Loss Aversion, Fear and Right Wing Political Views

[Fisherking]

Idaho is just a very conservative communist. That’s all.

Really you don’t have to do a lot to find your self on the other side of the political spectrum.

In the US of the 1960s Democrats and Republicans had left and right wings, but it was the Republicans who historically backed racial equality and Democrats who opposed it. Individual right and nonconformity were on the left along with racial equality. The struggle was against the established order and their political agendas.

Right wing policies result in more laws and order in the social structure. Left wing originally were for change to the order resulting in more liberty and a freer society.

What we see today by both the so-called left and right are just more laws and regulations. More societal controls. A one-size-fits-all world. The supposed left may even be worse because they propose controlling every aspect of life and nothing is outside governments scope.

The only difference I see in the two sides are which special interests they say they support but when it comes down to it the only people who seem to consistently benefit are the top financial 0.001%. These and their elected lapdogs constitute a ruling elite and the rest are just their dupes.

Your only choice is which you allow to exploit you.

[Idaho]

Education, try it again. Yeah it means that. Different to change so afraid of change, so xenophobia is the same thing as fear for change. You make Greek thinkers really sad I hope you are proud about yourself

Sorry but no matter how much you hate to admit you are in error, you are still in error. Xenophobia doesn't not mean fear of change.

[Idaho]

I don't think I'm a communist. I might be.. but I am not sure. I consider myself a left-leaning, skeptical, political agnostic.

[Fragony]

Sorry but no matter how much you hate to admit you are in error, you are still in error. Xenophobia doesn't not mean fear of change.

Oh it really does, I would prefer 'fear of the unknown' though. You ae still wrong regrdless as it's remains the same thing, stacato done wrong.

[Sir Moody]

Education, try it again. Yeah it means that. Different to change so afraid of change, so xenophobia is the same thing as fear for change. You make Greek thinkers really sad I hope you are proud about yourself

Sorry Frag but he is right - Xeno refers specifically to strange and/or foreign so Xenophobia is a fear of the strange and/or foreign.

fear of changes is Metathesiophobia.

[Fragony]

So it's fear for change but not fear for change? I would prefer fear for the unknown, can be foreign.

[Husar]

So it's fear for change but not fear for change? I would prefer fear for the unknown, can be foreign.

I would prefer if Fragony meant old lovely lady who gives me candy every day.

[Fragony]

I would prefer if Fragony meant old lovely lady who gives me candy every day.

Get one. I am not responsible for the meaning of words

[Idaho]

So it's fear for change but not fear for change? I would prefer fear for the unknown, can be foreign.

Dogged inability to simply admit error is the Internet/male perfect storm.

[Husar]

Get one. I am not responsible for the meaning of words

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

Well, these guys feel responsible and they pretty much agree with Idaho.
Your personal feeling that it should mean something different is acceptable but not widely accepted.

[Fisherking]

Actually the political spectrum has become a muddle. Ideologies may start from a perspective that fall left or right but are usually co-opted or distorted fairly quickly.

Republicanism began as a radical leftwing view. It seeks limited government with powers derived from the people. It is strongly anti-authoritarian.

I would argue that any ideology which promotes a strong state is rightwing. Regardless of what it purports to do socially it is ultimately authoritarian promoting a strictly ordered populous.

The only way in which many of the socialist, communist, or progressive ideologies were ever left leaning were in that they were changes from the established order.

Economically, it is hard to move left of an unregulated and free market economy, where people haggle for their exchanges and participate voluntarily. The problem most have with economics is one of perceived fairness, that there are winners and losers. But and restraints placed on them also result in winners and losers. In a completely controlled, command economy the people have no choices. All is in the hands of the state. In a regulated economy the choices are still those of the state to pick those winners and losers. Most of you object to who governments have chosen as the winners with regulations, special deals, and monopolies. Something you wrongly attribute to too much freedom.

I would argue that a political system that offers the most freedoms and choices to the individual are on the left of the political spectrum, with anarchy being the extreme and moving to the right as the system becomes more authoritarian.

[Beskar]

There is also the problem where a free market can only exist with regulation as otherwise you end up with monopolies and conglomerates controlling people like governments do. Akin to the old Victorian towns where the factory owner runs and controls everything through a virtual serfdom/slavery. There were other issues such as Pollution being rampant as it is more cost effective to dump chemicals into people's drinking water supply.

This is something is you repeatedly failed to consider.

So where a constitution limits political control for freedom of the people, the same is needed of the economical sphere.

[Fisherking]

There is also the problem where a free market can only exist with regulation as otherwise you end up with monopolies and conglomerates controlling people like governments do. Akin to the old Victorian towns where the factory owner runs and controls everything through a virtual serfdom/slavery. There were other issues such as Pollution being rampant as it is more cost effective to dump chemicals into people's drinking water supply.

This is something is you repeatedly failed to consider.

So where a constitution limits political control for freedom of the people, the same is needed of the economical sphere.

Most of us have no idea of what a free market is. You usually only find it practiced on a very small scale in most modern countries. Monopolies are hardly possible in a real free market as anyone at anytime can start a business to compete with it. A free market empowers the customer and forces the provider of goods and services to satisfy the demands of those using their product. The one providing the best perceived value is the one who would most likely succeed.

Businesses usually detest it. They would much rather that governments set boundaries for who may compete and often time, the more restrictive the better.

Providing such things as purity laws, weights and measures, etc. are not bad things. Companies who displeased the public by polluting or abusing employees should also face public outcries which would also affect their bottom line.

Companies which got away with such practices in the past were also shielded by government or societal construct, as the class system. Red tape saying who may start a business, licensing fees, and other restrictions have always been to restrict and limit competition. Just as laws limiting liabilities for damages have favoured the select.

This is a system of free enterprise where anyone with a particular skill may use it to best mean to improve their lot and those who provide substandard results will not fare as well as those who excel.

[Fragony]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

Well, these guys feel responsible and they pretty much agree with Idaho.
Your personal feeling that it should mean something different is acceptable but not widely accepted.

widely considered is good enough for me, saying fear for change AND xenophobia is just double. Conservatism makes it triple.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Most of us have no idea of what a free market is. You usually only find it practiced on a very small scale in most modern countries. Monopolies are hardly possible in a real free market as anyone at anytime can start a business to compete with it. A free market empowers the customer and forces the provider of goods and services to satisfy the demands of those using their product. The one providing the best perceived value is the one who would most likely succeed.

Businesses usually detest it. They would much rather that governments set boundaries for who may compete and often time, the more restrictive the better.

Providing such things as purity laws, weights and measures, etc. are not bad things. Companies who displeased the public by polluting or abusing employees should also face public outcries which would also affect their bottom line.

Companies which got away with such practices in the past were also shielded by government or societal construct, as the class system. Red tape saying who may start a business, licensing fees, and other restrictions have always been to restrict and limit competition. Just as laws limiting liabilities for damages have favoured the select.

This is a system of free enterprise where anyone with a particular skill may use it to best mean to improve their lot and those who provide substandard results will not fare as well as those who excel.

What government policies were in place between 1860-1890 that promoted monopolies (excluding the railroad industry)?

[Beskar]

Monopolies are hardly possible in a real free market as anyone at anytime can start a business to compete with it.

That actually requires regulation, as the bigger company would simply use the product themselves and sell it for cheaper due to the profits made on other products, causing that start-up to instantly go out of business because they do not have the finical clout to compete. A world without regulation will give birth to monolith institutions which would dwarf the ones which have such labels today. There are many dystopia around this theme, known as 'hypercapitalism'. These feature in the Shadowrun series, that faction in Eve Online, books such as Jennifer Government, etc.

What you call "free market" is not a "free" market. It is only free for the 1% who take all the power for themselves. This is why I arguably advocate for a "fair market" which has different connotations.

A free market empowers the customer and forces the provider of goods and services to satisfy the demands of those using their product. The one providing the best perceived value is the one who would most likely succeed.

Not without regulation you won't. You require things like Consumer Rights, but since that is pesky regulation you just removed to 'free the market', so goodbye to that.

---

I will be honest with you, Fisherking, I actually agree with your goal. An environment where free enterprise can flourish, protected by the predatory nature of big corporations is something I can fully support. I can support having strong consumer rights and protection as well.

However, what you are proposing does not create the result you desire. I can understand why you might dislike a lot of excessive regulation which was brought in via corruption and corporate lobbying in the USA especially, and I dislike this too. But you are proposing throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which causes a defacto anarchy where only the strongest survive and crush the weak. The weak require protection for them to flourish.

[rory_20_uk]

A "free market" can often work in an established, diversified market since there are already several established players and new entrants can start in niches and work outwards. So Pharmaceuticals is mainly OK if for no other reason that there are so many companies involved already this makes up for the impossibly high barriers to entry for new entrants a free market on provision on water or electricity wouldn't work since they'd never manage to lay the infrastructure to pipe in the services. It requires regulation to make the market a more level playing field.

[Fisherking]

What government policies were in place between 1860-1890 that promoted monopolies (excluding the railroad industry)?

Perhaps we should look at them one at a time. If you provide a list of what you think are the biggest offenders we can figure it out.

That actually requires regulation, as the bigger company would simply use the product themselves and sell it for cheaper due to the profits made on other products, causing that start-up to instantly go out of business because they do not have the finical clout to compete. A world without regulation will give birth to monolith institutions which would dwarf the ones which have such labels today. There are many dystopia around this theme, known as 'hypercapitalism'. These feature in the Shadowrun series, that faction in Eve Online, books such as Jennifer Government, etc.

What you call "free market" is not a "free" market. It is only free for the 1% who take all the power for themselves. This is why I arguably advocate for a "fair market" which has different connotations.



Not without regulation you won't. You require things like Consumer Rights, but since that is pesky regulation you just removed to 'free the market', so goodbye to that.

---

I will be honest with you, Fisherking, I actually agree with your goal. An environment where free enterprise can flourish, protected by the predatory nature of big corporations is something I can fully support. I can support having strong consumer rights and protection as well.

However, what you are proposing does not create the result you desire. I can understand why you might dislike a lot of excessive regulation which was brought in via corruption and corporate lobbying in the USA especially, and I dislike this too. But you are proposing throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which causes a defacto anarchy where only the strongest survive and crush the weak. The weak require protection for them to flourish.

Beskar, I am familiar with that line of reasoning but it just does not pan out. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Herbert Dow’s price war with the German bromine cartel? It pretty much shows how predatory pricing fails.

It is true that not everyone will succeed in every endeavour but artificial forces placed on the market that limit competition only favour business, not the customers.

The remedies regarding product liabilities and sharp business practices have always been a part of common law. Changes in statutory laws which limit liability and tort law have always favoured business and the legal profession.

A "free market" can often work in an established, diversified market since there are already several established players and new entrants can start in niches and work outwards. So Pharmaceuticals is mainly OK if for no other reason that there are so many companies involved already this makes up for the impossibly high barriers to entry for new entrants a free market on provision on water or electricity wouldn't work since they'd never manage to lay the infrastructure to pipe in the services. It requires regulation to make the market a more level playing field.

Just as a side note, there was a time when there were competing power and water utility companies in the US. I don’t know about the UK but there is not reason to presume, absent government that there was not the same there. It was government, mostly local, that granted monopolies in areas to specific companies or took over the utilities themselves.

[Idaho]

Free market is nonsense. It's a fantasy. In any market, a leading player will take all actions available to them to control and dominate the market - a market that was already distorted thus when our leading player was just starting out.

[Fisherking]

Free market is nonsense. It's a fantasy. In any market, a leading player will take all actions available to them to control and dominate the market - a market that was already distorted thus when our leading player was just starting out.

Is that not true of every human endeavour? No matter what you do, people will seek advantage.
Nothing is perfectly safe and nothing will prevent it.

We live in a highly regulated society today and in every country there are regulations. All of them favour some while hurting others. There is no perfectly level playing field. In most cases governments set the lines of who may compete. There are a few who may join in but most may not. All those who may not must become labourers for those few who may. Their skills and ideas become the property of those who are allowed by the rules to play the game. Because few can compete it makes labour a cheep and plentiful commodity. As such, rather than competing in the marketplace with their skill, abilities, and ideas, they are relegated to a set wage while their employers reap the benefits.

The more bearers and hurtles place by regulation the fewer competitors in the market to bring down prices or increase wages of the highly skilled.

You bemoan the unfairness of society yet wish to stifle the means to create greater opportunity for your fellow man.

By asking for a true free market I am not taking a pro-corporate stance. Far from it. It is big business that profit most from limiting competition. Governmental intervention in the economy has also favoured the giants. If giants fail from their own business errors demand for products will not go away and smaller enterprises or even startups would fill those gaps.

I see the current system as a construct which favours established wealth and order over the industriousness and invention of the individual.

Perhaps, I am looking at it all wrong. Would you care to enlighten me?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which government policies allowed for Rockefeller to establish his monopoly?

[Fragony]

Which government policies allowed for Rockefeller to establish his monopoly?

Can't expect a system to be without extremes, that is also true for capitalism. Problemis that it can disurbt democracy by default, just like everything else.

[Montmorency]

If you follow the Austrian School, then you will acknowledge that Standard Oil never managed to form a monopoly, and in fact stimulated the market so much that natural competition quickly came to overshadow it after 1900.

On the other hand, post-Civil War kerosene tariffs and patent law (esp. as regards transport logistics) helped a little, as did competition between states to pass laws favorable to Standard expansion, and therefore investment.

Fraud and government corruption at all levels had no effect either way.

Also, those protectionists John Sherman and Teddy Roosevelt.

[Fisherking]

Which government policies allowed for Rockefeller to establish his monopoly?

That is a very interesting case. It is one of two I would have expected.

Standard Oil was a near Monopoly but there are a lot of caveats.

Principally, Rockefeller’s company operated by delivering the product at the lowest cost. The elimination of competitors was not in driving them out of business but in the purchases of the companies at fair market value. Many of the former owners were brought into the company. Others made their fortunes by repeatedly founding new companies that were again acquired by Standard Oil.

He bought firms dealing with all aspects of production and because of scale got sweetheart deals from the railroads shipping his product. He increased his profit margin by developing new markets to make use of byproducts of the refining process.

So long as he competed on price and smart business practices all was fine. The trouble came when the company tried to circumvent state laws in Ohio preventing holding stock in another firm and to restrict product supply. In other words, hostile takeovers and colluding with others in price fixing.

Collusion to set prices or wages is fraud. Corporate law is another sore point with me. The idea that a firm can achieve Personhood and is virtually immortal with responsibilities only to its investors, without regard to its employees or the public, I find reprehensible. So far as I can see, they are merely an artificial construct to limit liability and decrease personal risk to investors. They are little more than a legal way of forming a cartel and ought to be eliminated.

[Furunculus]

i think i must have misread the opening quote:

Left-wing fears of nonexistent or overblown boogeymen — America, climate change, not checking ones privilege, Thatchers radical anti-union mind-set, private enterprise, etc. — make it hard not to see lefty's prudent risk avoidance as having morphed into a state of near permanent paranoia, especially fueled by recurrent “politically-correct panics,” a sociological phenomenon in which a group of “socialist ideologues” whips up hysterical fears over a group of relatively powerless “capitalist devils” who are supposedly threatening the whole moral order.

did i do it right, mom?