"Free" Trade

The alignment is better if you consider shareholders citizens in their corporations.

Often country citizens devalue other countries citizens. With corporations they are their explicitly first and foremost to make a profit for their shareholders not the corporations wage slaves or unaware buyers of the corporations goods and services. Corporations generally are highly competive and /or hostile to other corporations in their niche unless a steady state can be formed. However most governments frown on cabals.

Doesn't this speak against free trade?
If we agree that corporations are primarily concerned with the profit motive; predatory and at times parasitic; to allow it unfettered access to society is literally to put a wolf in with the sheep.
So if regulation is needed to protect society, what regulation preserves the benefits of this hostile insertion allowing both parties to thrive?

Well, Monty you did identify the problem. State Capitalism, aka Crony Capitalism, aka Mercantilism.

The Free Trade agreements are not free trade, just more cronyism. It favours some and excludes others. It is just international cronyism.

Hoppy, Businesses are concerned with profit. Therefore they would be extremely sensitive to public opinion to maintain that profit, if they were not being protected from completion by the government. We think of government regulation as a good thing protecting us from all those foul businessmen, when actually it is just protecting the businesses and not the people. Predatory business practices will result in people not buying from the business if it harms customers.

Real free trade would be a boon to the public but a bane to all those huge protected corporations that we all love to hate. Many of those corporations only sell to governments and are subsidised by them. The biggest antitrust problem is government protected businesses and enforced monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Predatory business practices will result in people not buying from the business if it harms customers.

---

That assumes that the costumers are long term thinkers and has Perfect Information Syndrome.

And that a corporation in the wild are never prone to create cronyism, in particular if they're the biggest one around the block.

And a government monopoly company is the most trustworthy company in Sweden (Systembolaget, our alcohol controlling company). Privatisation there would almost certainly decrease quality, since focus and size are extremely important factors in that service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

That assumes that the costumers are long term thinkers and has Perfect Information Syndrome.

And that a corporation in the wild are never prone to create cronyism, in particular if they're the biggest one around the block.

And a government monopoly company is the most trustworthy company in Sweden (Systembolaget, our alcohol controlling company). Privatisation there would almost certainly decrease quality, since focus and size are extremely important factors in that service.

---

It is not an instant thing naturally. Products gain trust. You can’t fool everyone forever and you have to be innovative to maintain your place.

This is not a vacuum and we have examples from history of the failures of such practices in an uncontrolled market. In the end the large corporations went to the government asking them to intervene on their behalf.

The treat of competition is always a creative and driving force. Even in markets with only one company in the market, the idea that others could come into the market usually drives innovation and reductions in price over time.

We have many examples of these prior to the rise in government interventionism. Interventionism was popular in the Great Depression and appealed to governments. Fascist Italy was that model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Hoppy, Businesses are concerned with profit. Therefore they would be extremely sensitive to public opinion to maintain that profit, if they were not being protected from completion by the government. We think of government regulation as a good thing protecting us from all those foul businessmen, when actually it is just protecting the businesses and not the people. Predatory business practices will result in people not buying from the business if it harms customers.

Real free trade would be a boon to the public but a bane to all those huge protected corporations that we all love to hate. Many of those corporations only sell to governments and are subsidised by them. The biggest antitrust problem is government protected businesses and enforced monopolies.

---

I am interested to hear how you explain the consumer unfriendly, yet not obviously subsidsed, EA not being long bankrupt.

Found an article which may bear on the topic discussed, though being a layman in it I can well expect it to be totally unrelated.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsate...-to-platforms/

That article is more about a power shift or focus shift in business but does not necessarily tell us a lot about the benefits or downsides businesses get from globalization. It's more about which businesses are more able to profit from changing times and to a large extent the internet. It may be relevant insofar that internet-based businesses could be said to be even harder to control by governments that do not establish a total lockdown like China.

Which also reminds me of geoblocking, which the EU is looking to forbid apparently.

As for real free trade, as others said it does not exist. It is a utopian solution just like communism even though the two are opposites. As is often the case, one has to find a good middle ground. A lot of monopolies are not enforced by the government but not prevented enough by it. I don't think Intel developed a monopoly with the active help of the government. It was more a combination of them driving certain companies into ruin by using their dominant market position, circumventing laws with shady business deals to mislead consumers and generally marginalizing all competition. I'm pretty sure that Intel CPUs in the i3-i7 range could be 20-30% cheaper if AMD or anyone else had competitive models.

It's easy to say that AMD should just come up with a competitive design, but it's probably harder to do given that they may simply not have the funds to pump into R&D now that they have been artificially marginalized by Intel. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/2386...d-cant-compete)
You could say that the "free market" has decided that Intel is the better competitor but you can't seriously believe a monopoly is beneficial to society or something that consumers should actually want. I'm sure there are plenty of consumers out there who don't think twice about it and just pay the higher price to get what they think they need though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It is not an instant thing naturally. Products gain trust. You can’t fool everyone forever and you have to be innovative to maintain your place.

---

Really? Coca-Cola's been selling sugared water with caramel colouring for a century and half now...

And all those people dropping their Iphone 5 for Iphone 6 the moment it's out really do need the massive technological improvement?

Or those companies selling natural "food supplements" that cure your everything, hiding behind "food supplements" label to avoid the rigorous testing? They're making billions out of selling a fairy tale.

Consumers are susceptible to propaganda, and the odds are stacked against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Really? Coca-Cola's been selling sugared water with caramel colouring for a century and half now...

And all those people dropping their Iphone 5 for Iphone 6 the moment it's out really do need the massive technological improvement?

Or those companies selling natural "food supplements" that cure your everything, hiding behind "food supplements" label to avoid the rigorous testing? They're making billions out of selling a fairy tale.

Consumers are susceptible to propaganda, and the odds are stacked against them.

---

You could say that consumers ccan form interest groups and pay scientists in order to achieve some information equality, but quite a lot of consumers see that there already is such a group that they pay to take care of the inequality problems and it's called the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Really? Coca-Cola's been selling sugared water with caramel colouring for a century and half now...

---

Come on! Everybody knows it is made of melted and homogeneated brown shoe wax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Really? Coca-Cola's been selling sugared water with caramel colouring for a century and half now...

And all those people dropping their Iphone 5 for Iphone 6 the moment it's out really do need the massive technological improvement?

Or those companies selling natural "food supplements" that cure your everything, hiding behind "food supplements" label to avoid the rigorous testing? They're making billions out of selling a fairy tale.

Consumers are susceptible to propaganda, and the odds are stacked against them.

---

So, what is it that you want? The government telling you what is good for you and managing your health?

The government has a stake in you until you stop paying taxes, then you are just a liability.

People buy Coke because it tastes good to them. They by supplements because they perceive some benefit. When they no longer care for those things they will stop.

There are pharmaceuticals that have the same, and a few with less efficacy than placabos, yet are approved as treatment, but they get government subsidies and protection from suits, so who is selling fairy tales? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

So, what is it that you want? The government telling you what is good for you and managing your health?

The government has a stake in you until you stop paying taxes, then you are just a liability.

People buy Coke because it tastes good to them. They by supplements because they perceive some benefit. When they no longer care for those things they will stop.

There are pharmaceuticals that have the same, and a few with less efficacy than placabos, yet are approved as treatment, but they get government subsidies and protection from suits, so who is selling fairy tales? :P

---

What I want? For people to acknowledge Free Market won't regulate itself. Propaganda is simply stronger than informed choice, not in small part because can't know enough to make an informed choice about every single thing. After that, we have to account for Free Market bribing those we go to get information so that we can get enough information to make an informed choice.

What I would want is that government treat those products like they treat tobacco products. A "dietary supplement" could have a label - This product hasn't been tested by anyone with expertize in the field and there is no guarantee it will have any effect and it could potentially have harmful consequences. You're taking this product at your own risk!

A big sticker, saying that in this, huge big letters would make people stop and think, I reckon.

And I really have no problem with government taking a more active role in "managing health" as you put it.

Having a healthy population means there is more and harder working from the population, so there is more taxes, and less money needed for welfare and health aid, so there is less spending required...

Sounds like a good plan, it is in the governments interest to ensure a healthy population.

Monty

I will re-invent my first post here, as it hasn't been answered.

A) Exactly what does schizodoxy mean? Heck, I teach my 11 year old students to not use words they can not themselves explain... I teach my 12 year olds that they should never try to brag with words, as they will only come off as stupid when they meet someone intelligent...

B) You really do live in a bubble, don't you? The way you articulate yourself is, well, stupid to say the least. This is, I say AGAIN, a international forum. The mere fact that you write the way you do, especially when you choose to make words up to sound "clever", is enough reason to write you off as a serious participant in an argument or debate.

What you write most of the time comes off as something an Asperger teen would write while living with his parents, in a very secure environment.

Quick quibble.
Free trade/managed trade/autarky/communism/democracy are not bound to each other in any way.
It is conceivable for a communist country to be a free trader and a democracy to be an autarky; the political system does not determine the economic stance of a given regime, though historically, it has had considerable influence.

Kad, come back when you have moved beyond the level of 12-year-old kids.

I could write a book for a popular audience of high-school graduates and I wouldn't have to dumb it down anywhere near as much as I would just to cater to you specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

What I would want is that government treat those products like they treat tobacco products. A "dietary supplement" could have a label - This product hasn't been tested by anyone with expertize in the field and there is no guarantee it will have any effect and it could potentially have harmful consequences. You're taking this product at your own risk!

A big sticker, saying that in this, huge big letters would make people stop and think, I reckon.

---

Somehow it doesn't stop people from buying (and consuming) tobacco products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Somehow it doesn't stop people from buying (and consuming) tobacco products.

---

It does actually. Sales of cigarettes have declined very sharply, owing that to much larger public awareness and a big tax.

But, we all know cigarettes are bad for us. We buy them because we like to smoke them in spite of that. People buy dietary supplements because they think they're good for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It does actually. Sales of cigarettes have declined very sharply, owing that to much larger public awareness and a big tax.

---

Do you attribute it to pictures and inscriptions on the pack? I think this is only one of the factors at work and I'm not sure it is the primary. Moreover, in different countries it works differently and I think not in all countries such repellants are used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

But, we all know cigarettes are bad for us. We buy them because we like to smoke them in spite of that. People buy dietary supplements because they think they're good for them.

---

People know about the harm of many things (like alcohol, drugs, carbonated drinks) but they keep consuming them. So awareness and consuming don't seem to be connected at all (or very bizarrely connected).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

People know about the harm of many things (like alcohol, drugs, carbonated drinks) but they keep consuming them. So awareness and consuming don't seem to be connected at all (or very bizarrely connected).

---

Yes, but people don't consume tobacco, alcohol and drugs because it's good for the health.

People consume "natural products" because they think it is good for the health, while in vast majority of cases, it's a fairy tale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yes, but people don't consume tobacco, alcohol and drugs because it's good for the health.

People consume "natural products" because they think it is good for the health, while in vast majority of cases, it's a fairy tale.

---

Again, people know that some foods (carrots or broccoli, for example) are healthy, yet they dislike them and consume them less than it is good for them. So my claim holds:
awareness and consuming don't seem to be connected at all (or very bizarrely connected).

@Sarmatian

It is not that I mind a degree of regulation. It is more the effect that regulation has on government.

It has lead to nothing but cronyism. It is the same with anything the government decides to regulate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cscD9pGGwIU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgcppR3slDo#t=38

Of course these are US examples but they exist everywhere. The greater the powers of governments the less the power of the people. I would rather take the time informing myself than to give more power to government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

It has lead to nothing but cronyism. It is the same with anything the government decides to regulate.

---

If you truly believe that, than we have an even bigger problem, because we rely on that government for a whole lot of things.

Anyway, even if the government is susceptible to cronyism, it is still preferable to leaving it in the hands of cronies themselves, which is where it is now.

The cronies never managed to work it out without government help. They always turned on one another without government regulation.

https://www.lpmn.org/big-businesss-powerful-wingman/