What do you think is the best type of Market?

[Ice]

Mixed market with limited government is the best. I'm just bored and want to see what everyone else thinks.

[John86]

Mixed market with limited government is the best. I'm just bored and want to see what everyone else thinks.
Same.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Boston Market. :idea2:

As little government interference as can be reasonably tolerated.

[John86]

Boston Market. :idea2:

As little government interference as can be reasonably tolerated.

Although off the topic, I must say, Boston Market is suprisingly insanly good, which I really didnt expect.

[Reverend Joe]

Mixed market, much intervention. So long as it is directed for the good of the individuals at large. :2thumbsup:

[BHCWarman88]

Goverment Controlled Market..

[Ice]

Goverment Controlled Market..

You do realize that is a command economy where private ownership is eliminated and everything is state run, correct? Why would you want that.

[Oaty]

Black market just make every thing illegal.

[Devastatin Dave]

Although off the topic, I must say, Boston Market is suprisingly insanly good, which I really didnt expect.
You should try their Spa.... er... I mean Ham.:2thumbsup:

+1

[Rodion Romanovich]

There must be control over the market, otherwise ugly tricks and dangerous product producers might end up making most money and beat the more ethical alternatives which makes for bad products and no guarantee of service for customers. It's also important to have a government that can enforce other consumer safety principles such as money back for scam, safety against forged bills etc. Finally there are some products which must be available to all whether it's cheap or not to produce them, such as the most basic medicine, the most basic food products and clothes, so there must be government involvement to make sure the demands for such products are met, plus the government should ideally have reserve supply capabilities of food and water to make sure that doesn't end up in the hands of undemocratic companies, but it should also be allowed for companies to supply food too, to have a safety against if the government goes corrupt. Heavy and light are very subjective words, but I assume light control means what I just wrote above.

[Kralizec]

Mixed market with little government intervention. Free market scenarios as well as socialist utopias are impossible to achieve, only mixed systems work.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Italian Market.

oh economicalalicaities!


Limited Gov't Regulations (meaning I say give me free beer, I get free beer, because I am the government ~D)

[Red Peasant]

You do realize that is a command economy where private ownership is eliminated and everything is state run, correct? Why would you want that.

What's up? Ain't he toeing the party line? :laugh4:

[Ironside]

As with Legio, I'm wondering about how much goverment control you refer to with light and heavy.

Voted heavy, as I'm assuming that my preference of the goverment having some basic rules and to have considerble control of vital infrastructure, while the rest is free within those basic rules, is heavier than what many here consider light.

The goverment can still have much more control of the market while still not having full control and thus making it a goverment controlled market.

[Tribesman]

Fruit and Veg. market.

[Duke Malcolm]

There's a nice antiques market in Abernyte. I bought an Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders bugle from there...

[Kralizec]

You do realize that is a command economy where private ownership is eliminated and everything is state run, correct? Why would you want that.

In an ideal socialist society, there wouldn't be a monolith central government, but all infrastructure divided into quasi autonomous institutions. A system with private corporations aren't a good thing directly in their own right, but only because we know that they mantain the general level of wealth in society, and I don't think the former could.
In short: I would embrace socialism if I thought it could work.

[Ice]

In an ideal socialist society, there wouldn't be a monolith central government, but all infrastructure divided into quasi autonomous institutions. A system with private corporations aren't a good thing directly in their own right, but only because we know that they mantain the general level of wealth in society, and I don't think the former could.
In short: I would embrace socialism if I thought it could work.

Yes and in my magical kingdom fairies fly free and little elves build toys for kids. Let's attempt to keep this realistic and not a "what if".

[Kralizec]

Your original post seemed to indicate you'd oppose socialism even if it could work. Aren't we being a weee bit touchy here? :inquisitive:

It's your thread, have fun. :balloon2:

[Watchman]

Supermarkets suck. Local stores and open-air markets are much nicer.

...what ?

I voted "heavy intervention" - although I'd *really* like to see some defitions as to what constitutes "light" and "heavy" intervention in the context, too. I tend to trust the private-sector buggers way less than the bureaucrats. The latter may be dry, boring and have alarming control-freak tendencies, but at least their underlying professional ethos isn't derived from straight greed.

Plus they can't raid the piggy bank and disappear to the Bahamas nearly as easy as the enterpreneurs, when it comes down to that...

[discovery1]

Government intervention/control ONLY in areas with high barriers to entry, or in the unlikely event that one company gains to much power in a normal industry. I would qualify that as 'light'

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Watchman - you think bureaucrats aren't greedy? :laugh4:

[Csargo]

Yes and in my magical kingdom fairies fly free and little elves build toys for kids. Let's attempt to keep this realistic and not a "what if".

I think I sense a little anger there Ice well if it is then this is gonna piss you off.










CAUSE I PICKED GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MARKET:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Ice]

Lol, sorry to everyone. I was pissed off when I wrote that due to immense amount of work/stress I had today.

I still think its a crappy idea though. :sweatdrop:

[Watchman]

Watchman - you think bureaucrats aren't greedy? :laugh4:Not in the "rip you off and sell you shit" sense, no. Their equivalent works in a fair bit different way, but since they work for the State they're reasonably easy to keep in check if the other parts are doing their jobs right.

'Course, that's assuming proper bureaucrats. Not the greedy corrupt kind, who are just profiteers and parasites anyway. Although to my knowledge even corrupt bureaucrats are way better than none at all...

[Papewaio]

Since we have a few literal replies check this one out: Seventh-Kilometer Market


"it is a state within a state, with its own laws and rules. It has become a sinecure for the rich and a trade haven for the poor."

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I guess bureaucracy just works better in Finland, then. :bow:

[Watchman]

I guess bureaucracy just works better in Finland, then. :bow:Us Scandinavian countries are well-known for minimal adminstrational corruption and high competence.

Bureaucratic ethos and professional moral are important. If those are lacking the system will start rotting pretty fast (although this is really one of those Chicken And Egg things...).

[Papewaio]

Bureaucracy also occurs in big business. Anyone who has to deal regularly with the big IT companies will realise that they are just as bureaucratic and inefficient as the local councils.

[Watchman]

And that bureaucracy is geared for making a profit, not keeping a society working properly.

[Papewaio]

Actually that middle-management-buck-passing-zero-responsiblilty-zip-initiative-no-long-term-thinking-self-serving-bureaucracy is geared up for maintaining a society... itself.

[AntiochusIII]

Which makes even more mess because the heads want more and more money in their pockets while the bereaucrats want to survive and maintain, even while the superstructure is actually originally designed under the goal of profit, which is simply greed. :dizzy2:

I sadly have never experienced good bereaucracy in my life--not in Thailand, not in US. The former is naturally screwed like any other Third-world countries where the old guard traditionalists and the profiteers rule; the latter, under close scrutiny, reveal quite a sad condition of a big government with incompetent bereaucracy+big business domination in most markets. So I currently have a pretty low opinion on humans and competence right now. Although the working bereaucracy that Watchman seems to indicate exists over in the Vikings' land would seem to me the best realistic possibility.

I mean, I'm a coward and I don't want to try and struggle for survival in a social darwinist-laissez faire society where the Nietzschean "might makes right" is the rule. It's not pretty.

So no choice for me lest the central two choices be "officially" defined. Where's Gah! when you need one?

[yesdachi]

Free market with a government regulating things to protect the people from being screwed by monopolies and such. Kind of like we have now just a little less corrupt.

[Sjakihata]

What do you think is the best type of Market?

Best for whom? The CEO? The consumer? The worker? The environment? The society as a whole?

[thrashaholic]

Theoretically, societal utility and welfare will always be maximised in a perfectly competitive market, as the profit motive will drive people to seek the most productively and allocatively efficient use of resources (which are coincidently and usefully the same). This would also eliminate any and all ethical dilemas that people face because comsumers would have absolute sovereignty and so set prices. So in a perfect world I'd choose an anarcho-capitalist society where everyone tries to maximise their own utility, raising societal utility to its maximum extent. No government, no monopolies, everything markets and equilibriums.

However, as elagant as liberalist market economic theory is, it's unfortunately pretty unworkable. So in real life I'd advocate a system as close to the above as society could possibly get: a market system with as little government regulation as is necessary, but regulation aimed at making the markets as close to 'perfect' as they can be, so anti-monopoly stuff. This is what Adam Smith thought was the bees-knees (I've read the Wealth of Nations and thought it was bloody excellent), so if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

I would utterly disagree with anyone with 'leftist' economic idealogies, as the two main ones, Marxism and Keynesianism, are both out-moded and naff, especially at societal welfare and happiness. Marxisms main critique of capitalism was that capital replaced labour in the production process, however, without influxes of capital into the production process, the law of diminishing returns would mean that society would become progressively more and more miserable as population grew (ala Malthusian theory), and his ideas about towns and the countryside were a little iffy... Keynesianism's main problem is the innefficiency and innacuracy inherant in government intervention, it's a bit like trying to hammer a picture hook in with a sledge hammer. Governments don't know what's going on, so while his formulae in the General Theory (which I've read too btw, and found it fightfully dull) may be correct, governments can't use them because they don't have accurate information about anything, and if everyone did have accurate information, you might as well have an anarcho-capitalist free market anyway because it would be just as, if not more, efficient without a huge bothersome government too.

There's my very brief two pennies on economic theory.

Anyone who wants an easily digestable book giving an overview of economic thought over time should read "A History of Economics" by J.K. Galbraith. It's very good.

[Sjakihata]

thanks for the book tip. next semester im having history of economics - and I hope the book can aid me. however, i disagree that in theory an anarco-capitalist society would be ideal. that is primary based on an extreme example, which i find disturbing. such a 'society' would, in the end have one man controlling everything and everyone else control nothing, would you agree with that assumption thrasacholic?

[thrashaholic]

thanks for the book tip. next semester im having history of economics - and I hope the book can aid me. however, i disagree that in theory an anarco-capitalist society would be ideal. that is primary based on an extreme example, which i find disturbing. such a 'society' would, in the end have one man controlling everything and everyone else control nothing, would you agree with that assumption thrasacholic?

In theory, it would maximise societal utility. Having everyone persue their own ends and to maximise their own utility would eventually 'average out' to having everyone being as 'happy' as the amount of effort they put into being 'happy'. Every wage, every price would reflect a person/objects relative value to society. People wouldn't let one person control everything as their own profit motive would drive them to control as much as was required to maximise their happiness, which would tend out to the most allocatively efficient distribution of resources. If that point was where one person controlled everything, then so be it, but that would be extremely unlikely. Completely free-markets create an interdependence between all market participants (as Lenin said "everthing is connected to every other thing", or something along those lines) meaning that everthing balances out.

Unfortunatley almost all economic theories are based on an extreme because no-one can accurately predict or analyse everything that's going on in an economy. It works on generalisations, so essentially boils down to philosophy. For example, the above theory assumes that all paricipants in the market are exactly the same (a similar assumption goes on in communist theory) and that there is perfect competition bettween all firms (ie that companies are so small that they have accept the price set by the consumers because if they set it lower they'd go out of business and if they set it higher no-one would buy anything), so essentially it's a load of tosh, but the prinicipal is a good one IMO, and that should be the role of governments: using regulation to make markets work as nicely as they can.

[Watchman]

It is my understanding ole Smith was perfectly aware of most of those caveats. Apparently he discussed them in the book before the Wealth of Nations - don't recall the name - which for some reasons seems to get forgotten awfully often...

The main problem with the laissez-faire model is that it pretty much entirely ignores the unpleasant human tendency to start utilizing what resources you can muster to aquire more resources, to a large part at someone else's expense, and whoops - the liberty starts getting constrained awfully fast by the success of those who decide to go that route.

That's pretty much the ultimate origin of modern states too. Human society hates power vacuums.

[drone]

It is my understanding ole Smith was perfectly aware of most of those caveats. Apparently he discussed them in the book before the Wealth of Nations - don't recall the name - which for some reasons seems to get forgotten awfully often...
Are you referring to "The Theory of Moral Sentiments"?

[Kagemusha]

I think the market in Kuopio is one of the best.Atleast in Finland.Altough i think Len or Mouza could pawn us rest,mentioning the Grand Bazhaar of Istanbull.:laugh4:

[Watchman]

Are you referring to "The Theory of Moral Sentiments"?No idea, as I said I don't recall the name. Smith isn't too high on my To Read list either - I intend to brave the vastness that is Das Kapital someday first.

[Sjakihata]

I intend to brave the vastness that is Das Kapital someday first.

Dont do it, it's awfully boring!

[Watchman]

I've no doubt. Which is one of the main reasons I've been putting it off thus far.

[Kralizec]

Theoretically, societal utility and welfare will always be maximised in a perfectly competitive market, as the profit motive will drive people to seek the most productively and allocatively efficient use of resources (which are coincidently and usefully the same). This would also eliminate any and all ethical dilemas that people face because comsumers would have absolute sovereignty and so set prices. So in a perfect world I'd choose an anarcho-capitalist society where everyone tries to maximise their own utility, raising societal utility to its maximum extent. No government, no monopolies, everything markets and equilibriums.

Pareto's optimum theorama...I agree with all your points.


Sjakihata: your aversion to trash' proposed society seems to be that you fear it will lead to permanent concentrations of power. Would you support it though "knowing" it would work, essentially as an eternal balance of opposing forces?