If you've read any economics in the last several decades, the holy grail and god of the economist, both liberal and conservative is the "free market". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)
Free markets are where multiple actors compete among one another, using skill, ability, art, practice, technology, luck, and desire to produce competitive advantage.
The net effect of a free market, in theory is to produce products and services at the cheapest price to satisfy demand. And anyone who know how our system works can't deny the power of approximations of free markets in this regard.
The old saw I have seen many a time is:
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice....
And this is very true of free markets in the real world. I could pedant at length over this.
But free markets are dynamic systems, that evolve over time. A market at one point in time with many different companies competing to produce goods cheaply and effectively is but one equilibrium. But if one of those companies could form a strategy to ruthlessly destroy their competitors...
And that is the monopoly, in its most regressive form, or the cartel in a lesser form. And this is natural. If one is strong, then the strong survive per the survival of the fittest (it was always ironic to me that Republicans held free markets in such holy regard when evolutionary competition was inherent to their design), and it will stamp out or absorb all others.
And with sufficient size and strength, can then either absorb or destroy any smaller new entries to maintain its hegemony. Or it results in two or three players of sufficient size to fend off any attack from others, while also destroying or absorbing new players (the cartel).
Really, I would argue that any well functioning free market will destabilize into a cartel or monopoly state. It's merely a matter or iterations (in chaos/dynamic systems speak) or time (in the real world).
We can see this in another arena of dynamism and competition: politics.
Democracies are free markets where votes are allocated to ideas. Eventually those ideas align together in groups. Thus political parties emerge.
In America, we have the Democrat / Republican cartel. Two entities controlling 90%+ of the market, battling over a couple percentage points of dominance every few years. You can see the same dynamic at work in health insurance, car manufacturing, mobile telecommunications, etc etc etc.
Cartels are "markedly" (small pun) better than monopolies however. Cartels still possess a base motivation of competition out of defense, because the cartel players still need to stay healthy enough so that they do not become weak enough to be absorbed.
Monopolies are much worse. They can descend into corruption, but since they are the sole provider of a service, will be paid. And certainly can squash any challengers at will, by destruction or buyout.
And the same is what we have today. Democrats and Republicans in a cartel, but were we to fall into a monopoly... an authoritarian, things would be much much much worse...
Free markets descending into cartels is noisome in most matters. Mattel vs Matchbox for toy cars? Tolerable. Verizon vs T-Mobile for cellular service? A fair bit more annoying, but tolerable.
But government rule? Hitler? Mussolini? Stalin? Very dangerous.
In markets, society recognized the problem in the robber baron / gilded age era... Antitrust laws, regulation, (supported by Republican Teddy Roosevelt!), etc.
I believe the same solution should be applied to democracy. It already functions as a cornerstone of the POTUS / Presidency: term limits.
I propose that the senate and house must have four parties at all times represented, and that no party can have more than 40% of any body. This would enforce coalitions, cooperation, and diversity of political power.
Of course I'm in favor of term limits for senators and congressmen as well.
Free markets are where multiple actors compete among one another, using skill, ability, art, practice, technology, luck, and desire to produce competitive advantage.
The net effect of a free market, in theory is to produce products and services at the cheapest price to satisfy demand. And anyone who know how our system works can't deny the power of approximations of free markets in this regard.
The old saw I have seen many a time is:
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice....
And this is very true of free markets in the real world. I could pedant at length over this.
But free markets are dynamic systems, that evolve over time. A market at one point in time with many different companies competing to produce goods cheaply and effectively is but one equilibrium. But if one of those companies could form a strategy to ruthlessly destroy their competitors...
And that is the monopoly, in its most regressive form, or the cartel in a lesser form. And this is natural. If one is strong, then the strong survive per the survival of the fittest (it was always ironic to me that Republicans held free markets in such holy regard when evolutionary competition was inherent to their design), and it will stamp out or absorb all others.
And with sufficient size and strength, can then either absorb or destroy any smaller new entries to maintain its hegemony. Or it results in two or three players of sufficient size to fend off any attack from others, while also destroying or absorbing new players (the cartel).
Really, I would argue that any well functioning free market will destabilize into a cartel or monopoly state. It's merely a matter or iterations (in chaos/dynamic systems speak) or time (in the real world).
We can see this in another arena of dynamism and competition: politics.
Democracies are free markets where votes are allocated to ideas. Eventually those ideas align together in groups. Thus political parties emerge.
In America, we have the Democrat / Republican cartel. Two entities controlling 90%+ of the market, battling over a couple percentage points of dominance every few years. You can see the same dynamic at work in health insurance, car manufacturing, mobile telecommunications, etc etc etc.
Cartels are "markedly" (small pun) better than monopolies however. Cartels still possess a base motivation of competition out of defense, because the cartel players still need to stay healthy enough so that they do not become weak enough to be absorbed.
Monopolies are much worse. They can descend into corruption, but since they are the sole provider of a service, will be paid. And certainly can squash any challengers at will, by destruction or buyout.
And the same is what we have today. Democrats and Republicans in a cartel, but were we to fall into a monopoly... an authoritarian, things would be much much much worse...
Free markets descending into cartels is noisome in most matters. Mattel vs Matchbox for toy cars? Tolerable. Verizon vs T-Mobile for cellular service? A fair bit more annoying, but tolerable.
But government rule? Hitler? Mussolini? Stalin? Very dangerous.
In markets, society recognized the problem in the robber baron / gilded age era... Antitrust laws, regulation, (supported by Republican Teddy Roosevelt!), etc.
I believe the same solution should be applied to democracy. It already functions as a cornerstone of the POTUS / Presidency: term limits.
I propose that the senate and house must have four parties at all times represented, and that no party can have more than 40% of any body. This would enforce coalitions, cooperation, and diversity of political power.
Of course I'm in favor of term limits for senators and congressmen as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment