warming for the sake of this argument, and assuming that it is real; the discounting of possible future costs compared to definitive current profits would not give those businesses any reason to change. Indeed, for them to sacrifice current profits on account of unproven future losses, could be considered criminal in that it was not in the best interest of its shareholders. In that sense, government must intervene and adjust the market price by forcing the involved parties to accurately account for long term costs that are currently being ignored.

2/10/2007 1:49:39 PM

Quote :

" Sure, they'll research the major ones, but they'll find it quite impossible to research the worker conditions, environmental impacts, and personal safety considerations of each of their purchases. Yes consumer groups exist to research and publish their findings on products, but they are not always effective when coupled with the overwhelming resources at the disposal of a multi-national corporation. So to simply say "buyer beware" and wipe your hands of it is ignorant. "

This is where the government could step in, and in a way that is far more benneficial to the public at large than short sided broadly targeted laws. Imagine instead of trying to regulate everything to death the government worked more as a giant "consumer reports" agency where instead of laws saying what can and can't be done, you have objective policies to rate companies instead. The government could provide consumers with the research they need all the consumer would have to do is use it.

2/10/2007 3:14:04 PM

http://www.consumer.gov/

2/10/2007 3:24:29 PM

^^ Yup. I'm not a huge fan of government, but I don't buy into laissez faire markets either.

2/10/2007 3:46:21 PM

saying a laissez faire market is a good idea is just as stupid as saying Communism is a sound way to run a government.

2/10/2007 4:03:04 PM

Judging from what I see posted on this forum you are absolutely right. Not a one of you can be trusted with your own survival, much less pursuing your own best interest.

Given the chance most of you would smoke yourself to death, not wear your seat belt, and eat nothing but poison if given the chance. Thank God the Government is here to keep you guys from killing yourselves; the rest of us would laugh too hard.

2/11/2007 3:08:19 AM

I agree.

I think we should revert back to the laws of nature and live naked in the woods.

2/11/2007 1:11:48 PM

^but but if everyone does what they want it will all end up perfectly.

2/11/2007 1:19:35 PM