IP: A "free market" is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE TO a "competitive market."

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:52:19 -0700
>To: jwarren@well.com
>From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
>Subject: fwd FYI: re Gillmor's April Fool's column in the SJ Merky News
>
>This afternoon, I sent a variation of this to Dan -- who's a friend -- as 
>an informal rant supporting his column ... and he asked if he could post 
>it in his web-pages at the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS.
>
>So I polished the prose a bit (and revised typos), and sent him this.  :-)
>
>--jim
>
>
>>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 20:37:51 -0700
>>To: "Gillmor, Dan" <DGillmor@sjmercury.com>
>>From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
>>Subject: re your April Fool's column (POST IT IF YOU WISH :-)
>>
>>  >>http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/gillmor01.htm
>>
>>For a moment there, I was wondering who was writing under your byline. <grin>
>>
>>Tho'ts related to your laudable Fool's Day rant: As we see the results of 
>>unfettered "free markets" (with freedom limited to those with greatest 
>>power), some things are becoming more and more clear --
>>
>>A "free market" is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE TO a "competitive market."
>>
>>A FREE market facilitates -- encourages! -- monopolies, trusts, cartels, 
>>big fish devouring little fish, and those with great power purchasing 
>>government for themselves.  Perhaps most importantly, a "free market" 
>>demolishes jobs for the sake of profits, and encourages sky-rocketing 
>>prices on essentials, in ways that are possible ONLY when the powerful 
>>are "free" to do so.
>>
>>A COMPETITIVE market -- that aggressively PROHIBITS "free market" trusts, 
>>cartels and monopolistic practices -- facilitates real and *continuing* 
>>competition, and that encourages productive innovation. Real, ongoing 
>>competition provides reasonable profits, minimizes consumer costs and 
>>limits inflation-for-profit.
>>
>>It's "inefficiency" produces more jobs and more employment alternatives 
>>and choices, because there are more companies (required for competition), 
>>and helps hold up employee salaries -- to hire and hold the talents 
>>needed to remain competitive.
>>
>>Results of ongoing *competitive* -- rather than "free" -- markets:
>>
>>*  Consumers get better prices, more choices and a continuation of both;
>>*  Workers have more choices of employers and more competition in 
>>compensation;
>>*  The nation has greater employment through the "inefficiency" of 
>>multiple companies, in place of the "inhuman" efficiency of a monopoly or 
>>cartel;
>>*  Wealth is less concentrated in the hands of a few (and fewer and fewer);
>>*  Individuals and competing corporations have less ability to purchase 
>>special government benefits for themselves at the expense of the majority.
>>
>>Unfortunately, it requires government to actually and effectively 
>>*protect* its citizens against the rapacious forces of a "free" market, 
>>where individual citizens and small groups on their own, are unable to 
>>defend themselves -- which ain't easy.
>>
>>But then again, isn't that among the foremost purposes of government -- 
>>"to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 
>>common *defense* [and] promote the general welfare"?!
>>
>>Those protections were written for, "We the people," which at the time, 
>>did NOT include corporations.  But a half-century later, a group of 
>>distinctly UNnotable, pro-business post-Civil War Supreme Court Justices 
>>suddenly declared -- without debate and without rationale -- that 
>>corporations were "persons" with equal constitutional rights ... and 
>>things have gone downhill ever since.
>>
>>Incidentally, this rant applies equally to Big Labor as to Big Biz!
>>
>>--jim-the-left-leaning-contentedly-backsliding-libertarian  :-)
>>[Not hobbled by consistency.]
>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/