There’s No Market Process Independent of Competitionmises.org/mises-wire/theres-no-market-process-independent-competition
377 sats \ 9 comments \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 2 Nov econ
While disregarding the inescapable interdependence of economic phenomena, proponents of the doctrine of interventionism view the economy as a compartmentalized, loosely-coupled system in which specific actions can be tailored towards various “compartments” of the economy in the hopes of obtaining desired outcomes. However, most policies advanced under interventionism almost always produce outcomes which, judged from the point of view of their initiators, are dissatisfactory. Most specifically, the policies directed towards the suppression of competition end up hurting the consumers whose needs would be better served in an unhampered market.
Free, catallactic competition is best for everyone in the economy.
write
preview
related posts
208 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 2 Nov
Do you think policy makers really are dissatisfied with the outcomes of their policies?
I lean more towards the Public Choice view that they are implementing policies that suit their ends, but they justify them with arguments that don't withstand economic scrutiny.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 2 Nov
I have to agree with you on the satisfaction levels of the ELites and decision makers. They don’t give a rat’s ass about what we think or want. They want what they want and will do anything to get it, including demonizing, demociding and mass murder of other country’s people. You can witness it going on right now in Central Europe, to the last Ukrainian. THEY have no bounds on their morality.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 3 Nov
Trumps tariffs on Chinese goods cost US consumers.
Elon likes them though because they protect him from Chinese EV manufacturers that he cannot compete with.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 3 Nov
He has a point about when tariffs were the only way the state collected taxes. We were doing significantly better than now in terms of fiscal bugetry.
reply
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @7e6e393a56 2 Nov
The conclusion is that a genuine monopoly only exists when the state systematically prevents, through force or the threat of violence, freedom of access to a given market or the free exercise of entrepreneurship in some sector of the economy.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 2 Nov
That is true. It is the NAP in practice. Everyone would be much more happy without guns in their faces.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @7e6e393a56 2 Nov
There is a lot of talk, especially in academic circles, about competition and monopoly. The problem is that the definitions used for these terms are almost always wrong.
And if the concept used is wrong, then the policies suggested to deal with both will also be wrong.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 2 Nov
Yes, consequences do flow from basic premises. Your usual economists leave the actions of the state and cronyism out our their reasoning. They also do not view competition as something that is also cooperative. So, you can see the consequences flowing all around us.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 3 Nov
Fiat money is a state sponsored monopoly largely operated by a cartel of private banks.
It controls the MoE used by all businesses and consumers within its geographic catchment area.
It grants substantial capital issuance and allocation privileges to bankers and governments.
Bitcoin fixes this.
reply