From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 08:06:16 MST
On Sunday 27 October 2002 01:58, Charlie Stross wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:57:35AM -0700, Charles Hixson wrote:
> > ... That said, I'm not convinced that the "free market" ever
> > yields optimal results, though in many circumstances it's better than
> > most other methods. The problem is that the only place one ever sees a
> > free market is in unregulated areas of commerce. Neighbors exchanging
> > favors for a cup of sugar, etc. Once significant amounts of money get
> > involved, the monopoly powers take steps to ensure that it ceases being
> > free. This applies to drug lords as well as national governments. They
> > get their rake-off by favoring certain parties at the expense of others,
> > and taking a share from each transaction.
>
> Which is why the system that works best in practice seems to be a mixture;
> free market opportunities to generate wealth, regulatory oversight to
> prevent incumbents in the market from abusing positions of strength to
> lock out newcomers and competitors, and non-free-market systems to deal
> with those externalities which don't have a fiscal stimulus attached to
> them.
>
>
>
> -- Charlie
This is also something where the theory doesn't appear to match the practice.
Currently the regulators of the market are "0wn3d" by those they are supposed
to regulate. I don't know whether it has been this extreme before, or not,
but currently if you have enough money, and deploy it with even moderate
skill, you seem to be able to ignore practically any regulation that's
intended to protect people. The penalty for getting caught is less than the
increase in profit. OTOH, if you are small, just getting started, or
operating on shoestring, then you had better toe the line on a list of
regulations that's too long for ANYONE to understand.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:48 MST