Comments on: The End of a Beautiful Friendship http://www.lobelog.com/the-end-of-a-beautiful-friendship/ Personality Blogs Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:25:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: scott http://www.lobelog.com/the-end-of-a-beautiful-friendship/comment-page-1/#comment-44786 scott Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:34:00 +0000 http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=238#comment-44786 Jim, I agree that free markets should be left alone by gov't. But, are all markets free? I'd assert there are 3 different markets. 1. free markets--vast choices, options and competitors. The customer is always right and has power over the merchant. Also, there is usually a high degree of clarity or understanding of what the good or service is. Cleaners, grocers, home improvement, cars, most wholesale and retail transactions. 2. professional markets--many choices, limited options and competitors. The customer is hiring an expertise that exceed his understanding and is reliant on the good faith of the professional's advice. The customer therefor is not always right. These markets are often self regulated by guilds, boards, bars of the professional's peers. Gov't should avoid intrusion in these markets, though due to their essential nature may wish to facilitate access to these professionals. This includes medical, legal, accounting, retail investment, title/deed services and the like. 3. monopolies--utilities and retail banking and financial services, military suppliers, gasoline. Simply no real choice, no real substitutes no or few competitors. The customer is easily manipulated as he is totally powerless. These are essential services, goods for which there is no alternative. These companies enjoy many liberties of gov't, easements, universal access, eminent domain services. They use gov't more than other markets often contracting directly with the gov't, the consumer has no power over their providers save their collected gov't powers. Due to the opportunity of manipulation, they must be regulated carefully and should be kept small. I wish when you're confronted with "Gov't should stay out of free markets" you agree and then ask them to describe a free market. The customer ain't always right at the bank, the phone store, the electric company. As a landscaper I resent having my marketing and business model being compared with a financial services, utility or any other bureaucratic mega-corp. I don't get to follow fine print, legalese but operate by what ever is fair and reasonable. A restaurant will comp your bill but not the electric company. 99% of the time free market transactions are satisfactory for both parties. Dealing with the monopolies feels vastly different. Scott Conner Jim, I agree that free markets should be left alone by gov’t. But, are all markets free? I’d assert there are 3 different markets.

1. free markets–vast choices, options and competitors. The customer is always right and has power over the merchant. Also, there is usually a high degree of clarity or understanding of what the good or service is. Cleaners, grocers, home improvement, cars, most wholesale and retail transactions.

2. professional markets–many choices, limited options and competitors. The customer is hiring an expertise that exceed his understanding and is reliant on the good faith of the professional’s advice. The customer therefor is not always right. These markets are often self regulated by guilds, boards, bars of the professional’s peers. Gov’t should avoid intrusion in these markets, though due to their essential nature may wish to facilitate access to these professionals. This includes medical, legal, accounting, retail investment, title/deed services and the like.

3. monopolies–utilities and retail banking and financial services, military suppliers, gasoline. Simply no real choice, no real substitutes no or few competitors. The customer is easily manipulated as he is totally powerless. These are essential services, goods for which there is no alternative. These companies enjoy many liberties of gov’t, easements, universal access, eminent domain services. They use gov’t more than other markets often contracting directly with the gov’t, the consumer has no power over their providers save their collected gov’t powers. Due to the opportunity of manipulation, they must be regulated carefully and should be kept small.

I wish when you’re confronted with “Gov’t should stay out of free markets” you agree and then ask them to describe a free market. The customer ain’t always right at the bank, the phone store, the electric company. As a landscaper I resent having my marketing and business model being compared with a financial services, utility or any other bureaucratic mega-corp. I don’t get to follow fine print, legalese but operate by what ever is fair and reasonable. A restaurant will comp your bill but not the electric company. 99% of the time free market transactions are satisfactory for both parties. Dealing with the monopolies feels vastly different.

Scott Conner

]]> By: Jon Harrison http://www.lobelog.com/the-end-of-a-beautiful-friendship/comment-page-1/#comment-44560 Jon Harrison Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:07:46 +0000 http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=238#comment-44560 Weidner's Keystone speech would have been embarassing to read, except one realizes that Weidner and his ilk had/have real power and influence. Amazing to think that "Islamo-Facism" is an even greater danger to America than Hitler or a nuclear-armed USSR. Yet the Chinese are OK because some of us make money trading with them. Given that Weidner pays effusive lip-service to the ideals of the Founders, why can't he find it in his heart to feel for oppressed peoples, like the Tibetans and the Palestinians? Weidner’s Keystone speech would have been embarassing to read, except one realizes that Weidner and his ilk had/have real power and influence. Amazing to think that “Islamo-Facism” is an even greater danger to America than Hitler or a nuclear-armed USSR. Yet the Chinese are OK because some of us make money trading with them. Given that Weidner pays effusive lip-service to the ideals of the Founders, why can’t he find it in his heart to feel for oppressed peoples, like the Tibetans and the Palestinians?

]]>