Random thoughts and plans for the coming inflation.

[Metalcat]

There’s also an interesting confluence of events.

1) Texas ice storm shuts down a bunch of chip production, and affects other products like oil too.
2) Suez Canal blockage.
3) Most travel and dining spending is still held back, so people are buying stuff instead of experiences (guess which is more heavily weighted in the inflation numbers)
4) Ongoing port congestion is affecting just in time supply chains
5) Interstate 40 was shut down because a bridge at Memphis broke, driving up transportation costs.
6) Tens of thousands of businesses that laid off people in 2020 are suddenly reversing course and trying to find employees again. Until they get back the levels of trained staffing they had in early 2020, production is less than 100%. This is especially acute at sawmills. But their old employees moved on; unemployment is only 6%.
7) Because of issues #1 and #6, a lot of businesses that could operate at 100% are facing supply chain issues, like automakers.

We all know these specific backlogs will be resolved within a year. Unemployment bonuses will end by Sept.

But! But! Fear! Chaos!! Everyone's plans are doomed!!!

That's true too. Wait until the masses realize they're all going to die someday and have a limited number of SUV-loads to haul back home from the strip malls.

I feel like people forget that there is an entire lucrative industry behind making people freak out about literally *anything* the economy does. Like, armies of people are paid to convince everyone that the sky is actually falling.

I've readily adopted a low news diet because of this. Not low information, I love to be informed, I just get my information from more reliable sources: well researched literature written after the fact.

Very little information immediately impacts what I do on a day to day basis, especially in terms of my finances. So I rarely need anything speculative, which spares me a lot of hand wringing and pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth.

[pecunia]

The Cat's right.  The flip side of this is that the news is filled with talking heads guessing at what is going to possibly happen rather than having people out there in the field digging for what may be considered "real" news that could impact your life.

[ChpBstrd]

There’s also an interesting confluence of events.

1) Texas ice storm shuts down a bunch of chip production, and affects other products like oil too.
2) Suez Canal blockage.
3) Most travel and dining spending is still held back, so people are buying stuff instead of experiences (guess which is more heavily weighted in the inflation numbers)
4) Ongoing port congestion is affecting just in time supply chains
5) Interstate 40 was shut down because a bridge at Memphis broke, driving up transportation costs.
6) Tens of thousands of businesses that laid off people in 2020 are suddenly reversing course and trying to find employees again. Until they get back the levels of trained staffing they had in early 2020, production is less than 100%. This is especially acute at sawmills. But their old employees moved on; unemployment is only 6%.
7) Because of issues #1 and #6, a lot of businesses that could operate at 100% are facing supply chain issues, like automakers.

We all know these specific backlogs will be resolved within a year. Unemployment bonuses will end by Sept.

But! But! Fear! Chaos!! Everyone's plans are doomed!!!

That's true too. Wait until the masses realize they're all going to die someday and have a limited number of SUV-loads to haul back home from the strip malls.

I feel like people forget that there is an entire lucrative industry behind making people freak out about literally *anything* the economy does. Like, armies of people are paid to convince everyone that the sky is actually falling.

I've readily adopted a low news diet because of this. Not low information, I love to be informed, I just get my information from more reliable sources: well researched literature written after the fact.

Very little information immediately impacts what I do on a day to day basis, especially in terms of my finances. So I rarely need anything speculative, which spares me a lot of hand wringing and pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth.

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

[Michael in ABQ]

There’s also an interesting confluence of events.

1) Texas ice storm shuts down a bunch of chip production, and affects other products like oil too.
2) Suez Canal blockage.
3) Most travel and dining spending is still held back, so people are buying stuff instead of experiences (guess which is more heavily weighted in the inflation numbers)
4) Ongoing port congestion is affecting just in time supply chains
5) Interstate 40 was shut down because a bridge at Memphis broke, driving up transportation costs.
6) Tens of thousands of businesses that laid off people in 2020 are suddenly reversing course and trying to find employees again. Until they get back the levels of trained staffing they had in early 2020, production is less than 100%. This is especially acute at sawmills. But their old employees moved on; unemployment is only 6%.
7) Because of issues #1 and #6, a lot of businesses that could operate at 100% are facing supply chain issues, like automakers.

We all know these specific backlogs will be resolved within a year. Unemployment bonuses will end by Sept.

But! But! Fear! Chaos!! Everyone's plans are doomed!!!

That's true too. Wait until the masses realize they're all going to die someday and have a limited number of SUV-loads to haul back home from the strip malls.

I feel like people forget that there is an entire lucrative industry behind making people freak out about literally *anything* the economy does. Like, armies of people are paid to convince everyone that the sky is actually falling.

I've readily adopted a low news diet because of this. Not low information, I love to be informed, I just get my information from more reliable sources: well researched literature written after the fact.

Very little information immediately impacts what I do on a day to day basis, especially in terms of my finances. So I rarely need anything speculative, which spares me a lot of hand wringing and pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth.

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

Good read. There's a lot of money to be made selling snake oil as well. I listen to a lot of podcasts in the internet marketing and ecommerce space and there are many companies selling millions of dollars of supplements that probably provide zero real benefits (if not causing harm). They use lots of buzzwords and generally try to stay away from actual medical claims like curing or preventing anything. Instead they use vague claims like "supports your immune system". You know what else supports your immune system? Eating food, drinking water, exercise, getting sleep. Basically anything that will keep you alive. But of course there's not as much money to be made in telling people to get enough sleep, exercise, eat a balanced diet with fresh fruits and vegetables, etc. But distill everything into a pill and you can sell a 30-day supply for the low price of just $24.99. And if that supplement was made in China odds are it doesn't even contain the active ingredients it claims too - are contains so little as to be meaningless. After all, who's going to dump out that pill and get an exact assay of every ingredient to verify the label is 100% accurate? There's enough suckers to buy into their marketing hype to make for a lot of very lucrative businesses.

[EvenSteven]

There’s also an interesting confluence of events.

1) Texas ice storm shuts down a bunch of chip production, and affects other products like oil too.
2) Suez Canal blockage.
3) Most travel and dining spending is still held back, so people are buying stuff instead of experiences (guess which is more heavily weighted in the inflation numbers)
4) Ongoing port congestion is affecting just in time supply chains
5) Interstate 40 was shut down because a bridge at Memphis broke, driving up transportation costs.
6) Tens of thousands of businesses that laid off people in 2020 are suddenly reversing course and trying to find employees again. Until they get back the levels of trained staffing they had in early 2020, production is less than 100%. This is especially acute at sawmills. But their old employees moved on; unemployment is only 6%.
7) Because of issues #1 and #6, a lot of businesses that could operate at 100% are facing supply chain issues, like automakers.

We all know these specific backlogs will be resolved within a year. Unemployment bonuses will end by Sept.

But! But! Fear! Chaos!! Everyone's plans are doomed!!!

That's true too. Wait until the masses realize they're all going to die someday and have a limited number of SUV-loads to haul back home from the strip malls.

I feel like people forget that there is an entire lucrative industry behind making people freak out about literally *anything* the economy does. Like, armies of people are paid to convince everyone that the sky is actually falling.

I've readily adopted a low news diet because of this. Not low information, I love to be informed, I just get my information from more reliable sources: well researched literature written after the fact.

Very little information immediately impacts what I do on a day to day basis, especially in terms of my finances. So I rarely need anything speculative, which spares me a lot of hand wringing and pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth.

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

Good read. There's a lot of money to be made selling snake oil as well. I listen to a lot of podcasts in the internet marketing and ecommerce space and there are many companies selling millions of dollars of supplements that probably provide zero real benefits (if not causing harm). They use lots of buzzwords and generally try to stay away from actual medical claims like curing or preventing anything. Instead they use vague claims like "supports your immune system". You know what else supports your immune system? Eating food, drinking water, exercise, getting sleep. Basically anything that will keep you alive. But of course there's not as much money to be made in telling people to get enough sleep, exercise, eat a balanced diet with fresh fruits and vegetables, etc. But distill everything into a pill and you can sell a 30-day supply for the low price of just $24.99. And if that supplement was made in China odds are it doesn't even contain the active ingredients it claims too - are contains so little as to be meaningless. After all, who's going to dump out that pill and get an exact assay of every ingredient to verify the label is 100% accurate? There's enough suckers to buy into their marketing hype to make for a lot of very lucrative businesses.

But will it increase my vitality?

[Metalcat]

There’s also an interesting confluence of events.

1) Texas ice storm shuts down a bunch of chip production, and affects other products like oil too.
2) Suez Canal blockage.
3) Most travel and dining spending is still held back, so people are buying stuff instead of experiences (guess which is more heavily weighted in the inflation numbers)
4) Ongoing port congestion is affecting just in time supply chains
5) Interstate 40 was shut down because a bridge at Memphis broke, driving up transportation costs.
6) Tens of thousands of businesses that laid off people in 2020 are suddenly reversing course and trying to find employees again. Until they get back the levels of trained staffing they had in early 2020, production is less than 100%. This is especially acute at sawmills. But their old employees moved on; unemployment is only 6%.
7) Because of issues #1 and #6, a lot of businesses that could operate at 100% are facing supply chain issues, like automakers.

We all know these specific backlogs will be resolved within a year. Unemployment bonuses will end by Sept.

But! But! Fear! Chaos!! Everyone's plans are doomed!!!

That's true too. Wait until the masses realize they're all going to die someday and have a limited number of SUV-loads to haul back home from the strip malls.

I feel like people forget that there is an entire lucrative industry behind making people freak out about literally *anything* the economy does. Like, armies of people are paid to convince everyone that the sky is actually falling.

I've readily adopted a low news diet because of this. Not low information, I love to be informed, I just get my information from more reliable sources: well researched literature written after the fact.

Very little information immediately impacts what I do on a day to day basis, especially in terms of my finances. So I rarely need anything speculative, which spares me a lot of hand wringing and pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth.

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

Good read. There's a lot of money to be made selling snake oil as well. I listen to a lot of podcasts in the internet marketing and ecommerce space and there are many companies selling millions of dollars of supplements that probably provide zero real benefits (if not causing harm). They use lots of buzzwords and generally try to stay away from actual medical claims like curing or preventing anything. Instead they use vague claims like "supports your immune system". You know what else supports your immune system? Eating food, drinking water, exercise, getting sleep. Basically anything that will keep you alive. But of course there's not as much money to be made in telling people to get enough sleep, exercise, eat a balanced diet with fresh fruits and vegetables, etc. But distill everything into a pill and you can sell a 30-day supply for the low price of just $24.99. And if that supplement was made in China odds are it doesn't even contain the active ingredients it claims too - are contains so little as to be meaningless. After all, who's going to dump out that pill and get an exact assay of every ingredient to verify the label is 100% accurate? There's enough suckers to buy into their marketing hype to make for a lot of very lucrative businesses.

Well, yeah, there's scammy, questionable marketing in every industry, not just health supplements. It's ubiquitous.

The vast majority of things people believe are picked up from someone who was paid to convince people to believe them. That's not good or bad, it's just what it is, and it's pretty important to remember.

My point about fear being marketed to us wasn't even specifically about fake fear being marketed to us. It's a simple fact that fear based news sells best, so even "legitimate" news coverage is frequently marketed through a fear filter to gain more traction.

If you feel fear about something to do with the economy, it's a pretty safe bet that experts were paid to make you specifically feel that way.

[ChpBstrd]

There’s also an interesting confluence of events.

1) Texas ice storm shuts down a bunch of chip production, and affects other products like oil too.
2) Suez Canal blockage.
3) Most travel and dining spending is still held back, so people are buying stuff instead of experiences (guess which is more heavily weighted in the inflation numbers)
4) Ongoing port congestion is affecting just in time supply chains
5) Interstate 40 was shut down because a bridge at Memphis broke, driving up transportation costs.
6) Tens of thousands of businesses that laid off people in 2020 are suddenly reversing course and trying to find employees again. Until they get back the levels of trained staffing they had in early 2020, production is less than 100%. This is especially acute at sawmills. But their old employees moved on; unemployment is only 6%.
7) Because of issues #1 and #6, a lot of businesses that could operate at 100% are facing supply chain issues, like automakers.

We all know these specific backlogs will be resolved within a year. Unemployment bonuses will end by Sept.

But! But! Fear! Chaos!! Everyone's plans are doomed!!!

That's true too. Wait until the masses realize they're all going to die someday and have a limited number of SUV-loads to haul back home from the strip malls.

I feel like people forget that there is an entire lucrative industry behind making people freak out about literally *anything* the economy does. Like, armies of people are paid to convince everyone that the sky is actually falling.

I've readily adopted a low news diet because of this. Not low information, I love to be informed, I just get my information from more reliable sources: well researched literature written after the fact.

Very little information immediately impacts what I do on a day to day basis, especially in terms of my finances. So I rarely need anything speculative, which spares me a lot of hand wringing and pearl clutching and gnashing of teeth.

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

Good read. There's a lot of money to be made selling snake oil as well. I listen to a lot of podcasts in the internet marketing and ecommerce space and there are many companies selling millions of dollars of supplements that probably provide zero real benefits (if not causing harm). They use lots of buzzwords and generally try to stay away from actual medical claims like curing or preventing anything. Instead they use vague claims like "supports your immune system". You know what else supports your immune system? Eating food, drinking water, exercise, getting sleep. Basically anything that will keep you alive. But of course there's not as much money to be made in telling people to get enough sleep, exercise, eat a balanced diet with fresh fruits and vegetables, etc. But distill everything into a pill and you can sell a 30-day supply for the low price of just $24.99. And if that supplement was made in China odds are it doesn't even contain the active ingredients it claims too - are contains so little as to be meaningless. After all, who's going to dump out that pill and get an exact assay of every ingredient to verify the label is 100% accurate? There's enough suckers to buy into their marketing hype to make for a lot of very lucrative businesses.

Well, yeah, there's scammy, questionable marketing in every industry, not just health supplements. It's ubiquitous.

The vast majority of things people believe are picked up from someone who was paid to convince people to believe them. That's not good or bad, it's just what it is, and it's pretty important to remember.

My point about fear being marketed to us wasn't even specifically about fake fear being marketed to us. It's a simple fact that fear based news sells best, so even "legitimate" news coverage is frequently marketed through a fear filter to gain more traction.

If you feel fear about something to do with the economy, it's a pretty safe bet that experts were paid to make you specifically feel that way.

There’s a fear economy in both the news media and social media.
There’s also a misinformation economy particular to social media.

In terms of personal finance, consumption of products from the fear economy can cause rapid investment turnover, too-conservative AA’s, or unrealistically high FI numbers. Consumption of products from the misinformation economy could lead to esoteric or speculative investments such as gold, crypto, penny stocks, or meme stocks, or simply victimization through pump-and-dump scams, or failure to invest at all because of conspiracy beliefs. IMO, the later is far more dangerous. How does one retire when one thinks the fiat currently apocalypse is nigh, as predicted by Qanon?

In terms of healthcare, the misinformation economy can cause you to end up dead from a preventable infection, treatable cancer, or supplement poisoning. Steve Jobs died from misinformation.

Ads and affiliate links are enough to persuade some people to make a living out of producing false information. The misinformation economy is expanding to all domains.

[ender]

There’s a fear economy in both the news media and social media.
There’s also a misinformation economy particular to social media.

I've used the phrase "panic porn" to describe this.

[Simpleton]

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

I've never understood how such a litigious country like the US does not litigate people like this out of existence.

If you can sue someone for your coffee being too hot, how do people not go bankrupt selling fake cancer treatments? I would think an enterprising lawyer would put together a class action on behalf of whomever, and take everything these people own. Seems like an easy case and easy money for the lawyer.

Instead it seems they are filing suit against people stealing trademarks on the snake oil!

[Metalcat]

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

I've never understood how such a litigious country like the US does not litigate people like this out of existence.

If you can sue someone for your coffee being too hot, how do people not go bankrupt selling fake cancer treatments?

That's a bit disingenuous, and leads me to believe that you aren't familiar with the coffee case.

If someone irreparably burned your genitals off with a product that was so dangerous it was deemed "unsafe for consumption", you would probably sue too. And she didn't want to sue, she only asked for 20K, and they refused, and that's how it ended up in court where the legal system legitimately determined that she was owed much more due to their criminal negligence.

Of course the world made a joke of it, but one look at the pictures should make anyone who questioned that case swallow their damn tongue.

[PDXTabs]

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

I've never understood how such a litigious country like the US does not litigate people like this out of existence.

Would it really matter? I mean next time I'll just launch my deepstate media empire as a Nevada shell corporation that is owned by a Panamanian shell corporation that is owned by a Ukrainian shell corporation that is owned by my actual corporation in the Cayman Islands. Seriously, read Moneyland by Oliver Bullough.

By the time you work through the case the money will be gone.

[Scandium]

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

I've never understood how such a litigious country like the US does not litigate people like this out of existence.

If you can sue someone for your coffee being too hot, how do people not go bankrupt selling fake cancer treatments? I would think an enterprising lawyer would put together a class action on behalf of whomever, and take everything these people own. Seems like an easy case and easy money for the lawyer.

Instead it seems they are filing suit against people stealing trademarks on the snake oil!

Selling DVDs is not illegal (mostly), even if what's on there isn't true. You can't sue lord of the rings if you thought it was a documentary.. If idiots want to believe it that's their problem. They are usually very careful with what they claim. Avoiding medical claims, cures etc, as that would indeed be illegal.

Secondly, even if they were sued they just start another business doing the same thing. Not to mention the other dozen copycats already..

[ChpBstrd]

This should be a mandatory read for anyone with an internet connection.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/14/disinformation-media-vaccine-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR0vwzbWJTFx139ZO4CzrazdTl5VHhleeDuptAKohQmyIHlf5o2PryJ3ngU

I've never understood how such a litigious country like the US does not litigate people like this out of existence.

If you can sue someone for your coffee being too hot, how do people not go bankrupt selling fake cancer treatments? I would think an enterprising lawyer would put together a class action on behalf of whomever, and take everything these people own. Seems like an easy case and easy money for the lawyer.

Instead it seems they are filing suit against people stealing trademarks on the snake oil!

The business model is to not transfer anything to the victim except for misinformation. The actual money is made from ads, endorsements, and affiliate links. Thus the victims walk away with nothing, even if they donate or subscribe, that could directly connect the influencer to the pitfall that will be experienced by the victim such as financial losses in markets, death or disability from preventable diseases, loss of reputation or family ties due to spreading stupid conspiracy theories, legal liability, or even loss of life due to foregoing legitimate medical care. It’s the rubes who stormed the Capitol who are going to jail, and the true-believer antivaxxers and their children who are getting sick, not their influencer puppet masters.

When misinformation is their product, a seller can claim First Amendment protection from its consequences. This is strange because in an earlier era, courts drew a line at speech which caused harm, such as yelling “fire!” in a theatre and sparking a stampede. Since those days we have taken an ultra-libertarian turn, particular to the internet, so that anything goes. Now we have foreign governments using social media for information warfare and do little or nothing about it.

I suspect one of the great debate themes of the late 2020s through 2030s will be the limits of people’s rights to sow misinformation and anti-democracy propaganda online. We’re not there yet because most people still believe the info they consume through the internet is legit, and few are aware of the ways influencers make money off of them.

[pecunia]

Who made money from me reading these entries?  Was it misinformation because much didn't even deal with upcoming inflation?

[Simpleton]

The business model is to not transfer anything to the victim except for misinformation. The actual money is made from ads, endorsements, and affiliate links. Thus the victims walk away with nothing, even if they donate or subscribe, that could directly connect the influencer to the pitfall that will be experienced by the victim such as financial losses in markets, death or disability from preventable diseases, loss of reputation or family ties due to spreading stupid conspiracy theories, legal liability, or even loss of life due to foregoing legitimate medical care. It’s the rubes who stormed the Capitol who are going to jail, and the true-believer antivaxxers and their children who are getting sick, not their influencer puppet masters.

I am not a lawyer - perhaps I do not appreciate what past precedents have been set, but if you are earning money from a product, directly or indirectly, are you not liable in some way for its effects?

Ikea can sell a chest of drawers and perhaps not account for children climbing it, and still be liable for the effect of that unforeseen action of a child toppling it over. There was no intent for the child to climb it.

How can someone directly selling medical advice (misinformation) not be liable for its accuracy? That much doesn't make sense to me. The presumed intent would be for someone to follow the advice. I would assume the liability should be greater for any harm resulting.

Maybe a lawyer could fill me in about how you all get richer with each of these situations the way they are! Haha jk.

[Radagast]

The problem though, is with your initial conditions.  Specifically that there are three participants in the slave trade.  There are only two participants - slave owner and slave vendor.  The slave him/herself is the commodity, not a participant.  This is consistent with other commodities.  Horses might be sold from one person to another, but the horse isn't considered a participant in the trade.

You are correct about the micro, but what about the macro? Where did the slave buyer get the money? Why buy slaves? You ignore the commodities which the slaves make, which are the very reason the trade is possible. Your view is from the perspective of the slave traders. Ask slave traders if they are participants in a free market and they'd say something like "certainly." Ask they slaves if they are, and they'd say some version of "fuck, no." Which is why it is not.

~GuitarStv walks into a market, and realizes it is trading slaves. Observes 2 sellers, 10 bidders, and 20 armed goons who appear to be free. Observes 100 slaves who do not appear to be free. Declares "yup, this is a free market!"~
That seems like a serious departure from reality to me.

You start by ignoring the essence of a slave-based market, which is the produce of the slaves. Yeah, if you start be ignoring the very most important, defining aspect, raison-d'etre of something then it is easy to sound logical. You are also flat wrong.

"The slave market is a free market, except for the slaves."

"My house is a stick-built house, except for the foundation." No shit, Sherlock. Except for the foundation, your house would collapse in a pile of rubble and you wouldn't be able to call it a house anymore.

You appear to be using an unusual and non-standard definition of 'free-market'.  The one that I'm using is:
"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

Let's use your definition, because I am not particular.

unregulated system

Every aspect of a slave's life is heavily regulated.

taxes

Slaves pay a 100% tax at the end of every day, less a grudging survival stipend and a rare didn't-rock-the-boat bonus.

quality controls

Look! There is one single thing your definition of the free market has in common with slavery!

quotas

I haven't gotten much history since I left school, but I recall that slaves usually had to meet quotas in the agricultural sector.

tariffs

Absolute tariffs, just as with taxes

centralized economic interventions

Yup, that is what slavery is all about

The United States required the 13th amendment to explicitly prevent this free trade.

See, you have it backward. The 13th outlawed unfree trade. That is even what the text says.

It's an interesting theory that the slave trade weakens a place economically through lack of innovation, and one that I suspect has some truth to it.  It's entirely that the south's love of slavery would have led to their downfall at some point.  There exists significant slave trade in many modern states today . . . including the UAE, India, and China.  While I wouldn't call any of them meccas of innovation, they're also not economic weaklings because of the slavery they enjoy.

It doesn't happen instantly, it's a compounding problem. Slavery in a subsistence agricultural society where meaningful innovations were rare (look, humans have been riding horses for three thousand years and I just invented the stirrup!) would be a viable solution for thousands of years before falling behind the times. Since the industrial revolution, it happens within a matter of decades. Those nations are a fraction as prosperous as the fully free economies are. I doubt they will be able to exceed 1/3 or at most 1/2 the per capita GDP of the free economies without meaningful reform.

Could you fully define what you believe a 'free market' is?  It doesn't seem to be the commonly used definition - as human rights are not generally mentioned as part of a free market.  This type of definition raises some interesting questions.  For example, does oppression of gay and trans people prevent a market from being free in your eyes?

I never gave a definition, so let's use yours.

I would say it is "less free" but not black and white like slavery is. Opportunities are reduced, which is very harmful to the affected individuals, and also harmful to society as a whole though it is so spread out it is hard to notice.

The crux of your argument is
"The slave market is a free market, for the slave traders." That doesn't sound like a free market to me, or to most people I would guess. If you don't add the qualification then your claim is not accurate. If you add it, it is obvious this is not a free market.

[GuitarStv]

The problem though, is with your initial conditions.  Specifically that there are three participants in the slave trade.  There are only two participants - slave owner and slave vendor.  The slave him/herself is the commodity, not a participant.  This is consistent with other commodities.  Horses might be sold from one person to another, but the horse isn't considered a participant in the trade.

You are correct about the micro, but what about the macro? Where did the slave buyer get the money? Why buy slaves? You ignore the commodities which the slaves make, which are the very reason the trade is possible. Your view is from the perspective of the slave traders. Ask slave traders if they are participants in a free market and they'd say something like "certainly." Ask they slaves if they are, and they'd say some version of "fuck, no." Which is why it is not.

You are correct.  I do view the state of a trading market as being dependent upon the freedom of actors within the market to perform trades without external interference from a government.  That is the gist of the definition I gave.

~GuitarStv walks into a market, and realizes it is trading slaves. Observes 2 sellers, 10 bidders, and 20 armed goons who appear to be free. Observes 100 slaves who do not appear to be free. Declares "yup, this is a free market!"~
That seems like a serious departure from reality to me.

It is consistent with the dictionary definition of 'free market' that I gave.  You appear to be conflating 'freedom' with 'free market'.  'Free market' has a specific economic connotation that is unrelated to the freedom of commodifies sold in the market.  Otherwise livestock could never be sold in a free market - as livestock are not free.

You start by ignoring the essence of a slave-based market, which is the produce of the slaves. Yeah, if you start be ignoring the very most important, defining aspect, raison-d'etre of something then it is easy to sound logical. You are also flat wrong.

"The slave market is a free market, except for the slaves."

"My house is a stick-built house, except for the foundation." No shit, Sherlock. Except for the foundation, your house would collapse in a pile of rubble and you wouldn't be able to call it a house anymore.

Not quite.

We were not discussing 'the slave market'.  We were the whole market of the United States while slavery was ongoing.  The market experienced some government regulation by way of taxation and tariff, however was remarkably free to do as buyers/sellers wanted regarding the trade of slaves.  It was only by government led market interference that the slave trade ended.

You appear to be using an unusual and non-standard definition of 'free-market'.  The one that I'm using is:
"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

Let's use your definition, because I am not particular.

unregulated system

Every aspect of a slave's life is heavily regulated.

taxes

Slaves pay a 100% tax at the end of every day, less a grudging survival stipend and a rare didn't-rock-the-boat bonus.

quality controls

Look! There is one single thing your definition of the free market has in common with slavery!

quotas

I haven't gotten much history since I left school, but I recall that slaves usually had to meet quotas in the agricultural sector.

tariffs

Absolute tariffs, just as with taxes

centralized economic interventions

Yup, that is what slavery is all about.

The semantics that you're using are so different from the commonly accepted dictionary definitions that I'm not entirely sure that we will be able to continue to discuss this matter in a productive manner.
- Regulation in the context of the definition I gave refers to government regulation of the buying and selling in the market.  If someone sells a livestock on the free market, the livestock lives a life heavily regulated.  This has no bearing on the 'freeness' of a market.
- A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue.  As slaves have no income, they cannot pay taxes.  Just as a puppy doesn't pay taxes to it's owner, this is a serious misuse of the term.
- The quality controls and quotas mentioned in the context of the definition are imposed by governments.  This does not apply to private enterprise, or no business that requires an employee meet a quota would be part of the free market.
- A tariff is a tax or duty paid on a class of imports/exports.  Slaves do not pay tariffs (although tariffs may be paid upon them - which would be a limit to the free market trade of slaves).  Again, this is a misuse of the term.

No, none of the arguments made have a bearing on the definition of free market that was given.

The United States required the 13th amendment to explicitly prevent this free trade.

See, you have it backward. The 13th outlawed unfree trade. That is even what the text says.

The text of the 13th Amendment explicitly prevents the slave trade by banning the (then common) practice of slavery:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It's an interesting theory that the slave trade weakens a place economically through lack of innovation, and one that I suspect has some truth to it.  It's entirely that the south's love of slavery would have led to their downfall at some point.  There exists significant slave trade in many modern states today . . . including the UAE, India, and China.  While I wouldn't call any of them meccas of innovation, they're also not economic weaklings because of the slavery they enjoy.

It doesn't happen instantly, it's a compounding problem. Slavery in a subsistence agricultural society where meaningful innovations were rare (look, humans have been riding horses for three thousand years and I just invented the stirrup!) would be a viable solution for thousands of years before falling behind the times. Since the industrial revolution, it happens within a matter of decades. Those nations are a fraction as prosperous as the fully free economies are. I doubt they will be able to exceed 1/3 or at most 1/2 the per capita GDP of the free economies without meaningful reform.

I haven't read any studies done of this matter, but what you're arguing here certainly seems to make intuitive sense.  Enabling more people is likely to increase the pool of those able to contribute important ideas.  There are a few niggling inconsistencies that make me question my intuition though.

Racism and race related oppression have been a constant in the US throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s (arguably continuing to this day) . . . but the United States was a significant world wide innovator through all these periods and was tremendously prosperous.

I'm not sure that per capita GDP is a particularly important measure that would prove this 'innovation edge' either.  Luxembourg has a per capita GDP roughly twice that of the United States, but I don't believe Luxembourg is known as a mecca of innovation in the world.

Could you fully define what you believe a 'free market' is?  It doesn't seem to be the commonly used definition - as human rights are not generally mentioned as part of a free market.  This type of definition raises some interesting questions.  For example, does oppression of gay and trans people prevent a market from being free in your eyes?

I never gave a definition, so let's use yours.

I would say it is "less free" but not black and white like slavery is. Opportunities are reduced, which is very harmful to the affected individuals, and also harmful to society as a whole though it is so spread out it is hard to notice.

If we use my definition, then the freedom of the commodities has no bearing on whether or not a market adheres to 'free market' conditions.

The definition that you're using still seems to be a strange one.  What are your feelings about the freedom of livestock?

The crux of your argument is
"The slave market is a free market, for the slave traders." That doesn't sound like a free market to me, or to most people I would guess. If you don't add the qualification then your claim is not accurate. If you add it, it is obvious this is not a free market.

Yes.  When people are treated as livestock, then I expect that the rules we apply to other livestock would apply.  I'd argue that trading cattle can be done on a free market too.  You appear to disagree with this because of the lack of freedom afforded to the cattle.  (Of course if your argument is that cattle aren't capable of intelligent thinking on the level of a human . . . then I'd have to ask if you believe slavery of very stupid people was OK.  And that takes this whole conversation into a weird place.)

[Simpleton]

I do view the state of a trading market as being dependent upon the freedom of actors within the market to perform trades without external interference from a government.

Since you insist on having this straw-man discussion....


Your entire line of reasoning really rests upon the following assumption: You don't view the slaves as participants in the market. They are the product.

Therefore, the gist of the argument seems to be "Slavery = bad" --> "Free market = slavery" --> "Need government regulation".

Did I get that right? I think we can just full stop right there.

Free market proponents are against government intervention and advocate for the willful exchange of goods and services between willing parties. An outside force influencing what you can/cannot do with your labor/property is 100% the opposite of a free market. Commonly free market proponents argue against government intervention on these grounds. It goes without saying that slavery would also be opposed on these grounds because the outside force interfering with the willful exchange of labor is now the slave owner. Kind of like how the government feels like the owner to us tax payers some days!


There is a difference between government involvement in:
(a) influencing supply and demand/regulation of commerce/taxation/redistribution of wealth
or
(b) human rights/criminal law/national defence etc.
You need to seriously conflate the two to make your point stand. You also need to willfully mischaracterize what most people mean by "free-market" to so narrowly define it as you did in the quote above.

Looking at policies advocated by socialists vs free-market proponents, it seems intuitive to me that socialism is much more compatible with slavery than free-market capitalism. Only one of these philosophies advocates the use of law and force to take private property/labour from one unwilling party and give it to another. It is not the free-market proponents. Therefore slavery = bad --> Socialism = slavery --> Need less government regulation. This last paragraph is just a cheap shot at socialism to show how easy this type of argument is!

[BicycleB]

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to call a market free unless the participants are free.

[Radagast]

It is consistent with the dictionary definition of 'free market' that I gave.  You appear to be conflating 'freedom' with 'free market'.  'Free market' has a specific economic connotation that is unrelated to the freedom of commodifies sold in the market. 

So far your analysis is correct. Well no, economic freedom is a precondition for a free market, so you missed that. But the big issue with your statement is that while we agree slaves were treated as commodities, you then ignore the commodities made by the slaves. Once you include all commodities in the system, it is no longer free. You continue to be right in your assessment that slave traders are free and participate in a free market from their own perspective.

We were not discussing 'the slave market'.  We were the whole market of the United States while slavery was ongoing.  The market experienced some government regulation by way of taxation and tariff, however was remarkably free to do as buyers/sellers wanted regarding the trade of slaves.  It was only by government led market interference that the slave trade ended.

We weren't? We were? Well, the US market was unfree, at a bare minimum, in direct proportion to the contribution of slaves, or maybe even in proportion to what might have been contributed if everyone was free. You would probably be quick to point out that other parts were also pretty unfree, which is why it is a minimum.

You are right that the government ended the slave trade, and presumably those slave traders who survived moved onto other free market activities. Guvmint also allowed the former slaves to enter the market, which they weren't previously a part of. That's why it was not a free market before the government interference, but it was a free(er) market after.

The semantics that you're using are so different from the commonly accepted dictionary definitions that I'm not entirely sure that we will be able to continue to discuss this matter in a productive manner.
- Regulation in the context of the definition I gave refers to government regulation of the buying and selling in the market.  If someone sells a livestock on the free market, the livestock lives a life heavily regulated.  This has no bearing on the 'freeness' of a market.
- A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue.  As slaves have no income, they cannot pay taxes.  Just as a puppy doesn't pay taxes to it's owner, this is a serious misuse of the term.
- The quality controls and quotas mentioned in the context of the definition are imposed by governments.  This does not apply to private enterprise, or no business that requires an employee meet a quota would be part of the free market.
- A tariff is a tax or duty paid on a class of imports/exports.  Slaves do not pay tariffs (although tariffs may be paid upon them - which would be a limit to the free market trade of slaves).  Again, this is a misuse of the term.

No, none of the arguments made have a bearing on the definition of free market that was given.

I'm not using any semantics. Whether you call it a 100% tax, theft, or just a nameless part of the system, losing everything you have done at the end of every day has the same effect. Total regulation of every aspect of life has the same effect regardless of the size or nature of the group doing it, or what synonym of the word regulation is used. A steaming pile of shit by any other name would smell as foul. For my argument, the effect is what matters, but we have been using your words to describe the effect.

The United States required the 13th amendment to explicitly prevent this free trade.

See, you have it backward. The 13th outlawed unfree trade. That is even what the text says.

The text of the 13th Amendment explicitly prevents the slave trade by banning the (then common) practice of slavery:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Racism and race related oppression have been a constant in the US throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s (arguably continuing to this day) . . . but the United States was a significant world wide innovator through all these periods and was tremendously prosperous.

I'm not sure that per capita GDP is a particularly important measure that would prove this 'innovation edge' either.  Luxembourg has a per capita GDP roughly twice that of the United States, but I don't believe Luxembourg is known as a mecca of innovation in the world.

Yup, just think how much more prosperous it would have been if everyone with a good idea was free to try it out without bias.

Could you fully define what you believe a 'free market' is?  It doesn't seem to be the commonly used definition - as human rights are not generally mentioned as part of a free market.  This type of definition raises some interesting questions.  For example, does oppression of gay and trans people prevent a market from being free in your eyes?

I never gave a definition, so let's use yours.

I would say it is "less free" but not black and white like slavery is. Opportunities are reduced, which is very harmful to the affected individuals, and also harmful to society as a whole though it is so spread out it is hard to notice.

If we use my definition, then the freedom of the commodities has no bearing on whether or not a market adheres to 'free market' conditions.

The definition that you're using still seems to be a strange one.

I am using your definition, so...
Your seem to be fixated on slaves as a commodity, but you are still ignoring the commodity made by the slaves. If you applied your definition to their work, then obviously the this is not a free market. You only think you make sense, because you are ignoring half the picture.

The crux of your argument is
"The slave market is a free market, for the slave traders." That doesn't sound like a free market to me, or to most people I would guess. If you don't add the qualification then your claim is not accurate. If you add it, it is obvious this is not a free market.

Yes.  When people are treated as livestock, then I expect that the rules we apply to other livestock would apply.  I'd argue that trading cattle can be done on a free market too.  You appear to disagree with this because of the lack of freedom afforded to the cattle.  (Of course if your argument is that cattle aren't capable of intelligent thinking on the level of a human . . . then I'd have to ask if you believe slavery of very stupid people was OK.  And that takes this whole conversation into a weird place.)

Tired, and no interest in cows. Is this whattaboutism? I'm not not really educated on this term. "slavery is not a free market." "what about the cows, are they a free market?"

So far you haven't gone beyond "slavery is a free market, for the the slave traders." Maybe you should find a way to explain how it is a free market for the slaves. (By the way, it isn't a free market for the slaves, which is why you lost the argument).

[GuitarStv]

I do view the state of a trading market as being dependent upon the freedom of actors within the market to perform trades without external interference from a government.

Since you insist on having this straw-man discussion....

I don't believe there's a straw-man discussion going on.  It is my claim that a free market does not prevent slavery - which is being discussed.

Your entire line of reasoning really rests upon the following assumption: You don't view the slaves as participants in the market. They are the product.

Therefore, the gist of the argument seems to be "Slavery = bad" --> "Free market = slavery" --> "Need government regulation".

Did I get that right? I think we can just full stop right there.

No, a free market certainly doesn't equal slavery.  It just doesn't have any mechanism that prevents it.  So it will occur in a market free from government control when someone believes it's profitable.

Free market proponents are against government intervention and advocate for the willful exchange of goods and services between willing parties. An outside force influencing what you can/cannot do with your labor/property is 100% the opposite of a free market. Commonly free market proponents argue against government intervention on these grounds. It goes without saying that slavery would also be opposed on these grounds because the outside force interfering with the willful exchange of labor is now the slave owner. Kind of like how the government feels like the owner to us tax payers some days!

The problem with this argument is that it depends on how you define property.  This causes trouble when we start to refer to livestock.  A horse is not free because it is enslaved by it's owner.  Therefore it would seem that a market that allows for the trade in horses is not free by the definition you've given.  Certainly, it's reasonable to argue that a horse isn't a person . . . but then we get into a discussion of what makes a human being uniquely different and more deserving of consideration than any other animal.  Which we can start if you're interested.

There is a difference between government involvement in:
(a) influencing supply and demand/regulation of commerce/taxation/redistribution of wealth
or
(b) human rights/criminal law/national defence etc.
You need to seriously conflate the two to make your point stand. You also need to willfully mischaracterize what most people mean by "free-market" to so narrowly define it as you did in the quote above.

Can you define exactly what definition you're using when you say most people mean by "free market" above?  I've provided the dictionary definition and it doesn't mention human rights at all.  No conflation of human rights/criminal law/national defense and influence over supply and demand/regulation of commerce/taxation is necessary using that definition.

Looking at policies advocated by socialists vs free-market proponents, it seems intuitive to me that socialism is much more compatible with slavery than free-market capitalism. Only one of these philosophies advocates the use of law and force to take private property/labour from one unwilling party and give it to another. It is not the free-market proponents. Therefore slavery = bad --> Socialism = slavery --> Need less government regulation. This last paragraph is just a cheap shot at socialism to show how easy this type of argument is!

At it's heart, capitalism is about rewarding success.  At it's heart, socialism is about making things more fair.  It's good to have some of each.  In excess, capitalism leads to a small wealthy elite ruling everything and inhumane conditions for the average person in pursuit of profit.  In excess, socialism leads to stagnancy, waste, and starvation.  Both are bad in excess.

Indeed, that's the approach that every successful system of government in the world has taken is to mix the two.  There are plenty of arguments about exactly where to draw the line between them, but there is little argument that the two should be implemented together.

[talltexan]

Re pre-school, anything with very small children tends to be underpaid, I guess bc of sexism / belief that some women will do it for the love of the children.

Re 70k for teachers - sounds like a high dollar state with strong unions; in many parts of the country, teachers don't make close to 70k period, let alone get a pension like that. My sister in TX started at 18k gross (40k in today's terms?) and retired recently at I believe low 60s peak salary with master's and 25+ years experience as expert teacher grades K12. Her pension after 29 years roughly 40k gross. Varies widely among different states.

I'll bet the teachers in Texas are taught year after year about the evils of unions and then pass it on to the kids they teach.  Unionized people laugh all the way to the bank.

I did K-12 in Texas, then completed bachelors degrees in the state as well. Most of the teachers who were open about their political leanings were Republicans (this was in the 1990s). I was part of school events in which we attended a rally for George HW Bush and a fund-raiser with Newt Gingrich as the headline speaker. So basically, my experience confirms a good chunk of your post.

[EvenSteven]

I think I can solve this whole kurfuffle. A "market" is a set of conditions under which something is bought and sold. If something is being bought and sold, it must have a price. If it has a price, then it is not free.

Therefore, a "free market" is a contradiction in terms, and cannot logically exist. Ipso facto, etcetera etcetera.

[Radagast]

Wow, these long explanations but the core ideas are fundamental disagreements.

Free market = no GOVERNMENT control of what the people controlling businesses and currency do; how they produce, who they sell to, how much they sell for, etc.

Slavery - a period where the U.S. market was relatively free of GOVERNMENT intervention. But people controlling businesses (i.e. slave owners) were free to treat people as commodities. Slaves did not have agency. They were not agents participating in the free market, and the government was not forcing free market agents to treat them as people.

The government telling businesses they must treat all humans as humans, and slavery is no longer allowed increases government intervention and so it's less free of a market, but it is better for those humans that gained agency, and could now enter the (somewhat) free market.

In today's world, a massive corporation is largely free to pay their CEOs what they want, put out products where the corporation has more control over the product than the buyers, pay the workers who work in factories, warehouses and delivery vehicles relatively little... and the government does not do much to intervene. The market is quite free, but there are agents in the free market with massively more freedom and agency than others.

Look, you aren't breaking new ground here. If a group of people are going around taking things by force and trading them on a free market, and the government stops it and makes everyone produce and trade their own stuff, then the market became more free because of the government. Yes, government intervention can make markets more free, they are not opposites. There are examples of this outside of slavery that I bet you can think of.

"The slave market is a free market, except for the slaves" is obviously not a free market from a macro perspective.

[GuitarStv]

It is consistent with the dictionary definition of 'free market' that I gave.  You appear to be conflating 'freedom' with 'free market'.  'Free market' has a specific economic connotation that is unrelated to the freedom of commodifies sold in the market. 

So far your analysis is correct. Well no, economic freedom is a precondition for a free market, so you missed that. But the big issue with your statement is that while we agree slaves were treated as commodities, you then ignore the commodities made by the slaves. Once you include all commodities in the system, it is no longer free. You continue to be right in your assessment that slave traders are free and participate in a free market from their own perspective.

I am continuing to stick with the dictionary definition of free market:
"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

Commodities are not participants - this seems to be the part you're getting stuck on.

We were not discussing 'the slave market'.  We were the whole market of the United States while slavery was ongoing.  The market experienced some government regulation by way of taxation and tariff, however was remarkably free to do as buyers/sellers wanted regarding the trade of slaves.  It was only by government led market interference that the slave trade ended.

We weren't? We were? Well, the US market was unfree, at a bare minimum, in direct proportion to the contribution of slaves, or maybe even in proportion to what might have been contributed if everyone was free. You would probably be quick to point out that other parts were also pretty unfree, which is why it is a minimum.

You are right that the government ended the slave trade, and presumably those slave traders who survived moved onto other free market activities. Guvmint also allowed the former slaves to enter the market, which they weren't previously a part of. That's why it was not a free market before the government interference, but it was a free(er) market after.

I agree, the end of the slave trade increased the number of participants in the market.  I disagree that additional government regulations and limits on what could be traded resulted in a 'free market'.  Please see the 'free market' definition given above.

The semantics that you're using are so different from the commonly accepted dictionary definitions that I'm not entirely sure that we will be able to continue to discuss this matter in a productive manner.
- Regulation in the context of the definition I gave refers to government regulation of the buying and selling in the market.  If someone sells a livestock on the free market, the livestock lives a life heavily regulated.  This has no bearing on the 'freeness' of a market.
- A tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue.  As slaves have no income, they cannot pay taxes.  Just as a puppy doesn't pay taxes to it's owner, this is a serious misuse of the term.
- The quality controls and quotas mentioned in the context of the definition are imposed by governments.  This does not apply to private enterprise, or no business that requires an employee meet a quota would be part of the free market.
- A tariff is a tax or duty paid on a class of imports/exports.  Slaves do not pay tariffs (although tariffs may be paid upon them - which would be a limit to the free market trade of slaves).  Again, this is a misuse of the term.

No, none of the arguments made have a bearing on the definition of free market that was given.

I'm not using any semantics. Whether you call it a 100% tax, theft, or just a nameless part of the system, losing everything you have done at the end of every day has the same effect. Total regulation of every aspect of life has the same effect regardless of the size or nature of the group doing it, or what synonym of the word regulation is used. A steaming pile of shit by any other name would smell as foul. For my argument, the effect is what matters, but we have been using your words to describe the effect.

'Semantics' is the branch of knowledge concerning the meaning of words.  By definition, tax is not theft.  These words have different meanings.  By definition, slavery is not tax.  The meaning of words matters - and the use of poetic metaphor (as appears to be done with the two previous examples) is improper in a discussion aiming to convey precise meaning.

We are discussing the precise meaning of 'free market' in order to determine whether a 'free market' necessarily prevents slavery.

Could you fully define what you believe a 'free market' is?  It doesn't seem to be the commonly used definition - as human rights are not generally mentioned as part of a free market.  This type of definition raises some interesting questions.  For example, does oppression of gay and trans people prevent a market from being free in your eyes?

I never gave a definition, so let's use yours.

I would say it is "less free" but not black and white like slavery is. Opportunities are reduced, which is very harmful to the affected individuals, and also harmful to society as a whole though it is so spread out it is hard to notice.

If we use my definition, then the freedom of the commodities has no bearing on whether or not a market adheres to 'free market' conditions.

The definition that you're using still seems to be a strange one.

I am using your definition, so...
Your seem to be fixated on slaves as a commodity, but you are still ignoring the commodity made by the slaves. If you applied your definition to their work, then obviously the this is not a free market. You only think you make sense, because you are ignoring half the picture.

The crux of your argument is
"The slave market is a free market, for the slave traders." That doesn't sound like a free market to me, or to most people I would guess. If you don't add the qualification then your claim is not accurate. If you add it, it is obvious this is not a free market.

Yes.  When people are treated as livestock, then I expect that the rules we apply to other livestock would apply.  I'd argue that trading cattle can be done on a free market too.  You appear to disagree with this because of the lack of freedom afforded to the cattle.  (Of course if your argument is that cattle aren't capable of intelligent thinking on the level of a human . . . then I'd have to ask if you believe slavery of very stupid people was OK.  And that takes this whole conversation into a weird place.)

Tired, and no interest in cows. Is this whattaboutism? I'm not not really educated on this term. "slavery is not a free market." "what about the cows, are they a free market?"

So far you haven't gone beyond "slavery is a free market, for the the slave traders." Maybe you should find a way to explain how it is a free market for the slaves. (By the way, it isn't a free market for the slaves, which is why you lost the argument).

My intent isn't really to discuss cows, it's to point out the inherent problem with changing the meaning of 'free market' to include 'freedom of commodities sold in the market'.

[GuitarStv]

If a group of people are going around taking things by force and trading them on a free market, and the government stops it and makes everyone produce and trade their own stuff, then the market became more free because of the government.

The market becomes less free (as additional restrictions have been placed upon what can be bought/sold).  The people who can enter the market though, become more free.  The latter is good for society (and probably good for trade in the long term).

Yes, government intervention can make markets more free, they are not opposites. There are examples of this outside of slavery that I bet you can think of.

When a government acts to reduce the freedom of private actors to buy/sell within a market, the market becomes less free.

This can certainly be good for society!  I'm not a small government advocate at all.  Even great things like anti-trust laws (which are intended to increase competition in a market) reduce freedom in the market.  My personal view is that an extremely free market is generally a bad thing for society.  These government regulations are both necessary and good to have.

[ChpBstrd]

The top is in on libertarian logic.

[Simpleton]

I don't believe there's a straw-man discussion going on.  It is my claim that a free market does not prevent slavery - which is being discussed.

This is absolutely a staw-man discussion. You have redefined "free market" to mean something that pretty much no one takes it to mean, and then argued the need for government intervention based on that assumption.

You first need to assume we are talking about a country where no human-rights laws are upheld and argue in that context, projecting that assumption as the desire of free-market proponents.

Anyone arguing for free market principals today are not arguing with the assumption/desire to repeal human rights laws (which are different than government intervention in a marketplace). Your whole point relies on this assumption and projection.

You are forcing me to argue this point rather than weather or not government should be involved in the marketplace - pretty much 100% straw-man

No, a free market certainly doesn't equal slavery.  It just doesn't have any mechanism that prevents it. So it will occur in a market free from government control when someone believes it's profitable.

You are arguing semantics here. My point completely stands because of the bolded part of your statement. Your argument IS "Slavery = bad" --> "Free market = slavery" --> "Need government regulation".

The problem with this argument is that it depends on how you define property.  This causes trouble when we start to refer to livestock.  A horse is not free because it is enslaved by it's owner.  Therefore it would seem that a market that allows for the trade in horses is not free by the definition you've given.  Certainly, it's reasonable to argue that a horse isn't a person . . . but then we get into a discussion of what makes a human being uniquely different and more deserving of consideration than any other animal.  Which we can start if you're interested.

When you said this, you completely ignored my point. I am not interested in equating a chicken and a person. If you need to say a chicken is equal to a human to make your point you have lost the audience already. This is simply another tangent.

I refer you back to my point where I stated "It goes without saying that slavery would also be opposed on these grounds because the outside force interfering with the willful exchange of labor is now the slave owner". You did not address that point at all, because your argument relies entirely on your narrow definition of free market absent any government enforcement of human rights - a context that no one else is arguing about.

Can you define exactly what definition you're using when you say most people mean by "free market" above?  I've provided the dictionary definition and it doesn't mention human rights at all.  No conflation of human rights/criminal law/national defense and influence over supply and demand/regulation of commerce/taxation is necessary using that definition.

I did already define it. It was underlined and italicized. Again, your point relies entirely on a narrow definition of free market, and simply ignores the context in which everyone discusses it. That context includes a government enforcing human-rights laws, criminal law etc.

[Simpleton]

It is consistent with the dictionary definition of 'free market' that I gave.  You appear to be conflating 'freedom' with 'free market'.  'Free market' has a specific economic connotation that is unrelated to the freedom of commodifies sold in the market. 

So far your analysis is correct. Well no, economic freedom is a precondition for a free market, so you missed that. But the big issue with your statement is that while we agree slaves were treated as commodities, you then ignore the commodities made by the slaves. Once you include all commodities in the system, it is no longer free. You continue to be right in your assessment that slave traders are free and participate in a free market from their own perspective.

I am continuing to stick with the dictionary definition of free market:
"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

Commodities are not participants - this seems to be the part you're getting stuck on.

Your whole argument relies on a false pretense where human rights laws do not exist.

Even your "Dictionary definition" says nothing about government intervention/use of human rights or criminal laws. It only says "economic interventions"

Stawman

[Simpleton]

A strawman is presenting a hypothesis your opponent did not make, and then tearing it down.

Using a commonly accepted definition of a term or phrase found in the dictionary is... a useful tool in debate, because it means you're starting from the same place. That's not a strawman.

Free market is about production and transaction of goods and services. It would, by definition, have no government enforcement of human rights. That enforcement of human rights moves the market from free to capitalist. Less free, but still largely relying on competition to dictate how transactions will be priced.

I can use his own definition of free market and my point stands.

"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

I would say outlawing slavery is a minimal intervention in the overall free market, I also do not see this as an economic intervention in the first place. Very few people would say ending is an economic intervention.

The fact that we are even arguing it makes this a strawman discussion because as by your definition it is not a hypothesis I have made. His whole point relies on assuming free-market proponents do not believe in separate human-rights enforcement by government - its simply not an argument ANYONE is making.

[GuitarStv]

I don't believe there's a straw-man discussion going on.  It is my claim that a free market does not prevent slavery - which is being discussed.

This is absolutely a staw-man discussion. You have redefined "free market" to mean something that pretty much no one takes it to mean, and then argued the need for government intervention based on that assumption.

You first need to assume we are talking about a country where no human-rights laws are upheld and argue in that context, projecting that assumption as the desire of free-market proponents.

Anyone arguing for free market principals today are not arguing with the assumption/desire to repeal human rights laws (which are different than government intervention in a marketplace). Your whole point relies on this assumption and projection.

You are forcing me to argue this point rather than weather or not government should be involved in the marketplace - pretty much 100% straw-man

I have started with the dictionary definition of 'free market' and gone from there.  I've also asked you for the definition of free market that you're using - which appears to conflict with that given in the dictionary.

I'm not forcing you to argue anything.  Pure adherence to free market principles would (by dictionary definition) allows for a slave trade to exist though.

No, a free market certainly doesn't equal slavery.  It just doesn't have any mechanism that prevents it. So it will occur in a market free from government control when someone believes it's profitable.

You are arguing semantics here. My point completely stands because of the bolded part of your statement. Your argument IS "Slavery = bad" --> "Free market = slavery" --> "Need government regulation".

The meaning of words is important, and shouldn't be changed because it's more convenient for your argument.

As mentioned, a free market will not always result in slavery.  But because of the possibility of it, I'd always advocate for some government regulation in markets.

The problem with this argument is that it depends on how you define property.  This causes trouble when we start to refer to livestock.  A horse is not free because it is enslaved by it's owner.  Therefore it would seem that a market that allows for the trade in horses is not free by the definition you've given.  Certainly, it's reasonable to argue that a horse isn't a person . . . but then we get into a discussion of what makes a human being uniquely different and more deserving of consideration than any other animal.  Which we can start if you're interested.

When you said this, you completely ignored my point. I am not interested in equating a chicken and a person. If you need to say a chicken is equal to a human to make your point you have lost the audience already. This is simply another tangent.

I don't believe it's a tangent.

You're redefining 'free market' to depend upon the freedom of a particular commodity.  I'm asking about why the freedom of another commodity doesn't impact the 'free market' under this unusual definition.

I refer you back to my point where I stated "It goes without saying that slavery would also be opposed on these grounds because the outside force interfering with the willful exchange of labor is now the slave owner". You did not address that point at all, because your argument relies entirely on your narrow definition of free market absent any government enforcement of human rights - a context that no one else is arguing about.

'Outside force interfering with the willful exchange of labour' is entirely irrelevant when discussing a commodity.  This was my point entirely.  There is a logical problem here that I was attempting to explore.

I'd like to point out, again, that the 'narrow definition of free market' you refer to is the dictionary definition.

Can you define exactly what definition you're using when you say most people mean by "free market" above?  I've provided the dictionary definition and it doesn't mention human rights at all.  No conflation of human rights/criminal law/national defense and influence over supply and demand/regulation of commerce/taxation is necessary using that definition.

I did already define it. It was underlined and italicized. Again, your point relies entirely on a narrow definition of free market, and simply ignores the context in which everyone discusses it. That context includes a government enforcing human-rights laws, criminal law etc.

Your definition then, is as follows:

Free Market - Free market proponents are against government intervention and advocate for the willful exchange of goods and services between willing parties. An outside force influencing what you can/cannot do with your labor/property is 100% the opposite of a free market. Commonly free market proponents argue against government intervention on these grounds. It goes without saying that slavery would also be opposed on these grounds because the outside force interfering with the willful exchange of labor is now the slave owner.

Fundamental to this definition is that no outside force influencing what you can/cannot do with your labour/property can occur in a 'free market'.

But an outside force telling someone that he has to give up his property (if the property is a slave) is not interference in the free market?

If an outside force tells you that a chimpanzee deserves to be free, and that you are not allowed to raise them as livestock - would this be interference in the free market?

Your definition contains a human-centric part that doesn't logically flow.  What exactly is it that makes humans special and different from every other animal (where you appear to be OK with enslavement)?  This isn't an irrelevant tangent, it's fundamental to understanding your definition.

[GuitarStv]

A strawman is presenting a hypothesis your opponent did not make, and then tearing it down.

Using a commonly accepted definition of a term or phrase found in the dictionary is... a useful tool in debate, because it means you're starting from the same place. That's not a strawman.

Free market is about production and transaction of goods and services. It would, by definition, have no government enforcement of human rights. That enforcement of human rights moves the market from free to capitalist. Less free, but still largely relying on competition to dictate how transactions will be priced.

I can use his own definition of free market and my point stands.

"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

I would say outlawing slavery is a minimal intervention in the overall free market, I also do not see this as an economic intervention in the first place. Very few people would say ending is an economic intervention.

The fact that we are even arguing it makes this a strawman discussion because as by your definition it is not a hypothesis I have made. His whole point relies on assuming free-market proponents do not believe in separate human-rights enforcement by government - its simply not an argument ANYONE is making.

It's a bit odd that this minimal government intervention in the market would cause a four year long civil war, don't you think?

More than half of the United States exports in the first six decades of the 19th century consisted of raw cotton - almost all of it was grown by slaves.  This was pretty clearly not a small economic intervention!

Unless you also have a different definition for 'minimal'?

[Simpleton]

A strawman is presenting a hypothesis your opponent did not make, and then tearing it down.

Using a commonly accepted definition of a term or phrase found in the dictionary is... a useful tool in debate, because it means you're starting from the same place. That's not a strawman.

Free market is about production and transaction of goods and services. It would, by definition, have no government enforcement of human rights. That enforcement of human rights moves the market from free to capitalist. Less free, but still largely relying on competition to dictate how transactions will be priced.

I can use his own definition of free market and my point stands.

"Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal"

I would say outlawing slavery is a minimal intervention in the overall free market, I also do not see this as an economic intervention in the first place. Very few people would say ending is an economic intervention.

The fact that we are even arguing it makes this a strawman discussion because as by your definition it is not a hypothesis I have made. His whole point relies on assuming free-market proponents do not believe in separate human-rights enforcement by government - its simply not an argument ANYONE is making.

It's a bit odd that this minimal government intervention in the market would cause a four year long civil war, don't you think?

More than half of the United States exports in the first six decades of the 19th century consisted of raw cotton - almost all of it was grown by slaves.  This was pretty clearly not a small economic intervention!

Unless you also have a different definition for 'minimal'?

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - Your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does.

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

[JLee]

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does.

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

Slaves were not a participant in the market any more than a box of Triscuits are. They were bought, sold, and traded but they did not buy, sell, nor trade.

[Simpleton]

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock!

This is a great example of a straw man argument. It is not the hypothesis presented, but you claim it is, and then tear it down.

This is only a strawman argument if the logic does not follow.

If he disagrees with my assessment above, I will concede its a strawman argument; but I think he would need to abandon his whole position. The hitman doesn't consider the victim a market participant. The person fencing stolen goods doesn't consider the store owner a market participant. The slave owner doesn't consider the slave a market participant. All are examples of free-market economies!

Totally absurd.

[Simpleton]

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does. JLEE does

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

Slaves were not a participant in the market any more than a box of Triscuits are. They were bought, sold, and traded but they did not buy, sell, nor trade.

I bolded a different part.

[JLee]

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does. JLEE does

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

Slaves were not a participant in the market any more than a box of Triscuits are. They were bought, sold, and traded but they did not buy, sell, nor trade.

I bolded a different part.

And ignored my point, which now that I think about it kinda seems to be the trend with you.

[EvenSteven]

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does. JLEE does

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

Slaves were not a participant in the market any more than a box of Triscuits are. They were bought, sold, and traded but they did not buy, sell, nor trade.

I bolded a different part.

In the market of buying and selling slaves, you can add me to the list that doesn't consider the slave to be a market participant, as they are neither the buyer nor the seller.

[Simpleton]

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does. JLEE does

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

Slaves were not a participant in the market any more than a box of Triscuits are. They were bought, sold, and traded but they did not buy, sell, nor trade.

I bolded a different part.

And ignored my point, which now that I think about it kinda seems to be the trend with you.

I would argue you ignored my whole point and just restated GuitarStv's position

[JLee]

I would say its about as basic as you can get in terms of intervention in the market.

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does. JLEE does

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

Slaves were not a participant in the market any more than a box of Triscuits are. They were bought, sold, and traded but they did not buy, sell, nor trade.

I bolded a different part.

And ignored my point, which now that I think about it kinda seems to be the trend with you.

I would argue you ignored my whole point in the entire post and just restated GuitarStv's position, not acknowledging any of the arguments I made.

That's because your entire argument is based on a flawed premise and at least one proven false assumption. You've been wrong twice since you posted it. ;)

[GuitarStv]

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - Your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does.

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.  Slaves were treated as a commodity or livestock at the time we're discussing - that's why I'm equating them as such.  It was government intervention that changed this treatment.  That intervention prohibited the buying/selling of slaves in the free market.

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

I don't understand you on this.  Theft doesn't seem to be related to the free market or the discussion at hand.  Someone who steals an item isn't buying or selling - ergo they're not a part of any market.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

If the argument is common/cliche, then I'd expect to hear a very clear and simple rebuttal.

Instead we've had some hand-wavy redefinition of terms and the claim that a commodity is somehow a participant in the market (but only when discussing slaves!).  That's not very compelling.

[Simpleton]

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - Your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does.

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.  Slaves were treated as a commodity or livestock at the time we're discussing - that's why I'm equating them as such.  It was government intervention that changed this treatment.  That intervention prohibited the buying/selling of slaves in the free market.

A person is not a commodity. It is a person who is involved in this trade. I already said it and ill say it again - your argument necessitates that I agree with you on this point - it necessitates that I maintain the same feeling toward slaves as slaveholders do.

Just because they are not the ones buying/selling themselves; doesnt mean they are not people. It doesn't mean they are not involved in the market. They are people, involved in this market, providing services, and they are not free.

Free Market (as defined by wikipedia)
In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities

The definition you chose to use I am guessing was intentionally cherry picked in how narrowly it was worded such that you could twist the argument in favor of associating slavery with free-markets. As I said before, anyone advocating free markets does not think of a definition as narrow the one your propose. This is such a dishonest way to make a point.

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

I don't understand you on this.  Theft doesn't seem to be related to the free market or the discussion at hand.  Someone who steals an item isn't buying or selling - ergo they're not a part of any market.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I am getting at here..

If your position on slavery is that that victim of slavery is not involved in that free market, then it would follow that your position of murder for hire is also an example of a free market; or someone moving stolen goods is engaging in free market sale of product.

Your position on any of these issues only works if you take an intentionally incomplete view of the situation and neglect to consider that the transaction is involuntary for one person involved in all 3 situations.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

If the argument is common/cliche, then I'd expect to hear a very clear and simple rebuttal.

Instead we've had some hand-wavy redefinition of terms and the claim that a commodity is somehow a participant in the market (but only when discussing slaves!).  That's not very compelling.

I feel my rebuttal is very simple.

My whole rebuttal is that neither I, nor anyone who advocates free market principles would ever concede that people can be a commodity in a free market.

You are making it complicated to maintain your point and insisting I agree to that point.

[jeromedawg]

The top is in on libertarian logic.

You posted in the wrong thread. I think the top is in on strawmans though.

[GuitarStv]

The fact that it had gotten so out of control that slavery existed and a war had to be fought shows how far from free-market principles we came. It went so far away from free-market principles that you don't even consider one of the participants in the market a person - you equate them as a commodity or livestock in your definition of this free market - Your argument insists and necessitates that I agree with you on this principle. I do not. No one does.

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.  Slaves were treated as a commodity or livestock at the time we're discussing - that's why I'm equating them as such.  It was government intervention that changed this treatment.  That intervention prohibited the buying/selling of slaves in the free market.

A person is not a commodity. It is a person who is involved in this trade. I already said it and ill say it again - your argument necessitates that I agree with you on this point - it necessitates that I maintain the same feeling toward slaves as slaveholders do.

From a human perspective, I agree completely with you!  But from a historical economic perspective, where slavery was permitted I am forced to disagree.  A slave was seen as a commodity - a means to an end.  Like a horse pulling a plow.

I don't believe that accepting that people were treated as a commodity require you to maintain the same feeling towards slaves as slaveholders do.  I'm reasonably sure that my own feelings about slavery differ from American slave holders in the 1800s.

Just because they are not the ones buying/selling themselves; doesnt mean they are not people. It doesn't mean they are not involved in the market. They are people, involved in this market, and they are not free.

From a human perspective, I agree completely.  From an economic perspective, slaves are commodities in the market and not participants in the market.

Free Market (as defined by wikipedia)
In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities

A slave owner is not intervening in the free market trade of slaves by enslaving other humans as far as buying or selling goes.  The exception would be if slaves had the money to purchase other slaves, but were prevented from entering the market to do so by the authority of one slave owner who could somehow control all others in the market.  Note that refusing to sell to a slave is not an example of intervening . . . that is a personal choice on the part of one party involved in the transaction.

Economic privilege cannot play a role in a free market though?  This one is confusing.  What is the definition of economic privilege?  A free market tends to create economic privilege by creating winners and losers with every trade.  A rich man has economic privilege over a poor man.  Does that mean a market where the rich can trade is not free?  This one I don't really get.

Your argument is the exact same as saying a thief should be able to steal from a store, and criminal law/jail are interventions in the power-wielding free-market of thievery; the store owners are just the commodity! Murderers should be free to kill people for profit, the victims are just the livestock! Quite frankly it's an absurd position to take. To imply that anyone arguing for free-market principles is arguing against the rule of law is insulting because you imply that thier positions are thought through on such a shallow level.

I don't understand you on this.  Theft doesn't seem to be related to the free market or the discussion at hand.  Someone who steals an item isn't buying or selling - ergo they're not a part of any market.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I am getting at here..

If your position on slavery is that that victim of slavery is not involved in that free market, then it would follow that your position of murder for hire is also an example of a free market; or someone moving stolen goods is engaging in free market sale of product.

Ah, you're discussing the sale of an 'illicit' service or good.  Now I get it.  It can get kinda tricky when discussing where to draw the line here.

I'd call your attention to the trade of historical objects . . . many of which were stolen and looted from temples/holy places then sold and re-sold.  I'd wager that most large museums contain at least a few items that can be considered stolen which were purchased on the free market.  Unless government controls prevent this behaviour, it goes on.  There doesn't appear to be any free market mechanism preventing it.

Or look at the job of a soldier.  Check out what's going on in the latest Israel/Palestine conflict.  Israeli soldiers are being paid to bomb civilian buildings causing civilian death.  These killings are unlawful (by international law) and premeditated.  A career Israeli soldier could therefore very well (depending on your point of view) be hired on the free market to murder civilians.  There doesn't appear to be any free market mechanism preventing it.

Generally, I agree with your point.  Government intervention is required to prevent the sale of illicit goods/services that the free market would otherwise allow.  This is another instance (perhaps less controversial than slavery) of the need for government control in a market.

The problem I have with your argument is that it is so disingenuous in its intent. This is a very common/cliche argument against a free-market, this is absolutely nothing original. It pretends to argue from an academic perspective but in reality the goal of the argument is:
(a) associate free market principles with slavery
(b) show the need for government in general, as a trojan horse for more government intervention.

Its so much less authentic than having actual policy discussion. It just ruins any real discussion.

If the argument is common/cliche, then I'd expect to hear a very clear and simple rebuttal.

Instead we've had some hand-wavy redefinition of terms and the claim that a commodity is somehow a participant in the market (but only when discussing slaves!).  That's not very compelling.

I feel my rebuttal is very simple.

My whole rebuttal is that neither I, nor anyone who advocates free market principles would ever concede that people can be a commodity in a free market.

You are making it complicated to maintain your point and insisting I agree to that point.

Please excuse me if I am misinterpreting what you're saying here . . . but it seems that the crux of the argument is based upon denial of what has happened in history then?  Because free market advocates were selling slaves in the 1800s.  Slavery was a free market reaction in the United States due to the labour shortage caused by increased demands by the cotton market.  That's why cotton plantations and slave owning became a such a big thing.

[Simpleton]

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.

You can have a market for slavery
You can have a market for stolen goods
You can have a market for murder for hire.
You cannot have a free market for any of the above.

The slave trader, the thief and the murderer may be free from authority to transact freely. The fact remains none of these are free markets because again, you fail to acknowledge the slave, the murdered, or the victim of theft.

I would argue the transaction is not:
(a)Slave trader sells slave to buyer
(b)Thief sells stolen goods to fence
(c)Hitman sells services to jelous ex husband.


I would argue the transaction is:
(a) Slave is forced to provide services at a price he did not agree to slave holder who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(b) Theft victim is forced to give products at 0 cost to thief who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(c) Murder victim is forced to forfeit his life in order for the hitman to fulfill his contract

So long as your view remains intentionally narrow and ignorant of the third participant in that market, your point I guess stands.

Also, the alphabet is ARQX, so long as you ignore all the other letters. Prove me wrong.

[JLee]

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.

You can have a market for slavery
You can have a market for stolen goods
You can have a market for murder for hire.
You cannot have a free market for any of the above.

The slave trader, the thief and the murderer may be free from authority to transact freely. The fact remains none of these are free markets because again, you fail to acknowledge the slave, the murdered, or the victim of theft.

I would argue the transaction is not:
(a)Slave trader sells slave to buyer
(b)Thief sells stolen goods to fence
(c)Hitman sells services to jelous ex husband.


I would argue the transaction is:
(a) Slave is forced to provide services at a price he did not agree to slave holder who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(b) Theft victim is forced to give products at 0 cost to thief who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(c) Murder victim is forced to forfeit his life in order for the hitman to fulfill his contract

So long as your view remains intentionally narrow and ignorant of the third participant in that market, your point I guess stands.

The object or item or property being bought or sold is not a participant of the market.

[Simpleton]

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.

You can have a market for slavery
You can have a market for stolen goods
You can have a market for murder for hire.
You cannot have a free market for any of the above.

The slave trader, the thief and the murderer may be free from authority to transact freely. The fact remains none of these are free markets because again, you fail to acknowledge the slave, the murdered, or the victim of theft.

I would argue the transaction is not:
(a)Slave trader sells slave to buyer
(b)Thief sells stolen goods to fence
(c)Hitman sells services to jelous ex husband.


I would argue the transaction is:
(a) Slave is forced to provide services at a price he did not agree to slave holder who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(b) Theft victim is forced to give products at 0 cost to thief who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(c) Murder victim is forced to forfeit his life in order for the hitman to fulfill his contract

So long as your view remains intentionally narrow and ignorant of the third participant in that market, your point I guess stands.

The object or item or property being bought or sold is not a participant of the market.

[GuitarStv]

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.

You can have a market for slavery
You can have a market for stolen goods
You can have a market for murder for hire.
You cannot have a free market for any of the above.

The slave trader, the thief and the murderer may be free from authority to transact freely. The fact remains none of these are free markets because again, you fail to acknowledge the slave, the murdered, or the victim of theft.

I would argue the transaction is not:
(a)Slave trader sells slave to buyer
(b)Thief sells stolen goods to fence
(c)Hitman sells services to jelous ex husband.


I would argue the transaction is:
(a) Slave is forced to provide services at a price he did not agree to slave holder who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(b) Theft victim is forced to give products at 0 cost to thief who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(c) Murder victim is forced to forfeit his life in order for the hitman to fulfill his contract

So long as your view remains intentionally narrow and ignorant of the third participant in that market, your point I guess stands.

Also, the alphabet is ARQX, so long as you ignore all the other letters. Prove me wrong.

So by your definition a market that employs soldiers (who kill) or sells ancient artifacts (which were often stolen in the past) to museums is not free?

[Telecaster]

GuitarStv's logic is rock solid.   

[Simpleton]

A slave had no money, and was not buying or selling in the market.  A slave didn't participate in the market any more than a horse being sold does.

You can have a market for slavery
You can have a market for stolen goods
You can have a market for murder for hire.
You cannot have a free market for any of the above.

The slave trader, the thief and the murderer may be free from authority to transact freely. The fact remains none of these are free markets because again, you fail to acknowledge the slave, the murdered, or the victim of theft.

I would argue the transaction is not:
(a)Slave trader sells slave to buyer
(b)Thief sells stolen goods to fence
(c)Hitman sells services to jelous ex husband.


I would argue the transaction is:
(a) Slave is forced to provide services at a price he did not agree to slave holder who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(b) Theft victim is forced to give products at 0 cost to thief who repackages and sells those services to a buyer
(c) Murder victim is forced to forfeit his life in order for the hitman to fulfill his contract

So long as your view remains intentionally narrow and ignorant of the third participant in that market, your point I guess stands.

Also, the alphabet is ARQX, so long as you ignore all the other letters. Prove me wrong.

So by your definition a market that employs soldiers (who kill) or sells ancient artifacts (which were often stolen in the past) to museums is not free?

Bolded above and below

Free Market (as defined by wikipedia)
In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities