cartels exist because as you progress in business, you start to form alliance to protect your business existence. It is human nature, we gather, we form a community or organisation. Alone we normally perish, but in sufficient numbers we can survive longer. A herd mentality yeah but we are pack animals. in 3rd world countries, it is sort of free market. You have the money, you can do anything you want. But those 3rd world countries are rife with cartels, not from govt protection but they form their own protection group, govt are bought up to legitimise their protectionist policy. Free market will end up at corruption again. This is just human nature. Govt will eventually intervene again, motivated by moolah given from loby groups. Just to clarify, I am not arguing for or against free market. I just think the current economy evolved from free market. Long time ago when there is barely any regulation, it is free market and everyone desired some form of protection from the predators. As years goes by, more and more protection added and you have today. Going to free market model, just goes back in history and the cycle repeats itself, if anyone is interested in solutions, try to propose an evolution of the system rather than a system reset.
Yeah, look cartels exist, there's no denying it.. But in a free market, wherever cartels exist, there also exists an opportunity for a new player into enter and change the game by not playing by the cartels rules, don't you agree?
I don't (not necessarily anyway). If the role of government is only to sponsor the courts that enforce contracts, what happens when one company employs all the really talented people in a particular field and gets them to sign non-compete agreements as part of their employment contracts? i.e. if the employees ever leave the company, they can't work in that industry for a certain period of time (often several years) so they don't go to work for a competitor and reveal trade secrets. Where does the young upstart find the people they need to actually challenge the incumbents? The non-compete part of the contract is legally valid and was entered into voluntarily by both parties. I ask because I've got friends in the states who can't operate their businesses the way they want because all the best people are out of circulation, regardless of how much you're offering.
Oh and Yippe: is it possible for you to post anything more than a single word of ridicule? Like, you know, an actual point of view that can be discussed? Or is it just going to be a long series of "BALLS!!!" again?
I like YKY's new style of assigning just a score to each post without any further words. Saves a lot of reading time.
There is no limit to human potential i.e. the amount of people that are potentially talented in a particular field is unlimited. There are new potentially talented people being born every second, there are new potentially talented university students graduating every year. A part of true free markets also is the concept of free immigration, like America in the 19th century, whereby talented people can be encouraged to come and work here regardless of how much you're offering other people. And I mean, where's your creativity? There would be a completely unconventional way of conducting whatever business you wish to speak about which doesn't require ANY of the people who where previously considered "experts" just waiting to be discovered. It will happen eventually, and sooner rather than later when the free market is left free and unhindered.
alright, let's say free market. We remove barrier of immigration to and from australia, free market the wage. Social unrest will follow as australians will be out of job from foreign labour.
The longer you leave a disease before treating it, the more painful it is to cure. But that doesn't mean that even now at this late stage we should refrain from trying to cure the disease, even though it will be painful, because ultimately, the only other option to the cure is death.
By the way, I'm not a complete free market purist. I do believe in being pragmatic. I think John Howard's immigration system was quite good, where we had large numbers of talented and skilled immigrants being invited into the country whilst keeping the back door firmly shut against sneaky interlopers with no skills and talents. In an ideal utopic world, yes, free immigration. But in modern Australian society, I merely support a very large skilled migration program, an extremely small and limited humanitarian immigration progrom (if at all), and absolutely NO irregular maritime asylum seeker immigration.
If we had a truly free market economy with no government interference, which will then mean no mandated welfare - vulnerable people will be looked after by their own extended family and communities. Once the welfare stops - so too will the economic refugees .... which make up probably around 99% of all the boat arrivals and other refugees. They're here for one reason and one reason only - our f..ed up welfare system which pays/feeds/clothes them from day 1 they arrive unannounced... Take away the welfare - and all other moronic government meddling - and the tsunami of unskilled gangsters (which is what most of them become by the way) arriving by the boatload will cease!
Of for Pete's sake, we've been through this before. That system assumes there are extended families for people to rely on as and when they hit hard times. If you don't have an extended family, you're stuffed. Or maybe you do have an extended family but they just scale down the whole-of-society principle that they shouldn't have to look after you because there's no benefit in it for them, in which case you're stuffed. Welfare didn't come about because it was a cute social theory, it was introduced to stop people starving (or committing crimes to avoid starving). My family is in this country today because 200-odd years ago they didn't have a functioning welfare system in England and one of my ancestors got caught stealing food to eat because he was hungry. Seriously, pull your head out of whatever crevice it's buried in and at least make an effort to think before going on (and on) about this stuff.
My point is that private contracts can effectively regulate a market just as well (read: just as badly) as laws introduced by government can.
In the seat of Gilmore in NSW around 40% of the population are on welfare. A lot of "vulnerable" people for those that work to provide for. The federal member there implemented a very successful work for the dole scheme, it was going really well and was giving a lot of confidence and a big boost to those involved. And the unions came in and squashed it. "It is taking work away from our members". Another example of Labor and the Unions ruining something good. Labor's definition of "vulnerable" people is "anyone who doesn't want to get a job but will vote for us because we take money off those who work for a living and give it to you".
I couldn't give a stuff what the "orginal intent" of the welfare system was ... the fact is its a f.. up! one of the MANY unintended consequences of welfare (besides stealing money from taxpayers) is this monstrous refugee problem we have! I'm guessing you're one of the those highly intelligent people who has precious little common sense...
+1 Given the tripe that you usually spout, this is definately one of your 'less stupid' comments... :lol:
The welfare system as we know it was ushered in from 1946. The people of the Commonwealth managed to get by with only invalid and age pensions before that. It could get by like that in the future but would require significant structural change.
