Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Mainstream media present no critique of how society works in favour of capital, no dissent as to the capitalist machinery which their profitability depends upon (should we be surprised?). Papers which carry adverts placed by capitalist enterprise are promoting capitalism. Also, I notice how you've switched from my question about The Times, to the citing of other papers; nice attempted sidestep.

    And, of course, you have to label me a conspiracy nut just so as to ensure that my opinion is suitably trivialised. How rational is such a personal attack in a discussion forum?

    What's amusing is that instead of right-wingers posting resources links which defend their position they've taken to childish sniping in an attempt to trivialise a thread which wasn't even intended for their engagement. It's oh so predictable.
    Ignoring the fact that the media is part of the status quo. It isn't intentionally trying to keep it from changing; the status quo is the only thing it knows. To think that there is some conspiracy to keep the people stupid, instead of realizing that the media is out there to make a profit, just like every business, is irrational at best.

    If you didn't want people to debate with you, you shouldn't have made this thread in the Debate and Discussion forum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What happened to your marxist theory thread Oswy, I quite enjoyed it...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Was Oswy always so left?

    Ignoring the fact that the media is part of the status quo. It intentionally try to keep it from changing; the status quo is the only thing it knows. To think that there is some conspiracy to keep the people stupid, instead of realizing that the media is out there to make a profit, just like every business, is irrational at best.
    What do you think about introducting regulation to news bulletins only on e.g. Fox News and the other news channels? I think having the media, or at least the new media, act like any other business providing a normal economic good produces a few too many negative externalities (like stupid reactionaries), but at the same time more than a small amount of regulation usually ends up with regulatory capture, and just sucks becasue regulation naturally sucks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    What do you think about introducting regulation to news bulletins only on e.g. Fox News and the other news channels? I think having the media, or at least the new media, act like any other business providing a normal economic good produces a few too many negative externalities (like stupid reactionaries), but at the same time more than a small amount of regulation usually ends up with regulatory capture, and just sucks becasue regulation naturally sucks.
    Yeah, that damn freedom of speech thing. Always letting people I disagree with make their views known...

    Edited to say: I've heard a lot of bull**** negative externality arguments before, but saying that people you disagree with is market failure in some way is probably the funniest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its not a case of dissagreement really though is it, you can only make an argument midly subjective before you start not presenting the story properly. Plus, im talking about left wing/right wing analysis being presented as the news along with the news during main news hours. I could agree with the analysis, but I still wouldnt want it in the news hour. That's all id regulate, all the other political talkshows or whatever on the 24hour news channel I wouldnt be bothered about - they're clearly meant to be subjective. Read my posts properly before you start acting cocky.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    What happened to your marxist theory thread Oswy, I quite enjoyed it...
    I haven't given up on it, but I'm engaging in some more substantial reading before I pick it up again seriously (still waiting for Amazon to deliver some bits and pieces).

    I made a mistake in outlining what amounted to a boatload of issues each of which were ripe for challenge - making the possibility of my making reasonable response to everyone less and less realistic as the thread grew. Next time I'll present my position in discrete stages.

    One of the big problems which came up in the thread was that from the outset there is a failure of common ground - Marxists tend to see capitalism as a historical process in which human relations are formed out of a specific mode of production and that such relations are structurally asymetrical with regard to social, political and economic power (hence the use of 'exploitation'). Capitalists often see capitalism ahistorically and as a matter of 'free' markets and 'self-ownership' etc, these two very different ways of seeing capitalism make the subject pretty much impossible to debate.

    I'm working on a few ideas though, including the critique of capitalism as inequitable - the normative contract being one based on payment for time and skill when an arrangement on the ultimate profitable outcome would be fairer, for example - but that's not strictly a Marxist critique.

    There's plenty of legs in a critique of capitalism as environmentally unsustainable too. I also think that the freeness of so-called 'free markets' is worthy of scrutiny as well as the way capitalism posits land and property ownership as naturalistic when it is a socially contructed phenomenon and very much cements inequality (and the reproduction of inequality). There's the issue of how capitalism distorts democracy and seems too easily to create monopolistic and coercive mega-corps (the media industry is a good example of this).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    Its not a case of dissagreement really though is it, you can only make an argument midly subjective before you start not presenting the story properly. Plus, im talking about left wing/right wing analysis being presented as the news along with the news during main news hours. I could agree with the analysis, but I still wouldnt want it in the news hour. That's all id regulate, all the other political talkshows or whatever on the 24hour news channel I wouldnt be bothered about - they're clearly meant to be subjective. Read my posts properly before you start acting cocky.
    What does it mean to present a story "properly"? Like in this thread for example, Oswy would probably argue that the Times is similarly biased because it approaches things from a different world view to him: should he be able to regulate the Times?

    Do you honestly think the people who watch Fox think it's the unbiased truth? Of course not, they watch it because it shares their bias. That's the problem with free speech: it lets people say stuff which you think is "wrong". But so what? I don't like Fox news, I don't watch it, I don't believe much of what they say. I think the world would probably be better off if no-one agreed with it enough to watch it. But I'd rather the existence of a news channel I disagree with than Oswy, you or anybody else telling me what stuff I'm "allowed to watch" for my own good, thank you very much.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Do you honestly think the people who watch Fox think it's the unbiased truth?
    No, where have I said or implied that? I’m fine with people wanting to watch what they want to watch, but I’m not down with even the central aspects of news, like the top news hour, becoming infotainment. You can still watch Fox and enjoy its right wing take on things 95% of the time, on all its shows, even all its news hours apart from say, one at 10 o clock, which has just report the story instead of analyse it as well as inform us of it.

    Don’t characterise me as a big government 'ill tell you what to do’ dude, either, because I’m not. Your just being reactionary and responding to things you thought I was saying with stock liberal answers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    Do you honestly think the people who watch Fox think it's the unbiased truth? Of course not, they watch it because it shares their bias. DrunkHamster.
    Except that I don't think people who watch Fox are self-consciously thinking that it, or themselves, carry such bias. Same goes for a Marxist reading a Marxist newspaper of course.

    The best we can do is try and be open to the propaganda and bias potential in all communication. In the end we choose the biases we're most comfortable with - which, of course, reinforce our views. Political dialogue breaks down because the gap between various positions grows and and becomes ever more concrete - this can be seen in the pro- and anti-capitalist debates, there are very few debaters willing to concede problems with their position or recognise that some criticisms might just have some validity. I don't know if there's a way around this. Philosopher Jurgen Habermas thinks there is a potential for genuine and productive political debate but I'm tending to scepticism at the moment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    One of the big problems which came up in the thread was that from the outset there is a failure of common ground - Marxists tend to see capitalism as a historical process in which human relations are formed out of a specific mode of production and that such relations are structurally asymetrical with regard to social, political and economic power (hence the use of 'exploitation'). Capitalists often see capitalism ahistorically and as a matter of 'free' markets and 'self-ownership' etc, these two very different ways of seeing capitalism make the subject pretty much impossible to debate.
    That's a very fair summary; but I would add, briefly, that "when we arrive" at Communism, it will be the "end of history" - and thus, that in a Communist state there would be a similarly ahistorical outlook.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'm working on a few ideas though, including the critique of capitalism as inequitable - the normative contract being one based on payment for time and skill when an arrangement on the ultimate profitable outcome would be fairer, for example - but that's not strictly a Marxist critique.
    Nor is the "ultimate profitable outcome" entirely measurable - and how, for example, would you determine the exact contribution (except by the obsolete theory of labour) of each employee to that profit?

    (Original post by Oswy)
    There's plenty of legs in a critique of capitalism as environmentally unsustainable too. I also think that the freeness of so-called 'free markets' is worthy of scrutiny as well as the way capitalism posits land and property ownership as naturalistic when it is a socially contructed phenomenon and very much cements inequality (and the reproduction of inequality). There's the issue of how capitalism distorts democracy and seems too easily to create monopolistic and coercive mega-corps (the media industry is a good example of this).
    Here there's some fair points, but - given that you criticised capitalist defenders as "ahistorically" aware - there's some irony that you think socialism would solve the problem, given the historical examples. Look at the environmental damage caused by the rapid industrialisation of the USSR or China - it is rather the "tragedy of the commons" that precludes the environment being effectively regulated in the current status. That is to say, because certain resources are not privately owned (eg. fish) there is nobody with a definite self-interest in preserving their property. More collective property just gives the state the role of judge and jury in the environmental disputes (see the massive pollution of Soviet rivers), rather than the judicial system arbitrating between self-interested owners.

    Could I also ask, because I tried to flag it earlier and was ignored, why are you trying to argue against capitalism, when it's inhuman development is the prerequsite to a revolution in your system. Quoting from the third post in the topic;

    "Look at, for example, Lenin's opposition to Russian government intervention after the famine of 1891, and the scorn which he poured upon relief efforts organised by Russophiles like Tolstoy.

    And, after all, the more "right-wing" we become and the nearer we get to fascism (the final stage, of course, before socialism; contractions, to continue the natal theme), the sooner the collapse of this decadent system.

    So on purely politically-efficacious grounds, why do far-lefties oppose more free-markets, when they're supposed to be the harbinger of revolution?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    No, where have I said or implied that? I’m fine with people wanting to watch what they want to watch, but I’m not down with even the central aspects of news, like the top news hour, becoming infotainment.
    I agree, I'm not "down" with Fox news becoming infotainment either. So I don't watch it! But I'm sure as hell not down with anyone else telling people what counts as real news, especially when they think they have the right to regulate it like you've said you think you do in this very thread.


    You can still watch Fox and enjoy its right wing take on things 95% of the time, on all its shows,
    Thanks for your permission!

    even all its news hours apart from say, one at 10 o clock, which has just report the story instead of analyse it as well as inform us of it.
    So basically free speech is fine until people say things you don't want them to say?

    Don’t characterise me as a big government 'ill tell you what to do’ dude, either, because I’m not. Your just being reactionary and responding to things you thought I was saying with stock liberal answers.
    I know you're not the worst by any stretch, and I probably am picking on you a bit, but it does worry me when even smart people think they know what is best for everyone else and even more so when they think they should be able to regulate it.

    Oswy,

    There definitely is room for genuine and productive political debate - I used to be a Marxist, but fortunately was persuaded of the error of my ways
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So basically free speech is fine until people say things you don't want them to say?
    Will you stop with your reactionary comments? Its not a case of free speech, its a case of informing people rather than presenting things informatively when they are in fact analytical. Free speech isn’t even the central issue here, its the method of deliverance that’s in question.

    Also, are you some sort of anarcho-capitalist who says nobody can tell you what to do? There’d be one news hour in the entire 24 hour airtime that was monitored for just presenting facts with minimum analysis. If anything, it stimulates free speech since people will have a clearer idea of what are arent the facts to debate becasue the two wont be merged so easily in one news hour, though i imagine a news hour without analysis would be a half hour, so you could cut it to a half hour. You seem to think there would be some sort of content regulator, who doesn’t allow certain things to be aired. Its still upto the company itself what they want to cover, its just ensuring they cover simply how something unfolded rather than saying what the effects or what the reaction might be. Half of the analysis is ****e anyway, if you want proper analysis you go and read the economist, not listen to 24hour news, but its of course peoples choice what they want to do. Im not talking about content regulators, im talking about regulation on the method of deliverance of whatever content a company might choose in the given hour/half hour, once a day. I personally think one persentation of simply a clear narrative of events would only stimulate subsequent ACCURATE discussion rather than hinder it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    Will you stop with your reactionary comments? Its not a case of free speech, its a case of informing people rather than presenting things informatively when they are in fact analytical. Free speech isn’t even the central issue here, its the method of deliverance that’s in question.
    It really is a case of free speech, I'm sorry. You think that Fox news should not be allowed to broadcast what they want. You can dress it up all you like, but the fact is that if you regulate a broadcaster and tell it what it can and can't say, you're restricting its free speech.

    I've never been called reactionary before...

    Also, are you some sort of anarcho-capitalist
    I'm not sure how much I like the term, but pretty much yeah.

    who says nobody can tell you what to do?
    Anybody can tell me what to do, I don't have to listen

    There’d be one news hour in the entire 24 hour airtime that was monitored for just presenting facts with minimum analysis. If anything, it stimulates free speech since people will have a clearer idea of what are arent the facts to debate becasue the two wont be merged so easily in one news hour, though i imagine a news hour without analysis would be a half hour, so you could cut it to a half hour.
    You want to stimulate free speech, by restricting and regulating it? Whatever you say...
    You seem to think there would be some sort of content regulator, who doesn’t allow certain things to be aired. Its still upto the company itself what they want to cover, its just ensuring they cover simply how something unfolded rather than saying what the effects or what the reaction might be. Half of the analysis is ****e anyway, if you want proper analysis you go and read the economist, not listen to 24hour news, but its of course peoples choice what they want to do. Im not talking about content regulators, im talking about regulation on the method of deliverance of whatever content a company might choose in the given hour/half hour, once a day. I personally think one persentation of simply a clear narrative of events would only stimulate subsequent ACCURATE discussion rather than hinder it.

    What makes you think that a limited amount of regulation would stay limited...? Like the FCC in America?

    ****ing with free speech is a dangerous business in the first place, and I really don't think your justification that you think Fox news makes people reactionaries is really good enough to justify it.

    Anyway, I originally got involved because you said not only that Fox broadcasting opinion as fact was a bad thing (which it is) but that it was somehow a negative externality. I'd still love to hear this argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I agree, I'm not "down" with Fox news becoming infotainment either. So I don't watch it! But I'm sure as hell not down with anyone else telling people what counts as real news, especially when they think they have the right to regulate it like you've said you think you do in this very thread.

    Thanks for your permission!

    So basically free speech is fine until people say things you don't want them to say?

    I know you're not the worst by any stretch, and I probably am picking on you a bit, but it does worry me when even smart people think they know what is best for everyone else and even more so when they think they should be able to regulate it.
    Of course you're right about all that - deregulation of broadcast media here in the UK, removing government powers to pre-emptively censor (D-Notices) or ex post facto fine (OFCOM) broadcasters and publishers and the removal of government broadcast monopolies for the BBC & C4.

    (Original post by Consie)
    Its still upto the company itself what they want to cover, its just ensuring they cover simply how something unfolded rather than saying what the effects or what the reaction might be.
    Isn't there partiality necessarily in the choice of stories. For example, yesterday on BBC News 24, I saw the headlines at the top of the hour:

    1. Scottish billionaire gives record donation to charity
    (Buffet-esque quote from him: "when society's helped you, you have a responsibility to give something back")
    2. Income gap between rich and poor at record levels

    The BBC were obviously trying to make a political point - because (and it was the only other time in the day I even saw that story) the income gap thing was given a few lines in the Metro, and was certainly not a prominent issue of the day of any website I frequent (including most ex-broadsheet newspapers, except the Independent), including the Drudge Report, that smorgasbord of news.

    Similarly, if Fox News were not to cover the Red Mosque incident last week, couldn't they be accused of partiality (ie, trying not to present a bad image of Musharraf, a US ally in the war on terror)? And when Wall Street hit 14k yesterday, it was the main story on Neil Cavuto's show - weren't they partial to the rich capitalist investors, rather than showing the other side?

    The notion that there is an observable "impartial" line is an utter fallacy, because the arbiter is always coloured by their political opinions and patronage - governmentally appointed or funded bodies will conclude that stories opposed to free markets (because their implementation would end the subsidy) are impartial, whilst those in their favour are biased and unrepresentative.

    Private ownership and private content control is the only just solution to the problem of free speech - it isn't a utilitarian one, as you suggest (ie that we should have the most well informed and impartial broadcasting because it makes for a more educated public) but a natural rights one.

    EDIT:
    (Original post by Consie)
    So basically free speech is fine until people say things you don't want them to say?

    Will you stop with your reactionary comments? Its not a case of free speech, its a case of informing people rather than presenting things informatively when they are in fact analytical. Free speech isn’t even the central issue here, its the method of deliverance that’s in question.
    See what I mean about the necessary bias of the arbiter. You called DrunkHamster "reactionary" because he is in favour of absolute free speech; so would a broadcaster that reported a story explaining how it disliked the arbitration body (for obstructing free speech) be convicted of "reactionary" bias?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You want to stimulate free speech, by restricting and regulating it? Whatever you say...
    Exactly, and its not restricting it in a conventional sense. If you look past the 1 dimensional liberal arguments, you can see that sometimes superficially illiberal things end up being liberal in a more profound sense. I don’t think this is the case for many things at all, but implementing what ive proposed, especially in such a limited capacity, has more benefits than drawbacks. Its manifestation in such a limited form means it has a 0.0000001 one percent on this apparent 'free speech', and stimulates proper discussion in my view, especially when its still coupled with other analysis programmes that are unregulated. The whole point of analysis is the analysis of fact. Yet most programmes that say they're analytical are analysing things that have already been analysed.

    What makes you think that a limited amount of regulation would stay limited...? Like the FCC in America?
    Because, contrary to the evil government paranoid folk, the government usually doesn’t get a kick out of spending more of its budget on maintaining its infrastructure. Plus, it would be independent. You can argue 'well theoretically it is, but its still part of the government' but the BofE is independent, and has been the crux of the stability our CAPITALIST economy has enjoyed the last decade. It’s not all or nothing, the government is neither next to non existent nor of a bloated socialist-style. Most non-extreme people see it as tool for maintaining stability to varying extents, in my opinion a limited extent, but not as limited as yours.

    ****ing with free speech is a dangerous business in the first place, and I really don't think your justification that you think Fox news makes people reactionaries is really good enough to justify it.
    Its not just fox news, its CNN or MSNBC or whatever. If it’s over here, then its BBC and Sky News.

    My BofE example pretty much proves govt intervention isn’t always abrasive to the other wise 'liberal' market mechanism. But if you’re so not for govt control in any form, what happens when your unregulated free market produces an incredibly powerful monopoly, which has fairly competed but has still owned its competitors, and destroys the choice and the productive and allocative efficiency a free market is supposed to provide? Having no government control, especially when its independent from the govt, is actually contradictory to most free market arguments in practice.

    Ill read the above post in a bit, im off to have a ****.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't there partiality necessarily in the choice of stories. For example, yesterday on BBC News 24, I saw the headlines at the top of the hour:

    1. Scottish billionaire gives record donation to charity
    (Buffet-esque quote from him: "when society's helped you, you have a responsibility to give something back")
    2. Income gap between rich and poor at record levels

    The BBC were obviously trying to make a political point - because (and it was the only other time in the day I even saw that story) the income gap thing was given a few lines in the Metro, and was certainly not a prominent issue of the day of any website I frequent (including most ex-broadsheet newspapers, except the Independent), including the Drudge Report, that smorgasbord of news.

    Similarly, if Fox News were not to cover the Red Mosque incident last week, couldn't they be accused of partiality (ie, trying not to present a bad image of Musharraf, a US ally in the war on terror)? And when Wall Street hit 14k yesterday, it was the main story on Neil Cavuto's show - weren't they partial to the rich capitalist investors, rather than showing the other side?

    The notion that there is an observable "impartial" line is an utter fallacy, because the arbiter is always coloured by their political opinions and patronage - governmentally appointed or funded bodies will conclude that stories opposed to free markets (because their implementation would end the subsidy) are impartial, whilst those in their favour are biased and unrepresentative.

    Private ownership and private content control is the only just solution to the problem of free speech - it isn't a utilitarian one, as you suggest (ie that we should have the most well informed and impartial broadcasting because it makes for a more educated public) but a natural rights one.
    Natural rights don’t exist, and if it knocks up the quality of the average human because he’s better informed, he’s likely to know what his rights are in the first place. I bet you 80% of people who watch the BBC don’t even know what their rights re.

    Anyway, I don’t have a problem at all with fox news choosing the red mosque or the bbc choosing the income gap, as long as it spends an hour a day reporting it factually. I pointed out that the companies can still choose what to broadcast, which I was using to demonstrate to hamster than free speech wasn’t being invaded. All I’m trying to engineer is that the quality of discussion is increased in other shows which use the news hour as its base for discussion. Also, assuming that cable news is a free market environment is laughable anyway, so increasing the quality of discussion of companies which are essentially price makers anyway is more capitalist anyway than letting them act in an oligopolistic manner (albeit in a non collusive manner). You seem to think the idea of ratings is a good way of ensuring allocative efficiency when it isn’t, people are given a limited choice and will watch anyway, given they’ve paid for cable and want to get their money’s worth. The viewer has no authority over what is chosen or who is employed to choose what is chosen.

    The notion that there is an observable "impartial" line is an utter fallacy, because the arbiter is always coloured by their political opinions and patronage - governmentally appointed or funded bodies will conclude that stories opposed to free markets (because their implementation would end the subsidy) are impartial, whilst those in their favour are biased and unrepresentative.
    How you’ve manage to make this causal link is beyond me. Not every decision sends off a chain reaction which doesn’t stop until it reaches its ultimate end in reality. This notion is theoretical and unrealistic, not simply because our apparently ‘socialist’ government clearly doesn’t demonstrate ideological continuity in all areas of its governance, it has rightly been motivated more by what’s been practical. Has the BofE pursued a socialist because it’s theoretically linked to the govt despite being independent in practice?

    I have a fair amount of sympathy for libertarianism, but a lot of it is too theoretical to be practical.


    Now I can finish off properly without having to remember to respond to that TSR post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    Exactly, and its not restricting it in a conventional sense. If you look past the 1 dimensional liberal arguments, you can see that sometimes superficially illiberal things end up being liberal in a more profound sense. I don’t think this is the case for many things at all, but implementing what ive proposed, especially in such a limited capacity, has more benefits than drawbacks. Its manifestation in such a limited form means it has a 0.0000001 one percent on this apparent 'free speech', and stimulates proper discussion in my view, especially when its still coupled with other analysis programmes that are unregulated. The whole point of analysis is the analysis of fact.
    So you are basically saying that you need to limit free speech... in order to further free speech? Ok. If banning the Guardian, in your view, "stimulated proper discussion", would it be right?

    Yet most programmes that say they're analytical are analysing things that have already been analysed.
    Some kind of messed up tongue twister?


    Because, contrary to the evil government paranoid folk, the government usually doesn’t get a kick out of spending more of its budget on maintaining its infrastructure.
    You're right, the government is run by magic fairies who are looking out for our best interests all the time. And the one thing it loves most is cutting down on its own power!

    Plus, it would be independent. You can argue 'well theoretically it is, but its still part of the government' but the BofE is independent, and has been the crux of the stability our CAPITALIST economy has enjoyed the last decade.
    ...
    I'm not sure how I can even respond to this. The Bank of England is responsible for the success of our economy...? To steal a phrase from Quine, I'm not sure how I can evoke the appropriate sense of bewilderment. The economy is doing well despite the interference from the BofE, not because of it by any stretch.

    It’s not all or nothing, the government is neither next to non existent nor of a bloated socialist-style. Most non-extreme people see it as tool for maintaining stability to varying extents, in my opinion a limited extent, but not as limited as yours.
    I can see the arguments for having a government providing stability in the sense of law and order and defence, but that's another issue. How would banning Fox from broadcasting opinion as fact help stability?


    Its not just fox news, its CNN or MSNBC or whatever. If it’s over here, then its BBC and Sky News.
    Aah so it's ok, you wouldn't just regulate the stations you disagree with, you'd regulate all of them instead just in case. I feel better already.

    My BofE example pretty much proves govt intervention isn’t always abrasive to the other wise 'liberal' market mechanism.
    Sure, if baldly asserting your conclusion as a premise (even if it happens to be untrue) counts as a "proof"...

    But if you’re so not for govt control in any form, what happens when your unregulated free market produces an incredibly powerful monopoly,
    which has fairly competed but has still owned its competitors, and destroys the choice and the productive and allocative efficiency a free market is supposed to provide?
    I don't really want to derail this thread by talking about why capitalism is awesome, that would be unfair on the poor commies coming here for their fixes. Check out the thread "is taxation wrong" for a lot more thorough treatment of this issue. But I can't really resist: it is impossible for a monopoly to sustain itself in a really free market (and I'm not talking about any of this perfect competiton BS). If you don't believe me, give me one, just one, example of when an unregulated free market ever produced an incredibly powerful monopoly.

    Having no government control, especially when its independent from the govt, is actually contradictory to most free market arguments in practice.
    You can assert this, but that doesn't make it true. Free markets can absolutely exist without governments, and I see no argument against that in your post, just an baseless statement.

    Ill read the above post in a bit, im off to have a ****.
    I can think of three words that could be covering, either way have a good one...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I'd rather have some resources that were dead, absolute, impartial centre.

    I just feel like I'm being patted in the back by stuff like this, though it's commendable you make the effort to help others.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So you are basically saying that you need to limit free speech... in order to further free speech? Ok. If banning the Guardian, in your view, "stimulated proper discussion", would it be right?
    How can i have a proper discussion with you if you keep making rediculous and innacurate extentions of what i havent even said? This argument that everything the government does leads to a slippery slope is bogus, especially if the bloody agency is independant.


    I can see the arguments for having a government providing stability in the sense of law and order and defence, but that's another issue. How would banning Fox from broadcasting opinion as fact help stability?

    Name one place where ive said im banning fox, or even impleid it, or even implied anyhting more than a tiny amount of regulation on 1/48th of its output per day?


    it is impossible for a monopoly to sustain itself in a really free market (and I'm not talking about any of this perfect competiton BS). If you don't believe me, give me one, just one, example of when an unregulated free market ever produced an incredibly powerful monopoly.

    ...News Corp? You also on the one hand say you dont want to talk about perfect competition, and then on the other ask me to provide an example of an unregulated free market. Contradiciton, perhaps? There has never been an unregulated free market becasue they are unfeasable. We're not angels, we dont play by the rules unless we're told we have to. the whole point of a free market is to maximise supernormal profit in the short term whilst making it unfeasable in the long term, if anything, its encourages doing anything you possibly can to get one up on the competators, hence regulation to varying extents in all markets being needed.

    You can assert this, but that doesn't make it true. Free markets can absolutely exist without governments, and I see no argument against that in your post, just an baseless statement.
    you have no proof otherwise becasue there is no example of a substantial free market without regulation at all - even the law of the land acts as regulation.


    I'm not sure how I can even respond to this. The Bank of England is responsible for the success of our economy...? To steal a phrase from Quine, I'm not sure how I can evoke the appropriate sense of bewilderment. The economy is doing well despite the interference from the BofE, not because of it by any stretch.
    I know this might be hard for you to comprehend, but the BofE, by being made independant, essentially became a private but not for profit organisation. Explain to me how political independance, such as avoiding the Ken and Eddy show and linking that to a floating exchange rate, actually worked against the economy? How does indirectly setting the repo rate and standardising, thus presenting a benchmark of comparison, interest rates, work in spite of the economy? How does controlling the reserve ratio rate work in spite of the economy? It prevents a run on banks an ensures its stability, and stability is what you need for a capitalist economy, you dont want banks collapsing again like in the 20's in the US.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    How can i have a proper discussion with you if you keep making rediculous and innacurate extentions of what i havent even said? This argument that everything the government does leads to a slippery slope is bogus, especially if the bloody agency is independant.
    Fair enough, I didn't even really want to get involved in this discussion about censorship). The thing which irritated me into responding was when you said negative externalities were involved somehow...


    Name one place where ive said im banning fox, or even impleid it, or even implied anyhting more than a tiny amount of regulation on 1/48th of its output per day?
    Of course you haven't suggested banning fox, just that it should be regulated. And I see no reason to agree with you.


    ...News Corp?
    News Corp isn't a monopoly for a start. If I don't want to read the Sun, or watch Sky news, how many other choices do I have of media? Come on, in what way could you possibly argue it is?

    You also on the one hand say you dont want to talk about perfect competition, and then on the other ask me to provide an example of an unregulated free market. Contradiciton, perhaps? There has never been an unregulated free market becasue they are unfeasable.
    You're making the mistake of assuming that the only type of good competition is perfect competition. It's basically a meaningless mathematical construct, and I think it's virtually useless. Anyway, take the example of the supermarket business: we have 4 or 5 companies with the vast majority of the market, massive barriers to entry, imperfect information - i.e. the exact opposite of a perfectly competitive model. Yet somehow, the industry is as competitive as it gets...

    We're not angels, we dont play by the rules unless we're told we have to.
    No one's saying we are...

    the whole point of a free market is to maximise supernormal profit in the short term whilst making it unfeasable in the long term, if anything, its encourages doing anything you possibly can to get one up on the competators, hence regulation to varying extents in all markets being needed.
    The free market has no "point" to it: it's merely what happens when free people make voluntary transactions with each other. And yeah, it does encourage companies to compete with each other, and as long as that happens peacefully everyone benefits. The thing is, the market can also provide the reason why competition stays peaceful, but that's another thread.

    you have no proof otherwise becasue there is no example of a substantial free market without regulation at all - even the law of the land acts as regulation.
    Of course there will be laws - people have an incentive to keep themselves safe, on top of the fact that most people want to live in a lawful place. But if you call respecting people's basic rights of self-ownership and free trade "regulation", then fine, there will be regulation in the free market. But that's all.

    I know this might be hard for you to comprehend, but the BofE, by being made independant, essentially became a private but not for profit organisation. Explain to me how political independance, such as avoiding the Ken and Eddy show and linking that to a floating exchange rate, actually worked against the economy?
    Political independence is not a bad thing, what is a bad thing is having an organisation which has the legally sanctioned ability to create fiat currency at will... I know this is pretty hard to accept, but most economic instability happens because central banks rather than despite them. Have a look here if you're actually interested.

    How does indirectly setting the repo rate and standardising, thus presenting a benchmark of comparison, interest rates, work in spite of the economy? How does controlling the reserve ratio rate work in spite of the economy? It prevents a run on banks an ensures its stability, and stability is what you need for a capitalist economy, you dont want banks collapsing again like in the 20's in the US.
    Again, I think you're looking at things all wrong. The great depression was caused by government intervention in the market in the first place. Read this book if you want to know more.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 11, 2007
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.