A fairy tale of free market public services

[BigBallinStalin]

Saxi- can you name one example where privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system? For the sake of comparison. Just posting "all of them" doesn't quite fly for me, although I guess it worked for BBS and TGD.

Consider Central Europe's move toward capitalism and away from socialism. That's a step toward free markets.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS- sorry, but the wiki article is sourced. You'll find the references at the bottom of the article, under "References", or by clicking on the numbers after in brackets at the end of statements. I'm not hiding behind it by posting a source of information that has references. I guess I could type out the wiki article's points and claim them as my own, but i suspect that would also be misread.

I was wrong to say that none of them are sourced. Correction: a few are sourced, most aren't. Shucks, still not looking credible, but no matter, you still are making a shaky argument with:

(1) your using a particular instance of privatization of a natural monopoly as evidence that the free market solution for public services is a fairy tale

Would you care to adjust that?

(2) citing higher prices while ignoring that the prices may have been the same but were overlooked because one's taxes weren't counted. Furthermore, the government usually never reduces your taxes a proportional amount after it stops providing a service. This hampers cost-savings, which is a problem sustained by the government.

Would you care to admit that this particular problem exists?

[saxitoxin]

Saxi- can you name one example where privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system? For the sake of comparison. Just posting "all of them" doesn't quite fly for me, although I guess it worked for BBS and TGD.

"All of them" are your words (in synthesis), not mine.

I don't know where "privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system" [sic] because I don't keep up with the Conservative Party's election rhetoric.

edit: I went to the Tories website to look [tab: Policy] for manifesto items labelled as a "move to a free market system" [sic] but couldn't find any

I also went to the Labour Party website to find examples of socialism that were actually crony capitalism but they don't have any issues at all listed, it's just a collection of testimonials, "Donate Now!" buttons, a bio of The Supreme Party Leadership and an online store.

At this point I think the onus is yours to provide us examples of items that have been presented as "a move to a free market system" [sic] if you'd like a diagnosis as to whether or not said item is, in fact, a "move to a free market system."

[saxitoxin]

Saxi- can you name one example where privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system? For the sake of comparison. Just posting "all of them" doesn't quite fly for me, although I guess it worked for BBS and TGD.

"All of them" are your words (in synthesis), not mine.

I don't know where "privatisation is correctly labelled as a move to a free market system" [sic] because I don't keep up with the Conservative Party's election rhetoric.

edit: I went to the Tories website to look [tab: Policy] for manifesto items labelled as a "move to a free market system" [sic] but couldn't find any

I also went to the Labour Party website to find examples of socialism that were actually crony capitalism but they don't have any issues at all listed, it's just a collection of testimonials, "Donate Now!" buttons, a bio of The Supreme Party Leadership and an online store.

At this point I think the onus is yours to provide us examples of items that have been presented as "a move to a free market system" [sic] if you'd like a diagnosis as to whether or not said item is, in fact, a "move to a free market system."

I did just find a YouTube video called "The Labour Five Point Jobs Plans" but it just consisted of a montage of video clips of the Party Leadership repeating slogans like "positive steps to put Britain back to work" and "working together to bring jobs to our communities" ... they never actually said what the five points were, unless those slogans were the points.

In light of my investigations I think, ultimately, your thread is a complaint about the state of intellectual life in Britain, versus any actual philosophical issue.

[saxitoxin]

In the transport sector, the best example of privatized, free-market service of which I can think is cross-country bus service. In North America there are several companies providing cross-country bus service and they compete for the same routes which, ostensibly, should keep costs low and service high on one of those lines. For instance, one can travel from Buffalo, New York to Toronto, Ontario on Greyhound, Megabus or Trailways and there's no regulatory or technology impediment to a fourth or fifth company starting. In fact, there's only a minimum market cost-of-entry for new bus companies. All you need is a bus and a driver's license. (I think that's how Green Tortoise started.)

However, if one wants to travel from Buffalo, New York to Toronto, Ontario on railway, you only have one option: AMTRAK (or, if traveling the opposite direction, VIA Rail Canada). Even in the absence of a state-enforced monopoly, there is a technological block to competitive trains operating that route which is incumbent in the nature of rail architecture.

[Symmetry]

Oh my, a full five posts worth of responses. I've certainly kicked a hornets nest on this one simply by suggesting that free market solutions ain't a great way to go for public services.

So anyway, keeping it all in one post-

TGD- that would be an example of partial deregulation rather than a free market model that works.

BBS 1- Also not an example, and rather remarkably, considering your following response, is not sourced. If I was being a dick I'd say it was just talk.

BBS 2- Thanks for admitting that it was sourced and not just talk. I think I'm pretty solid on my example of a proposed free market solution and what actually happened. Would be nice if you could come up with an example too, but I'll have to make do with...

Saxi 1- No idea what you're talking about on this one. Your phrasing suggested to me that you thought I was dismissing all correctly labelled free market examples of privatision. While my phrasing could have been better in the OP, I think it's fair to ask what you meant by "correctly labelled" examples, and to provide one.

Saxi 2- I think you might be talking to yourself on that one. I'm sure you'll find your arguments very convincing.

Saxi 3- Can you tell me when the cross country bus service in North America was privatised? And if it runs more cheaply and efficiently compared to the previous model?

[thegreekdog]

TGD- that would be an example of partial deregulation rather than a free market model that works.

Partial deregulation you say?

I think I'm pretty solid on my example of a proposed free market solution and what actually happened.

Except that your example was not a proposed free market solution. It was a proposed crony capitalism solution. Which no one here (in this thread) likes.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS 1- Also not an example, and rather remarkably, considering your following response, is not sourced. If I was being a dick I'd say it was just talk.

BBS 2- Thanks for admitting that it was sourced and not just talk. I think I'm pretty solid on my example of a proposed free market solution and what actually happened. Would be nice if you could come up with an example too, but I'll have to make do with...

Which example of mine would you like me to provide sources?

[saxitoxin]

Saxi 1- No idea what you're talking about on this one. Your phrasing suggested to me that you thought I was dismissing all correctly labelled free market examples of privatision. While my phrasing could have been better in the OP, I think it's fair to ask what you meant by "correctly labelled" examples, and to provide one.

As I said, I don't follow the election rhetoric of the Conservative Party. You provided one example of the "free market" and we efficiently explained to you that this was not an example of the "free market." The onus is yours to prove your theory, not ours to disprove it. I'm sorry you're upset but I don't know what else to tell you.

Saxi 3- Can you tell me when the cross country bus service in North America was privatised? And if it runs more cheaply and efficiently compared to the previous model?

You'll have to ask someone else. I never said private bus service was cheaper or more efficient than state monopoly bus service. I simply provided an example of the free market at work in the transit sector and further explained, for your ongoing edification, how rails could never operate in a free market atmosphere. Private bus service may be vastly more inefficient and expensive than a state monopoly for all I know.

[Symmetry]

In the United States we've started toying with deregulating regulated utilities (energy, water, that sort of thing). So far, my energy prices have gone down significantly, I haven't had interruption in power, and the service remains the same.

TGD- that would be an example of partial deregulation rather than a free market model that works.

Partial deregulation you say?

Your example for power suppliers would also not be a fully free market solution if they are still regulated, which is what I was replying to. I don't have Player's magic touch of being able to edit a load of posts together and respond piecemeal. Are any of them fully free market examples, or completely deregulated?

I think I'm pretty solid on my example of a proposed free market solution and what actually happened.

Except that your example was not a proposed free market solution. It was a proposed crony capitalism solution. Which no one here (in this thread) likes.

It was proposed as a free market model, what actually happened was crony capitalism. That being why the free market solution was a fairy tale. It didn't happen. the Conservative government didn't say, "we're breaking up the national rail network for crony capitalist reasons", they said that the free market would take over. Hence what was proposed was different to reality. If you're proposing a free market model for healthcare, I think it's fair to ask for an example, or to expect that the result will be similar.

[saxitoxin]

Except that your example was not a proposed free market solution. It was a proposed crony capitalism solution. Which no one here (in this thread) likes.

It was proposed as a free market model, what actually happened was crony capitalism. That being why the free market solution was a fairy tale. It didn't happen. the Conservative government didn't say, "we're breaking up the national rail network for crony capitalist reasons", they said that the free market would take over. Hence what was proposed was different to reality. If you're proposing a free market model for healthcare, I think it's fair to ask for an example, or to expect that the result will be similar.

If I may, it sounds like you're trying to discuss the psychology of political advertising, and the rest of us are discussing the opportunity costs of market regulation, which seems to be the source of most of the confusion here.

[Symmetry]

Except that your example was not a proposed free market solution. It was a proposed crony capitalism solution. Which no one here (in this thread) likes.

It was proposed as a free market model, what actually happened was crony capitalism. That being why the free market solution was a fairy tale. It didn't happen. the Conservative government didn't say, "we're breaking up the national rail network for crony capitalist reasons", they said that the free market would take over. Hence what was proposed was different to reality. If you're proposing a free market model for healthcare, I think it's fair to ask for an example, or to expect that the result will be similar.

If I may, it sounds like you're trying to discuss the psychology of political advertising, and the rest of us are discussing the opportunity costs of market regulation, which seems to be the source of most of the confusion here.

I've not seen any of you discuss anything like that with each other so far, but perhaps you're right. If someone made a point that free markets are the best way to go in terms of driving down healthcare costs, would you also be skeptical that they've bought in to a nice piece of political advertising?

[Symmetry]

BBS 1- Also not an example, and rather remarkably, considering your following response, is not sourced. If I was being a dick I'd say it was just talk.

BBS 2- Thanks for admitting that it was sourced and not just talk. I think I'm pretty solid on my example of a proposed free market solution and what actually happened. Would be nice if you could come up with an example too, but I'll have to make do with...

Which example of mine would you like me to provide sources?

All of central Europe, that being the only example you provided.

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't see how Symmetry's example is valid criticism of the free market.


How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?

[Symmetry]

I still don't see how Symmetry's example is valid criticism of the free market.


How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?

And I'm the dodge king?

[Dukasaur]

Oh my, a full five posts worth of responses. I've certainly kicked a hornets nest on this one simply by suggesting that free market solutions ain't a great way to go for public services.

No, you've kicked a hornet's nest by stubbornly clinging to this strawman argument. You present a situation which is not a free market situation, and then said "look! this proves the free market doesn't work."

You'd get much the same angry response if, for instance, you stood up in front of a medical convention holding a bottle of Zebediah's Patent Snake Oil, and said "look, this is proof that modern medicine doesn't work!" People get angry when something they despise and do not endorse is held up as an alleged example of what they believe in.

Private ownership does not equal a free market. A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state. The situation you've described is an example of crony mercantilism, where certain parties have been granted local monopolies, and been given assets at a depressed price, by sweetheart deals with a government. It's about as far from a free market as you can get.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS 1- Also not an example, and rather remarkably, considering your following response, is not sourced. If I was being a dick I'd say it was just talk.

BBS 2- Thanks for admitting that it was sourced and not just talk. I think I'm pretty solid on my example of a proposed free market solution and what actually happened. Would be nice if you could come up with an example too, but I'll have to make do with...

Which example of mine would you like me to provide sources?

All of central Europe, that being the only example you provided.

Hellman, Joel. 1998. "Winners take all: the politics of partial reform."

Would you like to learn more about new comparative economics? This at least would better inform you about "free markets" and the role of institutions. It would be awesome to see you step beyond the rhetoric of the "privatization/'free market' v. state ownership" debate.

There's plenty of examples in that literature. I think the best way to convince you is for you to read for yourself.


EDIT: More pertinent example--maybe less technical than the above article:

Murrell, Peter. 1992. Evolution in economics and in the economic reform of the centrally planned economies. (which is within Clauge and Rausser's Emergence of Market Economies in Eastern Europe).

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't see how Symmetry's example is valid criticism of the free market.


How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?

And I'm the dodge king?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165841&p=3622241#p3622238

And my question is still relevant, so:

How is privatization of a good at a particular time within given political, cultural, and economic institutions equivalent to a "free market" solution?

[saxitoxin]

Except that your example was not a proposed free market solution. It was a proposed crony capitalism solution. Which no one here (in this thread) likes.

It was proposed as a free market model, what actually happened was crony capitalism. That being why the free market solution was a fairy tale. It didn't happen. the Conservative government didn't say, "we're breaking up the national rail network for crony capitalist reasons", they said that the free market would take over. Hence what was proposed was different to reality. If you're proposing a free market model for healthcare, I think it's fair to ask for an example, or to expect that the result will be similar.

If I may, it sounds like you're trying to discuss the psychology of political advertising, and the rest of us are discussing the opportunity costs of market regulation, which seems to be the source of most of the confusion here.

I've not seen any of you discuss anything like that with each other so far, but perhaps you're right. If someone made a point that free markets are the best way to go in terms of driving down healthcare costs, would you also be skeptical that they've bought in to a nice piece of political advertising?

If the proposed solution was not a free market solution (on one hand) or a socialist solution (on the other) but was, in fact, crony capitalism, then yes, of course.

For example, if a party election agenda said, for instance -

giving virtually every household in the country a broadband service of at least two megabits per second by 2012; second, making possible superfast broadband for the vast majority of Britain with Government investing over £1 billion in the next seven years

- and the owner of a mega-corporation which had a co-marketing deal with British Telecom had donated, let's say, £13 million to the party advancing that item (for the sake of argument, let's say this donors name is His Exalted Worshipfulness the Baron Sainsbury of Turville and the party is named - we'll choose something generic - "the Labour Party") then obviously this would not be socialism, but crony capitalism.

[Symmetry]

Oh my, a full five posts worth of responses. I've certainly kicked a hornets nest on this one simply by suggesting that free market solutions ain't a great way to go for public services.

No, you've kicked a hornet's nest by stubbornly clinging to this strawman argument. You present a situation which is not a free market situation, and then said "look! this proves the free market doesn't work."

You'd get much the same angry response if, for instance, you stood up in front of a medical convention holding a bottle of Zebediah's Patent Snake Oil, and said "look, this is proof that modern medicine doesn't work!" People get angry when something they despise and do not endorse is held up as an alleged example of what they believe in.

Private ownership does not equal a free market. A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state. The situation you've described is an example of crony mercantilism, where certain parties have been granted local monopolies, and been given assets at a depressed price, by sweetheart deals with a government. It's about as far from a free market as you can get.

And just one more time, I'll state that the free market was what the proposed solution was, and the reality was crony capitalism. I'll ask you for the same example I asked of everyone else- for an important public service that works better and costs less under the completely free market, unfettered by regulations. The system that you seem to advocate.

About as far from the free market as you can get would be the state monopoly that cost less for consumers and taxpayers.

This thread is liking arguing with an ardent Communist. If you point out relevant examples of Communist countries, arguments get dismissed instantly as "not really being Communist", even though that was the proposed model.

[Dukasaur]

I'll ask you for the same example I asked of everyone else- for an important public service that works better and costs less under the completely free market, unfettered by regulations. The system that you seem to advocate.

That one's easy. Food. The most essential public service of all, the provision of food.

Owing to a relatively low level of government participation in food production, you have an enormous number of food choices available. Whether you're a rabid carnivore or a finicky vegan, whether your diet is restricted for medical or religious reasons, whether your tastes run to the blazing hot or the icy cold, some merchant is out there, pandering to your needs and wants. A worldwide network of millions of farmers, tens of thousands of wholesalers, and hundreds of thousands of retailers ensures that exotic foods from all over the world are delivered to your neighbourhood, sometimes even directly to your door. And the cost is so ridiculously cheap! Whereas our ancestors spent close to 90% of their efforts just staving off starvation, the average person in the industrialized world today spends less than 10% of his income on food, and the percentage falls further with each passing generation.

Even in the poor countries, although obviously the percentage is higher, it is rapidly falling. Real starvation is becoming rare even in the third world, and usually driven by political interference, as in Darfur, for instance. According to the WHO, in 2010 we passed a significant milestone: for the first time more people died from obesity-related illnesses than from starvation or malnutrition. (Not claiming that obesity is a good thing; but it is a telling measurement of how rare real starvation is becoming.)

Quality food everywhere, in abundance, delivered promptly and enthusiastically and at ridiculously cheap prices. That's what a (relatively) unfettered free market delivers.

[Symmetry]

I'll ask you for the same example I asked of everyone else- for an important public service that works better and costs less under the completely free market, unfettered by regulations. The system that you seem to advocate.

That one's easy. Food. The most essential public service of all, the provision of food.

Owing to a relatively low level of government participation in food production, you have an enormous number of food choices available. Whether you're a rabid carnivore or a finicky vegan, whether your diet is restricted for medical or religious reasons, whether your tastes run to the blazing hot or the icy cold, some merchant is out there, pandering to your needs and wants. A worldwide network of millions of farmers, tens of thousands of wholesalers, and hundreds of thousands of retailers ensures that exotic foods from all over the world are delivered to your neighbourhood, sometimes even directly to your door. And the cost is so ridiculously cheap! Whereas our ancestors spent close to 90% of their efforts just staving off starvation, the average person in the industrialized world today spends less than 10% of his income on food, and the percentage falls further with each passing generation.

Even in the poor countries, although obviously the percentage is higher, it is rapidly falling. Real starvation is becoming rare even in the third world, and usually driven by political interference, as in Darfur, for instance. According to the WHO, in 2010 we passed a significant milestone: for the first time more people died from obesity-related illnesses than from starvation or malnutrition. (Not claiming that obesity is a good thing; but it is a telling measurement of how rare real starvation is becoming.)

Quality food everywhere, in abundance, delivered promptly and enthusiastically and at ridiculously cheap prices. That's what a (relatively) unfettered free market delivers.

But this goes against your definition of what a free market model is. Relatively unfettered is not unfettered. I can sort of accept your points, but I'm not sure it's the easy example of the free market you proposed. That and a lot of food production is heavily subsidised and controlled by governments.

[Lootifer]

Relevant pictor:

[saxitoxin]

I'll ask you for the same example I asked of everyone else- for an important public service that works better and costs less under the completely free market, unfettered by regulations. The system that you seem to advocate.

That one's easy. Food. The most essential public service of all, the provision of food.

Owing to a relatively low level of government participation in food production, you have an enormous number of food choices available. Whether you're a rabid carnivore or a finicky vegan, whether your diet is restricted for medical or religious reasons, whether your tastes run to the blazing hot or the icy cold, some merchant is out there, pandering to your needs and wants. A worldwide network of millions of farmers, tens of thousands of wholesalers, and hundreds of thousands of retailers ensures that exotic foods from all over the world are delivered to your neighbourhood, sometimes even directly to your door. And the cost is so ridiculously cheap! Whereas our ancestors spent close to 90% of their efforts just staving off starvation, the average person in the industrialized world today spends less than 10% of his income on food, and the percentage falls further with each passing generation.

Even in the poor countries, although obviously the percentage is higher, it is rapidly falling. Real starvation is becoming rare even in the third world, and usually driven by political interference, as in Darfur, for instance. According to the WHO, in 2010 we passed a significant milestone: for the first time more people died from obesity-related illnesses than from starvation or malnutrition. (Not claiming that obesity is a good thing; but it is a telling measurement of how rare real starvation is becoming.)

Quality food everywhere, in abundance, delivered promptly and enthusiastically and at ridiculously cheap prices. That's what a (relatively) unfettered free market delivers.

But this goes against your definition of what a free market model is. Relatively unfettered is not unfettered. I can sort of accept your points, but I'm not sure it's the easy example of the free market you proposed. That and a lot of food production is heavily subsidised and controlled by governments.

Aside from the fact that - as breathlessly presented to you by 6 different commenters - your OP example is not one of "free market", it also is not one that's free of fettering so, by the standards you've just applied to Dukasur, we would have to proclaim "all inefficiency in British rail is the result of a regime of government regulation." (The Office of Rail Regulation must approve route changes, inspect safety standards and so forth.)

At this point it's unclear exactly what you're asking for, other than for everyone to agree with you. You then become extremely upset and frustrated when people do not. This seems to be the typical route most of your threads take. I'm not sure why you put yourself through this.

[Symmetry]

I'll ask you for the same example I asked of everyone else- for an important public service that works better and costs less under the completely free market, unfettered by regulations. The system that you seem to advocate.

That one's easy. Food. The most essential public service of all, the provision of food.

Owing to a relatively low level of government participation in food production, you have an enormous number of food choices available. Whether you're a rabid carnivore or a finicky vegan, whether your diet is restricted for medical or religious reasons, whether your tastes run to the blazing hot or the icy cold, some merchant is out there, pandering to your needs and wants. A worldwide network of millions of farmers, tens of thousands of wholesalers, and hundreds of thousands of retailers ensures that exotic foods from all over the world are delivered to your neighbourhood, sometimes even directly to your door. And the cost is so ridiculously cheap! Whereas our ancestors spent close to 90% of their efforts just staving off starvation, the average person in the industrialized world today spends less than 10% of his income on food, and the percentage falls further with each passing generation.

Even in the poor countries, although obviously the percentage is higher, it is rapidly falling. Real starvation is becoming rare even in the third world, and usually driven by political interference, as in Darfur, for instance. According to the WHO, in 2010 we passed a significant milestone: for the first time more people died from obesity-related illnesses than from starvation or malnutrition. (Not claiming that obesity is a good thing; but it is a telling measurement of how rare real starvation is becoming.)

Quality food everywhere, in abundance, delivered promptly and enthusiastically and at ridiculously cheap prices. That's what a (relatively) unfettered free market delivers.

But this goes against your definition of what a free market model is. Relatively unfettered is not unfettered. I can sort of accept your points, but I'm not sure it's the easy example of the free market you proposed. That and a lot of food production is heavily subsidised and controlled by governments.

Aside from the fact that - as breathlessly presented to you by 6 different commenters - your OP example is not one of "free market", it also is not one that's free of fettering so, by the standards you've just applied to Dukasur, we would have to proclaim "all inefficiency in British rail is the result of a regime of government regulation." (The Office of Rail Regulation must approve route changes, inspect safety standards and so forth.)

At this point it's unclear exactly what you're asking for, other than for everyone to agree with you whereupon you become extremely angry and frustrated when people do not. This seems to be the typical route most of your threads take.

Then your argument is with Dukasaur's definition, which was, to quote Dukasaur:

A free market is a state of unfettered competition, where no participant is granted any special advantage by the state.

My argument is that his example of such a market doesn't even fill the requirements of his own definition.