Using the Free Market to Fight Discrimination

All well and good when you have national monopolies in small nations competing in a large international market. That doesn't change the reality though. A free market will inherently concentrate itself out of existence unless some sort of monopoly prevention is applied.

The 17th century economic order wasn't exactly a free market dystopia. Governments still managed to max out competitiveness internationally while rooting out competition that could hurt that international competitiveness. Markets were protected very effectively from self-destructive tendencies while retaining the fundamental dynamism that make market economies advantageous.
 
Although not, as any Irishman, Indonesia or American Indian could testify, its tendency to destroy others.
 
Although not, as any Irishman, Indonesia or American Indian could testify, its tendency to destroy others.

To them I'd say swallow it and move forward. Nobody in the Netherlands today still complains about the German occupation and claims it entitles us to have others build our entire economy for Christ sake, and if we did, we would have become a Third world country by now. It is already bad enough that we accepted Marshall aid.
 
The 17th century economic order wasn't exactly a free market dystopia. Governments still managed to max out competitiveness internationally while rooting out competition that could hurt that international competitiveness. Markets were protected very effectively from self-destructive tendencies while retaining the fundamental dynamism that make market economies advantageous.

In small nations. How do you think that form of market would fare today? We could experiment and see. I'm sure China would be willing. The US would be if they weren't governed by a democracy of the clueless about matters economic. The entire basis for forming the EU is to make Europe something other than little bits of road kill on this particular highway.

That 'international free market' still has the inherent flaw of the free market...it naturally selects for ever larger, more monopolistic enterprises until there is no longer a free market. The death of the free market is built in, and without some outside influence to protect it from itself the free market cannot last.
 
To them I'd say swallow it and move forward. Nobody in the Netherlands today still complains about the German occupation and claims it entitles us to have others build our entire economy for Christ sake, and if we did, we would have become a Third world country by now. It is already bad enough that we accepted Marshall aid.
Is everything just a morality play, for you? It seems that way.
 
The 17th century economic order wasn't exactly a free market dystopia. Governments still managed to max out competitiveness internationally while rooting out competition that could hurt that international competitiveness. Markets were protected very effectively from self-destructive tendencies while retaining the fundamental dynamism that make market economies advantageous.

They have. Self pitying "woe is me" is not one of the chains hindering economic development in the Third World. There are plenty of others however, that make the task next to impossible.
 
They have. Self pitying "woe is me" is not one of the chains hindering economic development in the Third World. There are plenty of others however, that make the task next to impossible.

Thing is, the political classes in the third world get fairly rich by funneling development aid into their private banking accounts and paying mercenaries to keep competitors away. Of course, the alternative being Somalia.

Is everything just a morality play, for you? It seems that way.

From an Abrahamic and utilitarian perspective, I profess an 'evil' morality. I'm at peace with that. I find most pagan religions to have a far more appealing morality than Christianity.

In small nations. How do you think that form of market would fare today? We could experiment and see. I'm sure China would be willing. The US would be if they weren't governed by a democracy of the clueless about matters economic. The entire basis for forming the EU is to make Europe something other than little bits of road kill on this particular highway.

That 'international free market' still has the inherent flaw of the free market...it naturally selects for ever larger, more monopolistic enterprises until there is no longer a free market. The death of the free market is built in, and without some outside influence to protect it from itself the free market cannot last.

Well, there is no universally good or bad economic policy. Stringent protectionism would be bad for the Netherlands, since Rotterdam is the largest seaport in Europe. Though a policy of allowing cartelisation of Dutch companies would be a good thing and allow our companies to stand a chance against larger American and Chinese companies.

To give another example, Russia will always have Soviet trappings in their economy, given that the protection of military and national security interests are the main end, economics merely serving that end. To ensure that economics serve that national security interest, weapon manufacturers are owned by the state and a complex system of patronage (which haters call 'corruption') is in place. Thus, I don't see Russia ever becoming a nation of free enterprise the way America is, and where that kind of freedom is an end in itself.
 
To give another example, Russia will always have Soviet trappings in their economy, given that the protection of military and national security interests are the main end, economics merely serving that end. To ensure that economics serve that national security interest, weapon manufacturers are owned by the state and a complex system of patronage (which haters call 'corruption') is in place. Thus, I don't see Russia ever becoming a nation of free enterprise the way America is, and where that kind of freedom is an end in itself.

:lol:

In America, instead of weapon manufacturers being owned by the state the state is owned by the weapon manufacturers. Or at the very least rented intermittently.
 
:lol:

In America, instead of weapon manufacturers being owned by the state the state is owned by the weapon manufacturers. Or at the very least rented intermittently.

CommunLobbyism!
 
From an Abrahamic and utilitarian perspective, I profess an 'evil' morality. I'm at peace with that. I find most pagan religions to have a far more appealing morality than Christianity.
This is real life, not D&D.
 
With the risk of going Jean Beaudrilliard-esque: D&D might be more real than real-life.
Well, in Third Edition you can technically min-max the spelunking skill to the point where a full-grown adult can climb inside another person's anus, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.
 
Well, in Third Edition you can technically min-max the spelunking skill to the point where a full-grown adult can climb inside another person's anus, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

And answers like these is why I always come to regret many of my posts!
 
Well, in Third Edition you can technically min-max the spelunking skill to the point where a full-grown adult can climb inside another person's anus, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

Are you trying to say that in real life a full grown adult cannot climb inside another person's anus? You should be aware that there are places in the world that such a claim would be taken as a challenge.
 
Well, in Third Edition you can technically min-max the spelunking skill to the point where a full-grown adult can climb inside another person's anus, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

I like how much "full-grown adult" adds. Wouldn't need salt for a child.
 
So is spelunking a mix of Climb & Escape Artist or Profession (Caver) & Knowledge (Dungeoneering)?
 
"Spelunk" is the sound a clumsy caver makes when she falls over, apparently.

I'd say this is some roomy anus, you have here. But if we could just find where I've parked my car in this immensity, we could drive straight out.
 
Back
Top Bottom