Markets and Their Effects

Lexicus

Deity
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
31,988
Location
Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
Liberals: "let's get a round of applause for our retail and grocery store workers
they are true heroes seeing us through this crisis"


Also liberals: "what no you can't pay grocery store workers more than minimum wage, that's


above the m̸a̸r̶k̵e̵t̸̶ v̸̖̊̅̓̈́́ã̸̻̞l̵̞̰̮̼̀ư̸̛̥̰̒e̴̬̫̼͠ o̷̰̲̯̭̦͝f̶̢͍̙̼̦̙̫̓̊͋̆̋̚͘ ̸̛͎͉̱̓ͅt̴̩̦̣̺͓̬̆̒̏̏͛͜h̴̢̯̣̟̬̱̤̘̉̑͊͒e̸̱̪͕̔̓͒̋̃͌͑ĩ̸̖͉͊͊̑͜͠r̷̘̳͕͈̙͓͇̝͑͑̒ l̴͉͕̱̘̝͂͗̋̑̂͊̑͌̈a̵̢̨̝̟̱̳̗̲̳͔̐͌̋̈́̎̋̐͝͝b̸̖̗́̊͐̈́̆ȏ̴̧̨̧̨̨͇̻̭̦̦̹̒̕r̷̩̺̼̗̩̻̘͔̩͇͌̐̒͗̈́̈́̓̍̀̂͂͝
 
Last edited:
Liberals: "let's get a round of applause for our retail and grocery store workers they are true heroes seeing us through this crisis"


Also liberals: "what no you can't pay grocery store workers more than minimum wage, that's above the m̸a̸r̶k̵e̵t̸̶ v̸̖̊̅̓̈́́ã̸̻̞l̵̞̰̮̼̀ư̸̛̥̰̒e̴̬̫̼͠ o̷̰̲̯̭̦͝f̶̢͍̙̼̦̙̫̓̊͋̆̋̚͘ ̸̛͎͉̱̓ͅt̴̩̦̣̺͓̬̆̒̏̏͛͜h̴̢̯̣̟̬̱̤̘̉̑͊͒e̸̱̪͕̔̓͒̋̃͌͑ĩ̸̖͉͊͊̑͜͠r̷̘̳͕͈̙͓͇̝͑͑̒l̴͉͕̱̘̝͂͗̋̑̂͊̑͌̈a̵̢̨̝̟̱̳̗̲̳͔̐͌̋̈́̎̋̐͝͝b̸̖̗́̊͐̈́̆ȏ̴̧̨̧̨̨͇̻̭̦̦̹̒̕r̷̩̺̼̗̩̻̘͔̩͇͌̐̒͗̈́̈́̓̍̀̂͂͝
Is your post supposed to look like this?
 

Attachments

  • bustPost.png
    bustPost.png
    80.3 KB · Views: 398
that's above the m̸a̸r̶k̵e̵t̸̶ v̸̖̊̅̓̈́́ã̸̻̞l̵̞̰̮̼̀ư̸̛̥̰̒e̴̬̫̼͠ o̷̰̲̯̭̦͝f̶̢͍̙̼̦̙̫̓̊͋̆̋̚͘ ̸̛͎͉̱̓ͅt̴̩̦̣̺͓̬̆̒̏̏͛͜h̴̢̯̣̟̬̱̤̘̉̑͊͒e̸̱̪͕̔̓͒̋̃͌͑ĩ̸̖͉͊͊̑͜͠r̷̘̳͕͈̙͓͇̝͑͑̒l̴͉͕̱̘̝͂͗̋̑̂͊̑͌̈a̵̢̨̝̟̱̳̗̲̳͔̐͌̋̈́̎̋̐͝͝b̸̖̗́̊͐̈́̆ȏ̴̧̨̧̨̨͇̻̭̦̦̹̒̕r̷̩̺̼̗̩̻̘͔̩͇͌̐̒͗̈́̈́̓̍̀̂͂͝
Covid is corrupting the CFC
 
Is your post supposed to look like this?

yea it's using glitch-text to make a point about how liberals' faith in the market is actually c̸̩͓̺̩̥̰̔͗̀̑͌͂u̴̝̓r̴̨̛̲̫̃̀͌̓̓s̴̬̑̓͠ḛ̷͖̮͆̈́̓͝d̷̖͗

It isn't supposed to be looping back like that though, I'll try to reformat it...my monitor is wide
 
Liberals: "let's get a round of applause for our retail and grocery store workers
they are true heroes seeing us through this crisis"


Also liberals: "what no you can't pay grocery store workers more than minimum wage, that's


above the m̸a̸r̶k̵e̵t̸̶ v̸̖̊̅̓̈́́ã̸̻̞l̵̞̰̮̼̀ư̸̛̥̰̒e̴̬̫̼͠ o̷̰̲̯̭̦͝f̶̢͍̙̼̦̙̫̓̊͋̆̋̚͘ ̸̛͎͉̱̓ͅt̴̩̦̣̺͓̬̆̒̏̏͛͜h̴̢̯̣̟̬̱̤̘̉̑͊͒e̸̱̪͕̔̓͒̋̃͌͑ĩ̸̖͉͊͊̑͜͠r̷̘̳͕͈̙͓͇̝͑͑̒ l̴͉͕̱̘̝͂͗̋̑̂͊̑͌̈a̵̢̨̝̟̱̳̗̲̳͔̐͌̋̈́̎̋̐͝͝b̸̖̗́̊͐̈́̆ȏ̴̧̨̧̨̨͇̻̭̦̦̹̒̕r̷̩̺̼̗̩̻̘͔̩͇͌̐̒͗̈́̈́̓̍̀̂͂͝


I'm trying to figure out where you find these "liberals" who are slaves to the labor market concept. Or are you using "liberal" as a reference to anyone who questions any action taken by labor unions?
 
I'm trying to figure out where you find these "liberals" who are slaves to the labor market concept. Or are you using "liberal" as a reference to anyone who questions any action taken by labor unions?

Liberals believe by definition in the fundamental soundness of markets (by which I mean they believe in markets as the best method of distributing resources). Most liberals also believe, whether they realize it or not, in the marginal productivity theory of labor value, which is a neoclassical theory which purports to explain wages in the real world by observing that in a perfectly competitive market, wages would match the contribution of a worker to the employer's profits.

It has nothing to do with questioning actions taken by labor unions: I do that all the time. There is plenty of left-wing criticism of labor unions.
 
I'm not sure I "believe in the fundamental soundness of markets." I do mostly believe they exist and are no easier to get rid of than gravity so they have to be accounted for. You have to have a system for managing the distribution of scarce goods, and that creates markets whether you or I like it or not.
 
Liberals believe by definition in the fundamental soundness of markets (by which I mean they belCieve in markets as the best method of distributing resources).
A liberal can can mean a supporter of any of:
  • Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non-violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
  • Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement.
  • Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
  • Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights.
 
The earliest records of markets at work date back at least 10,000 years where we have found that trading of goods between distant tribes took place. Markets predate civilizations and even economic theory.
 
Liberals: "let's get a round of applause for our retail and grocery store workers
they are true heroes seeing us through this crisis"


Also liberals: "what no you can't pay grocery store workers more than minimum wage, that's


above the m̸a̸r̶k̵e̵t̸̶ v̸̖̊̅̓̈́́ã̸̻̞l̵̞̰̮̼̀ư̸̛̥̰̒e̴̬̫̼͠ o̷̰̲̯̭̦͝f̶̢͍̙̼̦̙̫̓̊͋̆̋̚͘ ̸̛͎͉̱̓ͅt̴̩̦̣̺͓̬̆̒̏̏͛͜h̴̢̯̣̟̬̱̤̘̉̑͊͒e̸̱̪͕̔̓͒̋̃͌͑ĩ̸̖͉͊͊̑͜͠r̷̘̳͕͈̙͓͇̝͑͑̒ l̴͉͕̱̘̝͂͗̋̑̂͊̑͌̈a̵̢̨̝̟̱̳̗̲̳͔̐͌̋̈́̎̋̐͝͝b̸̖̗́̊͐̈́̆ȏ̴̧̨̧̨̨͇̻̭̦̦̹̒̕r̷̩̺̼̗̩̻̘͔̩͇͌̐̒͗̈́̈́̓̍̀̂͂͝


They got a 10% pay rise here for the crisis.

Last night they had ppe.
 
I'm not sure I "believe in the fundamental soundness of markets." I do mostly believe they exist and are no easier to get rid of than gravity so they have to be accounted for. You have to have a system for managing the distribution of scarce goods, and that creates markets whether you or I like it or not.

"Markets are the only possible way to manage the distribution of scarce goods" is also included in what I'm saying for the purpose of this discussion.

A liberal can can mean a supporter of any of:
  • Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non-violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
  • Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement.
  • Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
  • Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights.

Sure. But you can't find me any kind of liberal who believes markets are not the best (or only possible) method of distributing resources. Some liberals may admit that markets aren't the best for distributing all kinds of resources but all of them will treat these cases as exceptions to a general rule.

The earliest records of markets at work date back at least 10,000 years where we have found that trading of goods between distant tribes took place. Markets predate civilizations and even economic theory.

See, you are just making this up. There are no records of markets from 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence whatsoever that markets existed anywhere 10,000 years ago.
 
"Markets are the only possible way to manage the distribution of scarce goods" is also included in what I'm saying for the purpose of this discussion.



Sure. But you can't find me any kind of liberal who believes markets are not the best (or only possible) method of distributing resources. Some liberals may admit that markets aren't the best for distributing all kinds of resources but all of them will treat these cases as exceptions to a general rule.



See, you are just making this up. There are no records of markets from 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence whatsoever that markets existed anywhere 10,000 years ago.
I consider myself a liberal, and would like social freedoms better than the EU and the markets governed a bit like Marx, at least as described by "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

What is the difference between markets and trade? Wikipedia reckons there was long distance trade in Obsidian in 17,000 BCE, I am sure there is evidence of seashells travelling long distances much before that. Sure, we do not know how the exchanges worked, but there must have been some quid pro quo involved, that could be described as a market.
 
"Markets are the only possible way to manage the distribution of scarce goods" is also included in what I'm saying for the purpose of this discussion.

Got a better option?
 
See, you are just making this up. There are no records of markets from 10,000 years ago. There is no evidence whatsoever that markets existed anywhere 10,000 years ago.
When you find non native materials in one place that are common in places far away, that is evidence of trading. In pre Columbian North America the obvious examples tropical bird feathers and cacao beans from Mexico in the US southwest. In the ME bitumen was widely traded beyond its local sources. In fact tokens were used as far back as 8000 BCE as accounting records for goods traded Sumer and the surrounding region. Tokens are the earliest record we have of concrete counting. Trade means markets.

1. Tokens as Precursor of Writing
The direct antecedent of the Mesopotamian script was a recording device consisting of clay tokens of multiple shapes (Schmandt-Besserat 1996). The artifacts, mostly of geometric forms such as cones, spheres, disks, cylinders and ovoids, are recovered in archaeological sites dating 8000–3000 BC (Fig. 1). The tokens, used as counters to keep track of goods, were the earliest code—a system of signs for transmitting information. Each token shape was semantic, referring to a particular unit of merchandise. For example, a cone and a sphere stood respectively for a small and a large measure of grain, and ovoids represented jars of oil. The repertory of some three hundred types of counters made it feasible to manipulate and store information on multiple categories of goods (Schmandt-Besserat 1992).


(Fig. 1) Envelope, tokens and corresponding markings, from Susa, Iran (Courtesy Musée du Louvre,
Département des Antiquités Orientales)
The token system had little in common with spoken language except that, like a word, a token stood for one concept. Unlike speech, tokens were restricted to one type of information only, namely, real goods. Unlike spoken language, the token system made no use of syntax. That is to say, their meaning was independent of their placement order. Three cones and three ovoids, scattered in any way, were to be translated ‘three baskets of grain, three jars of oil.’ Furthermore, the fact that the same token shapes were used in a large area of the Near East, where many dialects would have been spoken, shows that the counters were not based on phonetics. Therefore, the goods they represented were expressed in multiple languages. The token system showed the number of units of merchandize in one-to-one correspondence, in other words, the number of tokens matched the number of units counted: x jars of oil were represented by x ovoids. Repeating ‘jar of oil’ x times in order to express plurality is unlike spoken language.
 
What is the difference between markets and trade?

Exchange can take many forms other than "trade", and the difference is simple enough: in a market, prices are set by supply and demand. Most forms of exchange throughout recorded history (note I am intentionally leaving prehistory out of the bargain!) have not, strictly speaking, involved markets because prices - equivalencies between one type of good and another - have more often been set by things like royal decree or sacred custom rather than through the interaction of supply and demand.

Sure, we do not know how the exchanges worked, but there must have been some quid pro quo involved, that could be described as a market.

But see, the only reason you assume there "must have been some quid pro quo involved" is because the field of economics has largely constructed the history of markets by looking at modern society, which is permeated by markets, and projecting it backwards in time rather than through more empirical methods. If you care to look you can find plenty of examples of exchange being carried on in terms that really cannot be described in terms of simple "quid pro quo" by stateless cultures. In the absence of the coercive apparatus required to create true markets, exchange tends to be mediated by ritual and its form determined by the nature of the social relationships of those engaged in it. People engaging in exchange for pure material advantage with little or no consideration of other factors is quite rare, historically speaking, and only in the past 150 years or so has it become an important way for people to actually obtain the necessities of life.

Got a better option?

I'm not going to engage with the word "better" right now. Modern society is full of institutions that do not use markets to distribute scarce resources. For example, any company that exists today distributes resources internally based on a system more closely resembling communism (to each according to need, from each according to ability - people contribute according to their skills, and receive what they need to do their jobs) than markets. The way families distribute resources patently has nothing to do with markets. People who treat their friends only as potential profit opportunities are known as "sociopaths". And so on.

When you find non native materials in one place that are common in places far away, that is evidence of trading.

It may be simply be evidence of nomadism, or plunder in the course of warfare. There is no way to know.

Trade means markets.

Even if we assume this is the case, exchange doesn't necessarily mean trade. The fact that you apparently cannot imagine exchange that is not trade is not my problem. Of course, the next time your wife or children ask you for help with something and you don't demand payment you have experienced exchange that is not trade, so you actually do not need to use your imagination for this.

In fact tokens were used as far back as 8000 BCE as accounting records for goods traded Sumer and the surrounding region. Tokens are the earliest record we have of concrete counting. Trade means markets.

I'm glad you mention ancient Sumer, because anyone who knows anything about ancient Sumer can tell you these tokens were actually used to keep track of the palace and temple bureaucracies' rationing systems, and had nothing whatsoever to do with "trade" or "markets." Sumer is in fact an excellent example of a society in which markets played little if any role in the distribution of goods.
 
Last edited:
The earliest records of markets at work date back at least 10,000 years where we have found that trading of goods between distant tribes took place. Markets predate civilizations and even economic theory.
not gravity tho
 
I'm not going to engage with the word "better" right now. Modern society is full of institutions that do not use markets to distribute scarce resources. For example, any company that exists today distributes resources internally based on a system more closely resembling communism (to each according to need, from each according to ability - people contribute according to their skills, and receive what they need to do their jobs) than markets. The way families distribute resources patently has nothing to do with markets. People who treat their friends only as potential profit opportunities are known as "sociopaths". And so on.

Okay, so leaving out the word better...got ANY option?

Internal distribution within a company, a family, a group of friends...terrific...but the source of the goods being distributed there is an external market, so it still hasn't been eliminated from the process.

Can you point to a scarce good, now or ever, that is or was distributed through a process that did not involve markets?

Fair warning...I can, but NO ONE is going to like the marketless alternative.
 
Can you point to a scarce good, now or ever, that is or was distributed through a process that did not involve markets
In the UK, between WW2 and Magie, if you did not have anywhere to live the state would provide it. It was not as perfect as that, but mostly.
[EDIT]
Internal distribution within a company, a family, a group of friends...terrific...but the source of the goods being distributed there is an external market, so it still hasn't been eliminated from the process.
I guess your wife did not breast feed?
 
Okay, so leaving out the word better...got ANY option?

Internal distribution within a company, a family, a group of friends...terrific...but the source of the goods being distributed there is an external market, so it still hasn't been eliminated from the process.

Can you point to a scarce good, now or ever, that is or was distributed through a process that did not involve markets?

Fair warning...I can, but NO ONE is going to like the marketless alternative.

Sure. In ancient Sumer and other Bronze Age civilizations such as Crete, grains were distributed on the basis of a fixed amount per worker per day by the Temple or Palace authorities. I am not offering an opinion on whether such a system is "better" than markets, but it is pretty indisputable that such systems existed in history and, in more limited form, continue to exist today.
 
Top Bottom