The Black Market Is Becoming The Dominate Marketplace

[MrFedEx]

These will give you a general idea.
I would welcome other examples of Black Market goods and services.

Various ways:
General house maintenance
Lawn Service
Gutter cleaning
House painting - interior and exterior
Pool cleaning-open up and close
On property Road maintenance
Electrical work
buying fresh vegetables on the side of the road
stringing tennis racquets
Sensor cleaning on my cameras
HVAC servicing
tour guide
Yard sales (quasi black market)
Used car (quasi Black Market)

PS - I don't have a fav Atlanta corner - in fact I rarely go into Atlanta

These are cherry-picked examples of the free/black market. The basic Libertarian philosophy depends on an overall free market, which doesn't exist. We have always had an alternative marketplace, albeit for moonshine, drugs, or under-the-table cash deals for goods or labor. None of this affects Monsanto, ADM, FedEx, or any of a multitude of other companies out there that exist in a market specifically shaped for them by favorable regulations, tax laws, or other incentives. In the case of Monsanto, they essentially have a monopoly on the seed market. Watch the movie "Food Inc", and then tell me that there is a "free market" in the case of soybeans. FedEx gets defacto subsidies in the form of an RLA exemption for it's Express division and an "owner-operator" status for it's ISP Plan Ground contractors. Would these be available to me if I decided to start a competing company? No. If I wanted to sell soybeans, I'd be sued by Monsanto the second I opened the doors of my business, and I would have no chance of competing against them, regardless of the depth of my pockets. No possible way to succeed, no matter how hard I pull on my bootstraps. So, where is the "perfection" of the free market, determining who succeeds or fails? It simply doesn't exist.

 

[curiousbrain]

These are cherry-picked examples of the free/black market. The basic Libertarian philosophy depends on an overall free market, which doesn't exist. We have always had an alternative marketplace, albeit for moonshine, drugs, or under-the-table cash deals for goods or labor. None of this affects Monsanto, ADM, FedEx, or any of a multitude of other companies out there that exist in a market specifically shaped for them by favorable regulations, tax laws, or other incentives. In the case of Monsanto, they essentially have a monopoly on the seed market. Watch the movie "Food Inc", and then tell me that there is a "free market" in the case of soybeans. FedEx gets defacto subsidies in the form of an RLA exemption for it's Express division and an "owner-operator" status for it's ISP Plan Ground contractors. Would these be available to me if I decided to start a competing company? No. If I wanted to sell soybeans, I'd be sued by Monsanto the second I opened the doors of my business, and I would have no chance of competing against them, regardless of the depth of my pockets. No possible way to succeed, no matter how hard I pull on by bootstraps. So, where is the "perfection" of the free market, determining who succeeds or fails? It simply doesn't exist.

Maybe the free market is inextricably bound to eventually evolve into monopolies; at which point, people complain about the free market not being free. Just an idea.

 

[Catatonic]

1) These are cherry-picked examples of the free/black market.

2) The basic Libertarian philosophy depends on an overall free market, which doesn't exist. We have always had an alternative marketplace, albeit for moonshine, drugs, or under-the-table cash deals for goods or labor.

3) None of this affects Monsanto, ADM, FedEx, or any of a multitude of other companies out there that exist in a market specifically shaped for them by favorable regulations, tax laws, or other incentives. In the case of Monsanto, they essentially have a monopoly on the seed market. Watch the movie "Food Inc", and then tell me that there is a "free market" in the case of soybeans. If I wanted to sell soybeans, I'd be sued by Monsanto the second I opened the doors of my business, and I would have no chance of competing against them, regardless of the depth of my pockets. No possible way to succeed, no matter how hard I pull on my bootstraps. So, where is the "perfection" of the free market, determining who succeeds or fails?

4) FedEx gets defacto subsidies in the form of an RLA exemption for it's Express division and an "owner-operator" status for it's ISP Plan Ground contractors. Would these be available to me if I decided to start a competing company?

5) No. It simply doesn't exist.

1) Actually, these are not examples nor were they cherry-picked.
I listed these in response to UpState's request as to how I engage in Black Market commerce... as a consumer.

2) I contend that these people I consume from are in a free market...or at least closer to a free market than the rest of the economy. I have not heard that Libertarian theory is predicated on an overall free market ... the more free the better though.

3) But what if you got your seeds from other places from Monsanto. There is a huge market for "ancient" seeds that have not been adapted. I know people who sell seeds (coincidental that you bring that up) and they make a pretty good living selling these seeds without paying taxes or being regulated. I'm sure soybean seed in China and other countries can be used in those countries and probably healthier for the consumer. I am not familiar with the Monsanto soybean fiasco but that is definitely cherry picking or is it bean picking.

4) There are a myriad of courier and small package companies out there now that compete with the USPS, UPS and FedEx.

5) There probably is not real free market anywhere because that is an idealistic concept as all systems are.

You seem to have a defeatist streak in your nature. I personally believe that individuals can free themselves of the confining yoke of governments and large Corporations. There does not have to be an upheaval type revolution that destroys society, wealth and our freedoms. There is a way to change from within the system but that way means we as individuals must make conscious choices such as I do. I go out of my way to buy goods and services from individuals when I can and that sometimes means I pay higher prices. It means I support Libertarian candidates whenever I can so those ideas can be used to disrupt the comfortable Republicans and Democrats. The Republican Party has been a big government party that spends, spends, spends just like the Democrats. The movement to reduce spending and cutback the size of the government did not come from the establishment Republicans but from the Libertarian influenced people that infiltrate the Republicans. We shall overcome the establishment because it is the right thing for the country and the right thing for the citizens.

 

[wkmac]

I was surprised it is only 9% of the market in the US.
The Black Market reduces the inefficiencies imposed by governments and provides goods and services at cheaper prices.

I usually ask for a cash/no receipt price when it seems appropriate. I expect I spend 3 - 4 thousand a year in these type of transactions.

Well with the growing numbers being jettisoned out of the so-called legit market, if the actual numbers aren't higher, at some point if things don't turn the black and grey markets will experience growth. Looking across the planet where various societies are moving outside the statist economic systems (see here, here and here ) the centrally planned nationstates with their one size fits all dictates are dying. Global populations in the 3rd and 2nd world are rejecting 1st world controlled puppet state govt's and as the fiat currencies and centralized banking (that buys loyality) can no longer maintain their monetarist/keynesian models, the free peoples in seeking self-organized market options, the ability of western 1st world nationstates to maintain control beyond the use of the military boot in the face will still fail. The western nations can no longer generate enough excessive production labor output in the form of taxes while the ability to create new forms of currency that don't hyper inflate is becoming a tough sale.

The western 1st world may now begin to learn the hard way about Hamilton's nightmare and the curse of mercantilism. Even now, 1st world economic leaders have begun to explore the abandonment of old economies and methods as it realizes the end is at hand and new attempts to salvage control. The heavy hand of the security state may well end up proving it's intent were far more insidious than once thought or well beyond some fictional threat of Bedouin religionists. We may have begun thanks to our 3rd world friends to re-appreciate the ideas of the physiocrat Quesnay and that we need Markets Not Capitalism!

Quesney and the physiocrats were not perfect or had all the answers but in the age of enlightenment from which they emerged, it was a start and continuation (laissez faire) away from hierarchy and oligarch control of mankind. Seems to me the 3rd world is re-grasping that "let-do" market place. We'd do well for once to consider their lead IMO.

 

[bbsam]

Hoaxster, does PobreCarlos know that you are a scummy, filthy insurrectionist?

 

[Catatonic]

Hoaxster, does PobreCarlos know that you are a scummy, filthy insurrectionist?

Like MrFedEx ... he is concerned only with violent upheaval.
He does not see the insidious crumbling of the foundation of Big Spending Government controlled by the Corporations as a means to significantly change the system.

 

[bbsam]

Oooh, I do declare! I think I am being wooed to a higher economic conscience!

 

[MrFedEx]

Like MrFedEx ... he is concerned only with violent upheaval.
He does not see the insidious crumbling of the foundation of Big Spending Government controlled by the Corporations as a means to significantly change the system.

"Violent upheaval?" Hardly. I'm just pointing out some obvious inequities in our system that favor some over others. I'd much prefer a truly free market so everyone had an equal chance at success.

 

[wkmac]

Why should you be allowed to decide the standards for someone else? Probably a more accurate question would be why do you hate the poor so much as to price them out of the labor market?

That comment earned a rib plate from Corky's on me!



The sad part is that the very Keynesian Fiat Currency system with it's central planning model keeps prices falsely inflated to maintain taxing models and public debt service schedules as well as the illusion of real profits for the Wall Street model. Aggregate wages over time have gone up to the benefit of progressive taxing models but the net effect on real wealth especially for the working class (blue and white collar) and poor in reality have declined. The Middle Class hasn't shrunk, it's never been able to keep up with an economic model built to the benefit of the Corp/state alliance. The real wealth is our labor being converted into a worthless currency of which the elite are able to re-convert by the purchase of real commodities and the rest of us are left to pass around a worthless currency chasing less and less products giving us the appearance of scarcity driving us to work harder. Remove the state and it's false property rights system like copyright and intellectual property (replace with real property ownership and open source) and the wealth scales would quickly begin to rebalance to the benefit of the poor and middle classes. Even the removal of legal tender laws (a Ron Paul policy) opening up the doors to competing currencies and even gold and silver would destabilize the fiat currency monopoly and help force inflation as a taxing policy to go away like the idea of a flat earth.

If the natural free market of both wages and prices were allowed to exist in their free state, planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity and entry barriers to protect existing cartels would not exist and the poor would be the better for it not to mention the rest of us.

 

[MrFedEx]

Oooh, I do declare! I think I am being wooed to a higher economic conscience!

No. You're being led down the primrose path of flailing against the monster under the bed...Big Government. You can also call it the Boogie Man if you wish.

 

[av8torntn]

That comment earned a rib plate from Corky's on me!



The sad part is that the very Keynesian Fiat Currency system with it's central planning model keeps prices falsely inflated to maintain taxing models and public debt service schedules as well as the illusion of real profits for the Wall Street model. Aggregate wages over time have gone up to the benefit of progressive taxing models but the net effect on real wealth especially for the working class (blue and white collar) and poor in reality have declined. The Middle Class hasn't shrunk, it's never been able to keep up with an economic model built to the benefit of the Corp/state alliance. The real wealth is our labor being converted into a worthless currency of which the elite are able to re-convert by the purchase of real commodities and the rest of us are left to pass around a worthless currency chasing less and less products giving us the appearance of scarcity driving us to work harder. Remove the state and it's false property rights system like copyright and intellectual property (replace with real property ownership and open source) and the wealth scales would quickly begin to rebalance to the benefit of the poor and middle classes. Even the removal of legal tender laws (a Ron Paul policy) opening up the doors to competing currencies and even gold and silver would destabilize the fiat currency monopoly and help force inflation as a taxing policy to go away like the idea of a flat earth.

If the natural free market of both wages and prices were allowed to exist in their free state, planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity and entry barriers to protect existing cartels would not exist and the poor would be the better for it not to mention the rest of us.

I'm a fan of Corky's. Can I talk you into springing for the rib and pork killer combo? My favorite.

Smart people can argue all day long on the question of if the middle class has grown or not and cite valid numbers to back up their claims. I tend to believe that the power to obtain goods and services has grown so much(due to a number of reasons both good and bad) that it in effect has increased the size of the middle class by default. There is an argument to be made, not by myself, that the devaluation of the currency to support the growth of the state has supported a growth in purchasing power by the middle class.That would be an example of the bad. I tend to believe that efficiencies by our market based economy has done more to support a middle class than any other thing. An example could be the number of homes with large screen TV's. That would be an example of the good. I do not however see this occurrence as an effect of government imposed wages. I had the intention of using a couple fallacies the pro state crowd use to support my argument but I think it is best to save those for later.

To summarize or oversimplify the above you can point to statistics that show real wages have been stagnant while real consumption has increased. You can argue over what that means and also point to the fact that the real hourly wages of production workers has declined while total compensation has increased. Explanations of those can be found in "The Intellectual and the Marketplace"-G. Stigler You can draw your own conclusion but I could make a good argument that inflation to support government is much more destructive than big business is to the wealth of an individual and market based efficiencies have helped increase real consumption.

All of that aside I feel that government barriers to market entry do more to keep people oppressed than anything I can think of. I found it interesting that you made that statement as I had just watched an episode of Gold Rush and one of the miners had been shut down by government regulators for "safety" violations. I do not remember his exact words but it can be summarized by your statement above and was very insightful. I have always thought that two things were central to a free society being private property rights and low governmental barriers to market entry and a free society was the best support system for a middle class or the very poor for that matter as it gave everyone a chance at wealth.

Something that I would consider very important to my belief and one of the reasons that I had posed the question of "why hate the poor" is that the majority of households in the bottom 20% of the income bracket do not even have a year round full time worker. To keep this in perspective of what I am talking about the bottom one fifth of households has about 25 million fewer people than the top one fifth of households. I have seen no valid reason put forth here to price these people out of labor markets either through wage laws or excessive governmental regulation. I wonder if this could be where the perception of increasing income inequality begins. If household A does not hold a year round full time job but household B does would the B household not see their wages rise over time at a faster rate? I am not talking about disabled people or drug addicts but there are people that would work but do not have the skills to demand a minimum wage and are therefore priced out of the workforce. This tends to be a compounding effect.

Just some random thoughts on the subject.

 

[av8torntn]

No. I am claiming the opposite. I am claiming that in a free market driven economy that for several decades at least, the wage market would be depressed because companies looking at quarterly profits would squeeze them from employees. Your claim seems to suggest that the lower wages would equal reduced customer satisfaction and drive skills and wages up. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that may not be the case and becomes less and less as technology reduces the necessary skill set. Or am I to believe that business will somehow become more concerned with their employees' well being? Whybwould they?

First what are you looking at to support that?

Second if wages were depressed but due to market efficiencies consumption power increased why do you see this as a negative? If wages grow as they do now but currency value declines as it does now how do you see this as a positive result of governmental interference?

My two main points of interest with you are:

1) Are you just making an emotional argument
2) How do you see an increase in consumption power as a decrease in earning power

My suggestion is that higher skilled jobs in a free market will demand higher wages or that labor could/would enter the market as a consumer of labor as long as their are low governmental barriers to market entry. Ever wonder why large corporations at times support increased government regulation? My suggestion is also that lower skilled labor needs to be able to enter labor markets at lower wages to gain skills that also have a value and could be considered as a form of compensation. When you force a company to pay more than the market is willing to bear for labor it causes companies to demand more efficiency from their current labor as opposed to filling an open position. This can have a snowball type effect particularly in skilled type positions.

 

[bbsam]

I am looking at my own experience at fedex, UPS, and general thoughts.

Why would companies favor increased regulation? Why did UPS support fedex being covered by the NLRB? Simple competitive footing I would think.

I don't say we can't get to a libertarian model, I only ask how we get there. Cut all regulation? No. I don't think we can trust corporations to do the right thing. We've seen what happens when reglators are lax. Why would we believe things would be different.

Without labor regulation, would UPS deal with the Teamsters? Or would they become Fedex Ground on steroids? Why wouldn't they? Why not get it done for $20/hr? Why couldn't they? Fedex does it for less. Why wouldn't this be the model across every industry?

That's why I think wages would be depressed. And with telematics, plug in the next 22 year old and go.

And companies would be good little soldiers...why?

 

[Catatonic]

I am looking at my own experience at fedex, UPS, and general thoughts.

Why would companies favor increased regulation? Why did UPS support fedex being covered by the NLRB? Simple competitive footing I would think.

I don't say we can't get to a libertarian model, I only ask how we get there. Cut all regulation? No. I don't think we can trust corporations to do the right thing. We've seen what happens when reglators are lax. Why would we believe things would be different.

Without labor regulation, would UPS deal with the Teamsters? Or would they become Fedex Ground on steroids? Why wouldn't they? Why not get it done for $20/hr? Why couldn't they? Fedex does it for less. Why wouldn't this be the model across every industry?

That's why I think wages would be depressed. And with telematics, plug in the next 22 year old and go.

And companies would be good little soldiers...why?

I certainly don't have any objections to Unions ... in fact, I totally support the concept of collective bargaining.
I found this quote from a person within the Libertarian Party that is consistent with my beliefs regarding Unions (not all :
LP Chair: The problem in Wisconsin is not unions but government | Libertarian Party

Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.

I also do not think Corporations should be treated as individuals as Corporations are products of the State and are not free market entities.

It is not that regulators are too lax but that they regulate the wrong things and the regulations are not set up to protect the citizens of the US. Furthermore, the labor laws should be be strong to protect the collective bargaining agreements and rights. At the same time, Unions should not be able to require the members to belong to the Union and be represented by them.

While I don't trust the Government much, I may trust Corporations even less to act in the best interest of society or US citizens.

 

[av8torntn]

I am looking at my own experience at fedex, UPS, and general thoughts.

Why would companies favor increased regulation? Why did UPS support fedex being covered by the NLRB? Simple competitive footing I would think.

I don't say we can't get to a libertarian model, I only ask how we get there. Cut all regulation? No. I don't think we can trust corporations to do the right thing. We've seen what happens when reglators are lax. Why would we believe things would be different.

Without labor regulation, would UPS deal with the Teamsters? Or would they become Fedex Ground on steroids? Why wouldn't they? Why not get it done for $20/hr? Why couldn't they? Fedex does it for less. Why wouldn't this be the model across every industry?

That's why I think wages would be depressed. And with telematics, plug in the next 22 year old and go.

And companies would be good little soldiers...why?

I am not a libertarian so I'll defer to someone else on the libertarian question but people do tend to self regulate. I could just as easily respond to your statement that we see what happens when regulators are lax with we've seen what happens with over regulation.

My response to your without labor regulation statement would be why limit yourself to a fairly unskilled job of delivery guy? I would think that even without government barrier to market entry into the global package delivery environment that economies of scale and economies of scope would be difficult economic barriers to market entry. Why not use a more efficient UPS/Fedex to start your own service. Someone started ebay, amazon, etc..

I think wage depression in a specific field in a free market is a natural progression. Just observe how prices tend to fall in black markets over time. I see this as a good force that drives scarce labor resources into areas that are seeing a greater demand. The thing is there is only a set amount of labor available and a key to success in a free market is to find efficiencies. I really do not understand your view that limits you to one unskilled type field or even worse one company. In a free society you should be allowed to weigh the cost of gaining a new skill versus potential profit in a new field.

So yes I plan to stay a UPS driver but if wages suddenly dropped to 15$ an hour it would suddenly become a profitable investment for me to gain new skills and seek employment elsewhere.

Large companies tend to seek additional regulation for multiple reasons. Additional regulation can drive in additional business like with AARP and the health care regulations passed. Additional regulations can increase barriers to market entry and limit competition think of energy production or banking. Additional regulations can shift liability burdens off companies reducing long term costs think of general aviation. Additional regulations can limit competitors from gaining efficiency advantages. Additional regulations can actually create markets that do not really even exist think of the on-site safety trainer from Gold Rush. That's just off the top of my head as there are literally thousands more, there's a reason lobbyists work for big businesses.

 

[bbsam]

I am not a libertarian so I'll defer to someone else on the libertarian question but people do tend to self regulate. I could just as easily respond to your statement that we see what happens when regulators are lax with we've seen what happens with over regulation.

My response to your without labor regulation statement would be why limit yourself to a fairly unskilled job of delivery guy? I would think that even without government barrier to market entry into the global package delivery environment that economies of scale and economies of scope would be difficult economic barriers to market entry. Why not use a more efficient UPS/Fedex to start your own service. Someone started ebay, amazon, etc..

I think wage depression in a specific field in a free market is a natural progression. Just observe how prices tend to fall in black markets over time. I see this as a good force that drives scarce labor resources into areas that are seeing a greater demand. The thing is there is only a set amount of labor available and a key to success in a free market is to find efficiencies. I really do not understand your view that limits you to one unskilled type field or even worse one company. In a free society you should be allowed to weigh the cost of gaining a new skill versus potential profit in a new field.

So yes I plan to stay a UPS driver but if wages suddenly dropped to 15$ an hour it would suddenly become a profitable investment for me to gain new skills and seek employment elsewhere.

Large companies tend to seek additional regulation for multiple reasons. Additional regulation can drive in additional business like with AARP and the health care regulations passed. Additional regulations can increase barriers to market entry and limit competition think of energy production or banking. Additional regulations can shift liability burdens off companies reducing long term costs think of general aviation. Additional regulations can limit competitors from gaining efficiency advantages. Additional regulations can actually create markets that do not really even exist think of the on-site safety trainer from Gold Rush. That's just off the top of my head as there are literally thousands more, there's a reason lobbyists work for big businesses.

Again, this all seems a pipe dream. How do you get there from here? That mythical "free market" is a fairy-tale eclipsed by today's system.

You say that wage depression in a free market society is a natural progression. This is central to my objection. This is the side of the free market we have seen in the last 30 years. What has the worker gotten in return? Supposedly they are then motivated to become retrained and move to a different field. We've seen plenty of this, haven't we. Think about it. A 22 year old enters a trade and in 15 year (age 37) is forced out of the trade by wage depression, economic collapse, or the field simply fades. In the rosy picture you seem to want to paint of a free market society, he simply is retrained, and at age 39 reenters the work force. Av, I don't know how old you are, but at 43 I am not even near in competition to the 25 year olds working in the transportation industry. Few are to tell you the truth. And consider a 40 year old reentering the job force. They aren't saying it, but that job application goes nowhere. Why? Money. Younger workers are viewed as more profitable (though I've seen some definite exceptions).

Money. Look at all the examples you gave for companies supporting additional regulation. They all have one thing in common. Money. Profit. It is the reason companies exist. So it seems only rational that they would support deregulation for exactly the same reason. We have alot of experience with deregulation in the last 30 years. And you are right. The natural progression of wage depression has occurred. Where is the profitable side for the American worker? Corporations have benefitted from the pseudo-free market, world-wide markets, and historically low taxes while most Americans have gotten stiffed. And yet you insist that government is the problem? If only regulation were further repealed, everyone would act right? That's a tough sell.

 

[MrFedEx]

I certainly don't have any objections to Unions ... in fact, I totally support the concept of collective bargaining.
I found this quote from a person within the Libertarian Party that is consistent with my beliefs regarding Unions (not all :
LP Chair: The problem in Wisconsin is not unions but government | Libertarian Party

Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.

I also do not think Corporations should be treated as individuals as Corporations are products of the State and are not free market entities.

It is not that regulators are too lax but that they regulate the wrong things and the regulations are not set up to protect the citizens of the US. Furthermore, the labor laws should be be strong to protect the collective bargaining agreements and rights. At the same time, Unions should not be able to require the members to belong to the Union and be represented by them.

While I don't trust the Government much, I may trust Corporations even less to act in the best interest of society or US citizens.

I'll grant you that Libertarian ideals are influencing the political process. The rise and power of the Tea Party have undeniably changed the Republican Party, but it hasn't been a good change for the most part. A lot of the gridlock that paralyzes Congress can be directly traced to Libertarians like Rand Paul, who simply don't negotiate. The country as a whole suffers for this kind of stubborn idealism.

IMO, Libertarianism will never advance much beyond where it is now. While it has merits (like advocating for a truly free marketplace), the movement isn't really going anywhere. It is interesting to debate, however, and perhaps Libertarianism will create some meaningful change in our political system.

 

[av8torntn]

Again, this all seems a pipe dream. How do you get there from here? That mythical "free market" is a fairy-tale eclipsed by today's system.

You say that wage depression in a free market society is a natural progression. This is central to my objection. This is the side of the free market we have seen in the last 30 years. What has the worker gotten in return? Supposedly they are then motivated to become retrained and move to a different field. We've seen plenty of this, haven't we. Think about it. A 22 year old enters a trade and in 15 year (age 37) is forced out of the trade by wage depression, economic collapse, or the field simply fades. In the rosy picture you seem to want to paint of a free market society, he simply is retrained, and at age 39 reenters the work force. Av, I don't know how old you are, but at 43 I am not even near in competition to the 25 year olds working in the transportation industry. Few are to tell you the truth. And consider a 40 year old reentering the job force. They aren't saying it, but that job application goes nowhere. Why? Money. Younger workers are viewed as more profitable (though I've seen some definite exceptions).

Money. Look at all the examples you gave for companies supporting additional regulation. They all have one thing in common. Money. Profit. It is the reason companies exist. So it seems only rational that they would support deregulation for exactly the same reason. We have alot of experience with deregulation in the last 30 years. And you are right. The natural progression of wage depression has occurred. Where is the profitable side for the American worker? Corporations have benefitted from the pseudo-free market, world-wide markets, and historically low taxes while most Americans have gotten stiffed. And yet you insist that government is the problem? If only regulation were further repealed, everyone would act right? That's a tough sell.

Should our government still support the wagon wheel industry because people were working in it when automobiles were invented? No, workers gained new skills and moved themselves to where labor was needed. What about the people that sold wagon wheels? What about the people that maintained wagon wheels?

I believe it is a fallacy to claim there has been deregulation as I cannot think of any industry that has been deregulated.

I typed an entire reply above in anticipation of your Americans stiffed comment. A couple additions or explanations are due as I sometimes get ahead of myself. Household income has declined in the last several decades that is true. What people leave out when they cite this is that the average size of a household has also declined in that same period which increases consumption power. When prices decline and your wages remain stagnant this also increases your consumption power so if you cite stagnation of middle class wages that doesn't make your Americans stiffed comment work either. Government regulations have shifted your disposable income into certain mandatory spending areas by your employer so your total wages have actually increased over time(on average). I use employer because even if you are self employed you sell your goods or services to someone or someone consumes your labor.

The bottom line is that the tendency for a price to fall in a free market is a good thing. This natural price drop from discovery of greater efficiencies does more to help the poor than any type of income transfer a government could possibly do as it brings employment and goods and services to more and more consumers. You can take anything to prove that. I will take a TV. If a flat screen TV still cost 12000$ only the very wealthy would have one. Companies through competition have found ways to produce them at a cheaper and cheaper price and now you can find one for a few hundred dollars. The result is most households have one and thousands of people are employed in the manufacture, thousands are employed to supply the manufacture, and thousands of people are employed to facilitate delivery to consumers. I believe you want to overstate poverty and understate peoples standard of living.

One thing people leave out when they start to talk about income inequality or wage growth disparity are government transfers. These government transfers actually make it more difficult to leave what would probably call poverty.

 

[MrFedEx]

Again, this all seems a pipe dream. How do you get there from here? That mythical "free market" is a fairy-tale eclipsed by today's system.

You say that wage depression in a free market society is a natural progression. This is central to my objection. This is the side of the free market we have seen in the last 30 years. What has the worker gotten in return? Supposedly they are then motivated to become retrained and move to a different field. We've seen plenty of this, haven't we. Think about it. A 22 year old enters a trade and in 15 year (age 37) is forced out of the trade by wage depression, economic collapse, or the field simply fades. In the rosy picture you seem to want to paint of a free market society, he simply is retrained, and at age 39 reenters the work force. Av, I don't know how old you are, but at 43 I am not even near in competition to the 25 year olds working in the transportation industry. Few are to tell you the truth. And consider a 40 year old reentering the job force. They aren't saying it, but that job application goes nowhere. Why? Money. Younger workers are viewed as more profitable (though I've seen some definite exceptions).

Money. Look at all the examples you gave for companies supporting additional regulation. They all have one thing in common. Money. Profit. It is the reason companies exist. So it seems only rational that they would support deregulation for exactly the same reason. We have alot of experience with deregulation in the last 30 years. And you are right. The natural progression of wage depression has occurred. Where is the profitable side for the American worker? Corporations have benefitted from the pseudo-free market, world-wide markets, and historically low taxes while most Americans have gotten stiffed. And yet you insist that government is the problem? If only regulation were further repealed, everyone would act right? That's a tough sell.

This may terrify you, but you are exactly right. There can be no "free market" given current circumstances. Most companies would love to see the EPA eliminated, for example, and for all the wrong reasons. Let's say President Paul (lol) killed-off the Department of Education once he attained office. Who would benefit? Private industry. Libertarians advocate for the privatization of almost everything, including schools and prisons because there is a profit motive. Charter schools would create a whole new education industry (for profit), and there would be an incentive to fill privatized prisons in order to maximize profits. The moral and ethical considerations here are mind-boggling. There have already been cases of judges taking payoffs from privatized prison owners to send minor offenders into said profit-minded prisons.

In the idealized world that Libertarians inhabit, the free market will create "perfect" order, because anything that isn't profitable must be eliminated. There are a lot of public services that will never be profitable, and a lot of private services that are very profitable, but illegal or unethical. This would create a climate that was ultra-favorable to business and ignore public interest.

"Merit Pay" for teachers is another scheme designed to help break teacher unions and further the cause of charter schools. Saying that Libertarians aren't anti-union is disingenuous, as every prominent Libertarian I have ever heard is fervently anti-union, especially when it comes to public sector employees.

Perhaps Libertarianism is meaningful in that it encourages discussion about how our dysfuntional political process can be improved. Getting rid of all of the special deals and favors would be a great first step toward a market mechanism that works better than what we have now.

 

[bbsam]

I'll back it up even to the '70's when households began having two incomes. What happened? Labor got cheaper. Who benefitted? Corporations again to the point where two income families are nearly a necessity.

You don't see deregulation or you don't see any completely unregulated industry? Ask a truck driver what happened after the trucking industry was deregulated.

Your wagon wheel analogy is fine as far as it goes. No, don't subsidize it, but don't leave the workers hanging either. Yes, government has a responsibility to it's citizens, both individual and corporate.