So central banks are printing money left and right, controlling the market winners, controlling interest rates, short and long ends of the yield curve, inflation, and my testicles, and you call it a “free” market?
Genuine question. Are you stupid genetically or did you learn being stupid from your environment like every teenager around here who don’t understand shit in the economy?
Oooooh look at the angry libertarian!! Quick, somebody deregulate his facial tissues!!
Angry? Dude I’m laughing my ass off! You’re complaining all the time on Lemmy how you’re broke and are failures. It’s you who are angry, and I’m laughing at you day and night! I enjoy watching you falling, broke and powerless. Lovely! Keep up your ignorance, entitlement and dumb ideologies, and my children will step on yours like cockroaches with wealth and power. I love it!
You wanna cry a little more that you can’t buy a home? Go ahead! But God forbid you read a book and learn what yield curve control means… hahahahahahaha!
removed by mod
Those damn liberatarians
I’m still trying to work it into a Liberace pun…
Typically they argue the government is the cause of the problems (which is frequently correct) and the solution is to remove regulations that create the inefficiencies (which rarely goes to plan and frequently involves enriching them).
It’s clownish just for different reasons than the meme suggests.
Their solution to an inefficient fly swatter is to get rid of it, spread honey over every surface, and offer to sell their services as an exterminator.
What an incredible analogy
Government is only part of the problem. When they fail to see the ruling class behind it, they don’t get too far.
Zoning codes that restrict density are the opposite of a free market.
So are HOAs
“Fun” fact: both single-family residential zoning and HOAs were created, in large part, as strategies to perpetuate segregation after de jure segregation was outlawed.
The only problem communism has solved so far is obesity.
Why dont you tell us you have a paper thin understanding of communism without telling us you have a paper thin understanding of communism…
I think it’s interesting that people always just jump to “communism is when no food,” like there have been no famines or starvation under capitalism.
Especially when you can note that those problems with food production were basically immediately solved with the extremely deserved death of Lysenkoism.
Lysenko wouldn’t be a problem in first place, if he bet his own capital on his hypothesis.
He also wouldn’t have been a problem if Lenin had had Stalin shot in the head so he could be succeeded by Trotsky or Bukharin, but that’s how it goes in a near dictatorship, I guess.
“Anything I don’t agree with is communism!”
Have you actually read about it from various sources that you cross referenced or are you taking this from your libertarian society that instilled its beliefs on you through culture?
People in Russia and China were much hungrier and unequal before the communist revolution, look it up. Unless you’re talking about Cuba, which the US tried desperately to overturn and starve.
Is there a reason why you chose to be reactionary on the internet today?
This isn’t Reddit, you can be nicer than this, and maybe discuss the point about libertarianism that you like instead of just jumping to a bad faith argument against another economic system that neither OP, nor the post has brought up.
Remember there’s a person on the other side of the screen. Unless it’s a bit of course, but you know better than to take the bait of bots.
Let me interest you in this wonderful thing called 🪩 Anarchism 🪩
That’s just actual libertarianism, you can’t trick me, punk.
Because the only alternative to unregulated capitalism is authoritarianism, got it
He’s reaching for the “it’s not good but it’s the best system we’ve got” from the lib capitalist playbook
Am I missing something that makes the image 18+?
Accidentally clicked nsfw when uploading, my bad.
North America has never been a free market. Even since the days of Sumer have there been regulations on commerce. We will never have a free market.
We have never had a perfect version of anything but are we pursuing perfection or good enough?
You could say the same about abandoning capitalism for another type of economy wholesale.
The point is that there has always been regulation because when we have tried removing it (look up grain shortage in France during the mid to late 1700’s due to export deregulation) and it ends up the same. Deregulation isn’t the answer.
There is no “seeking perfect deregulation”, only the admittance that deregulation cannot be part of the perfect solution.
My point is the market has never been perfectly free but do we need it to be perfectly or just well regulated and mostly free?
Oh, well yeah I’d say that’s the best choice to move forward.
Regulations are written in blood. They’re necessary because libertarians are assholes
deleted by creator
I’ve seen them claim that a natural monopoly cannot exist and that monopolies we see today are all enforced by government regulation.
They are.
Explain
Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that a natural monopoly doesn’t exist, but I think it’s pretty clear that big companies have a lot of influence on the government, and typically can lobby the government to pass policies that benefit them, and make it harder for competition.
And I think there’s an argument to be made that if the government were less powerful, then there would be less potential harm done when a corporation is able to influence the government.
I’m personally torn on this, because on one hand I think the government can be a useful tool in preventing monopolies, but on the other hand, I think expecting the government to not always work in favor of big companies seems naive.
It’s like they’ve never opened a history textbook.
Or played Assassin’s Creed 2, the fuckin philistines.
Do you people actually think the housing market is a free market??? It’s one of the most overly regulated markets! Zoning laws restrict what kind of housing can be built all over the US. Getting rid of those would allow for more mixed style housing and that is one example of de-regulation and making a freer market.
You’re conflating the meme’s argument with a whole host of problems designed to segregate and let companies profiteer off of single-family housing.
It would also allow Exxon to install an oil rig 15 feet away from your backyard privacy fence and there’s not shit you can do about it. Zoning laws exist for a reason. They’re a bit shit, yes, and changing the way they work would go a long way toward improving America’s reliance on cars. But blanket removal of regulations is never the answer for any industry anywhere. We should know better by this point that unregulated capitalists will extract every last drop of value from a given proposition with no regard to anyone else impacted by it. It’s happened hundreds of times already.
deleted by creator
Exactly. It’s stupid to be like libertarians and take a hardline stance on “regulations always bad!!” or “regulations always good!!”. A regulation that bans building dense, walkable communities is bad and needs to be eliminated. Likewise, regulations that ban teachers from talking about the existence of gay people are also bad and need to be eliminated.
Just like we try to use regulations for good, many others use regulations for ill. It will always be context-specific specific whether we need more regulation or deregulation.
When actual libertarians get a chance to run a town, they don’t start by eliminating zoning laws. This is the kind of thing that happens instead.
Let the bears pay the bear tax!
I’m not surprised by the fact it did collapse, but i’m surprised that libertarians, of all people, did not try to solve the bear problem using extensive amounts of firepower.
It did mention that several times the town did form posses to go and cull the bears, but didn’t do enough because you also had people just feeding the shit out of them.
Bears have a better libertarian ideology
That’s the irony.
But Density means communism to them so they’re suddenly fine with regulations and taxes that prop up an unsustainable suburban ponzi scheme because that’s the lie sold about the American Dream.
When they see how unaffordable housing has become they say, “good, my house is more expensive.”
You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws. It’s not. The markets need to be free for the rich to benefit but restricted for the rich to benefit. And maybe some crumbs will fall of the table and the poors will think that the rich are so generous.
So, you are agreeing with libertarians?
No, there should be rules to benefit the poor. But many of the laws now in effect in particular in the US are specifically not built for that. So many laws would better be dropped than enforced, and many are missing.
Why there should be rules to benefit the poor, as opposed minimalistic neutral rules beneficial to the whole society and safety net like UBI? (that what libertarian would argue)
I guess it’s a matter of semantics and if you’re an existing rich person, right? Cause from the perspective of the rich closing up those loop holes would be perceived as purely benefitting the poor.
For neutral rules to truly be neutral, you almost need to ensure there are services and programs to bring that opportunity to everyone, else it’s just appears more fair without actually increasing accessibility. Which to your point would be something like UBI.
deleted by creator
“talk as if” and “literally said” are two wholly different things. They never said that, what are you talking about?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Sure. I don’t think anybody is arguing that there is any country that couldn’t give their regulations a once-over and improve things by removing a few counter-productive ones here and there.
That’s not what American style libertarians are actually arguing when they say they want deregulation though, is it?
Exactly! Libertarians point to one regulation that isn’t working and push total deregulation. Why not just fix that one regulation? No, absolute deregulation is the only answer.
That’s generally the type of thing libertarians get upset about. Or shit like floral licensing or cracking down on people braiding hair (this is generally black people, obviously) or the bazillion other types of regulatory capture. Farm subsidies and ethanol mandates/fuel subsidies are also a shitshow.
How is it that free market’s modus operandi seem to be attempting suicide every few years?
It’s not free enough!!!
No joke, though, there are people who think that letting things hit the wall as fast and hard as possible is desirable. It’s called accelerationism.
I’m torn about this cause on one hand it would show the problems before they have a chance to set in, but on the other it would probably end in authoritarianism if it led to governmental collapse.
The accelerationists do tend to have quite an overlap with various flavours of authoritarianism. One has to wonder about their motives.
What else but regulations prevents the creation of surplus housing? That poverty as a feature post, why are those houses not been built?
It only takes a few people to solve the housing market in a liberal market by organizing the construction. With regulations, it takes a majority to make a change. The same majority who could rise taxes and build affordable housing with tax money right now.
There is land, unemployed people who can do the construction and people with income who seek housing and will pay for it. Who is preventing the construction?
Remember, slavery was a free market solution.
Indeed. I would argue that the free market, itself, carries no inherent morals. The morals, instead, lie within the consumers, and businesses. If the consumers are opposed to slavery, then, on moral grounds, it would be expected that they would boycott such a business. As such, a business would be inclined to not use such forms of labour since the public wouldn’t give them their business; however, it seems that the populace doesn’t care too much about those under the employ of a company as evidenced the rampant use of child labour, sweatshops, and poor human rights conditions by major corporations with foreign manufacturing – if the public is not opposed to such forms of obviously cheaper labour, then the market will certainly make use of them.
That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices and has the resources to vote with their wallet. Businesses are incentivised to conceal any actions that would cause them to lose customers, not stop those actions. They are also incentivised to eliminate competition so consumers don’t have a choice but to buy from them regardless of business practices.
That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices
This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.
and has the resources to vote with their wallet
This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.
They are also incentivised to eliminate competition
The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.
Let’s be honest there are areas that would benefit from less regulation.
(Looking at you housing!)
Let’s be honest, this is simply not true. Regulation acts in favor of the weaker link, no area benefits from deregulation.
Are you kidding me? No area benefits from deregulation?
Regulation in a lot of areas is put in as a protection to businesses already in the space to help alleviate competition. Is Charter/Comcast is out there pushing for deregulation so that small cities and communities can come in and setup their own cheaper broadband services, or are they fighting it tooth and nail?
Does my barber actually need a license to cut hair? Sure you could argue that the barber is technically more hygienic, but that isn’t always the case… it’s just another way to make it harder for me to open up a competing barbershop.
Regulations are made to make sure that businesses comply with the minimum safety and health rules, as well as not actively harming the consumer. So, no, no area benefits from deregulation. Giant companies love deregulation so they can monopolize and/or fix prices. Getting to your barber example: if I’m trying to find a barber, I will surely only look for licensed barbers, as I surely do not want a busted hair job, or to incur in any hazard. Simple as that.
In Brazil, during 1990 - 2000, telecommunications were a highly regulated market. Due to difficulties to enter the market, there was not that many companies around, and outside big cities, phones are mostly inexistent or too expensive for the average customer.
I remember that in my city (100k people) there was only one option, and in my mother’s city (5k people) there was no option.
After ~2000, the government did a big deregulation, making easier to other companies to enter in the market and do investments. A few years later, we got coverage across the entire country. For example, in 2005 my city had 5 options and my mom’s city had its first option. At this time my family finally could afford paying for a phone plan.
So yeah, excess regulation can harm markets, and deregulation can be good. Finding balance is key here.
Regulation is hardly on the top 20 Brazil problems list. Be serious.
I mean, you said that deregulation has no benefits, I just gave you an example that disagrees with your idea. It does not matter other Brazilian problems in this context, I could take any example of any place to prove my point.
It does matter because you cannot isolate the effects of regulations from the corruption, violence, etc… All of which are huge issues in Brazil.
Regulations also helps minor things like keeping food and medicines safe.
Traffic regulations make the entire system of people staying on their own side of a 4 inch paint line work.
Creating slums will solve the housing crisis!!!
I’m not saying slums… but look around the United States and see what states are monumentally cheaper to build in. Hint. It’s not blue states.
And I say that as a progressive in minnesota.
Blue states are more desirable to live in, thusly increasing demand. Though you’d need an education to understand economics 99, and it seems your state didn’t provide.
Yes. That’s why record number of people are moving to Idaho/Montana and Texas… because they are so undesirable.
Because they’re cheaper, dumbass. I’m saying this as someone who has moved to one of those states. It’s not because retards run the state.
Given your online demeanor I feel like you probably fit in well, and I’m guessing the locals love you.
Enjoy being part of the problem but not realizing it.
Right, me telling you why people I actually know did the thing you claim to know their motives for makes me part of the problem…
Your intelligence leaves a lot to be desired.
And so will unlimited luxury condos priced at millions of dollars each!
That is a capitalism chasing the bag problem, not a too much regulation problem.
It’s a too LITTLE regulation problem: most cities have regulations about what you can build where and x amount of housing being affordable.
They don’t tell you, but the regulations against replacing affordable housing with expensive condos are some of the ones the people behind YIMBY are most eager to get rid of.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm. The housing market is suffering due to “real estate investors” just buying out and renting houses that used to be non-rental. Investment is driving up the cost of housing significantly. There’s going to be a reckoning as wages are kept down and mortgages keep going up though. Eventually rent to cover mortgages are going to be too high and it’s just going to push out the small time real estate investors, and either more companies will move in or there’ll be a small drop in pricing.
One reason the condo complex has sane, ish, prices is that rentals are not allowed and if you want to flip one you will be paying both taxes and association dues till its sold.
I’ll agree that is A problem, but not the only problem.
- Nimbyism
- Building laws
- licensing laws
- zoning
Those things also add to the exorbitant cost of housing. It’s not investors who are causing houses to cost 300 a square foot in my city, it’s lack of buildable land, contractor availability, licensing, residential zoning laws. All those things equal cost… some of those things could be fixed with less regulation.
I mean, food can be made cheaper with less regulation too, that doesn’t mean that’s the right answer or even a good answer. Most of that stuff you mentioned has been in place for a long time. The more recent blowup in cost isn’t directly related.
You do realize it’s possible that it’s more than one thing that is contributing to the cost of housing, right? … and not just landlords, despite what lemmy keeps telling everyone.
You understand that the better version of your argument is better regulation, not less regulation, right? That’s really the core of my point. Plus, the items you mentioned still have other benefits that need to be weighed against (and lack of contractors isn’t even a regulation, it’s a possible outcome of some other regulation, which is probably the licensing, but that is even closer to the whole FDA argument I made, and let’s be honest, you needed more items for your list).
Edit: and it being a seller’s market is absolutely caused by demand for purchasing, so in the end it’s still landlords fault. They’re converting too many non-rentals to rentals. They’re buying up houses at high costs because it becomes more affordable with more units, therefore driving pricing. It truly is the biggest influence in purchase price. Regulating that would absolutely have a far better effect than deregulating other areas (which still sounds more like they just need better regulation).
I mean in my neck of the woods the issue is less landlords driving up the price as it is influx of California s selling 1000 sqft homes in California for 1 million and being able to pay cash for any affordable house here because we don’t have a supply… again see my other reason for not having supply
I just googled it. It seems to be the mortgage lock-in effect that’s the number one driving factor for lack of homes. Mortgage rates are too high so people aren’t selling. They do mention construction under-building, but it’s not really the main cause. Also in 2021, California passed a law allowing single family homes to become up to 4-family dwellings… oh… this lead to a bunch of companies coming in and paying cash for homes to convert to rental units. And there’s actually been a lot of push to make it easier to build more and further deregulate and that seems to be having none of your expected outcomes… because it’s not really the biggest reason. And again, it has even had some of the opposite due to zoning deregulation.
The market isn’t free, there’s a ton of restrictions and policies that benefit large corporations while making it very difficult for new companies to make any headway against their competition
Remove those restrictions and things get shittier, not more competitive. The only thing that makes smaller companies competitive is either 1, they corner some disruptive market that the big boys are ignoring (this is so rare you likely know all of the big instances of this) or 2, antitrust breaks up the big companies so that a more competitive market emerges.
That’s it. Anything else is an edge case of an edge case and not worth bothering with. The top of that list is removing regulations. Regulations are written in blood and acting like they’re just red tape in your way is how people die.
Yeah wtf. Regulation is the only reason new businesses can come into the market at all
Indeed. Any problem with small business breaking in right now is mostly a function of the fact that our system for anti-trust has completely fallen off. Like the story about Microsoft and Phil Spencer wanting to buy Nintendo or Valve - in a sane world, they wouldn’t even consider it because that’s a clear case of consolidation that is harmful for consumers.
You’ve got it backwards. If it wasn’t for the government, regulations and anti monopoly laws there wouldn’t be any new companies, it’d just be one major Corp for each sector.
They still don’t even go far enough tbh.
That’s what free market means
