Gallup unemployment falls to 8.4%, matching lowest level since Jan 2010

The market can certainly work. That's rarely a capitalist-specific phenomena though

 

like I said.....only in the case of monoploies but even then the monoploy company needs to always look over its shoulders to see if anybody is trying to undercut their price and steal market share!

 

The attempt to make "its monopoly specific" comment is just standard expectation amongst the perfect competition brigade. That of course ignores market concentration is the norm

 

First, government didn't "own" the telecommunications industry; it simply regulated it, which had benefits and burdens.

Second, when the government deregulated the airline industry, prices fell for main hubs, but increased for areas outside of large metro zones. With no or fewer direct flights, you had to go out your way and pay more to get where you wanted to go. See, benefits and burdens.

Third, price isn't everything. We could deregulate our food price supports and get really low priced oranges one year. But next year we might have no oranges, as farmers go broke. Then the year after that, prices would skyrocket. And then people would get back into orange growing and prices might drop. But we don't want cheap oranges one year and no oranges the next. We want oranges. Insuring that we always have oranges by created a floor price makes sense if the goal is having oranges.

Fourth, competition is a complex phenomena involving government intervention at various levels, including antitrust regulations and just basic contract enforcement through the courts. So your pristine view of competition is utterly simplistic.

Fifth, government is more efficient supplying certain services, like electricity, than the market, since the initial capital expenditures are sometimes out of reach of even the largest corporations and the rate of return too low or spread out over too many years. No private corporation could have built Hoover Dam or the Tennessee Valley Authority system.

 

1) I never said telecommunications were owned by the government but as you said it was regulated and so the phone companies had little competition and so kept prices high.

2) as for your other points all I can say is its usually market forces that drive prices down....here in canada we have the wheat board which regulates the price of grains.....some may think its good as it prevents as you say farmers from going broke but it also adds cost to the product so this is why many food items cost more in Canada! I personally dont agree with these controlled prices!

 

which would then lead to potentially explosive price effects. You've referred essentially to a temporal market failure and the gains available by reducing uncertainty

 

but the end results are higher prices for all!

 

You can't say that given you have no means to assess the consequences of a more stable environment on long term supply

 

prices would go higher in a shortage true, but they would also collapse during surpluses. Rememeber that if prices go too high usually others will see the opportunity and jump in to profit from it,, thus driving down prices!

 

The problem is that you're ignoring the nature of agriculture. Its not like the standard supernormal profit games spun by standard neoclassical economics. The consequences of uncertainty creates long run losses. And let's not forget what Keynes said about the long run

 

if you are talking about things like droughts and other acts of GOD then yes....those are uncontrollable. But thats what trade is for.....things may be bad here but good someplace else. So.....the ones with the bad weather can import food from where there are surpluses...so thus stabalizing prices in both places!

 

You're merely ignoring the severity of market failure created through uncertainty. I'm all in favour of ending the likes of the Common Agricultural Policy (and introducing a rational alternative), but that doesn't mean we can simply ignore market problems to suit our dogma

 

ok then...so give me an example of where market forces would not take care of a certain problem?

 

Market failures are everywhere, from externalities to the consequences of demand shocks on agricultural supply. We can't ignore them. To be market orientated we necessarily have to refer to them, else we become neo-liberal cretins that allowed the likes of the current financial crisis

 

Market shocks like droughts or freezes....or even pests eating our plants....again as I said we can always import from elsewhere and this is beneficial to both places....if another place has too much produce then prices collapse but if they can export then that assures stable prices as there is always a buyer somewhere for the right price!

 

Again, you've simply taken a standard perfect competition answer and ignored the nature of agriculture. There has to be an understanding of long term supply, else you have a celebration of market failure

 

look.....markets are not perfect...agreed....but having a bunch of intervention isn't the answer.....even with all the government intervention that wont stop a drought or a winter freeze of crops...and so the only accomplish,ent of government regulation is higher prices...the worst of both worlds!

 

Ignoring the need for intervention in imperfect markets is illogical. You cannot find consistency with your ideology and the practical nature of capitalism

 

but droughts or freezes cannot be controlled so what will those so called "REGULATIONS" accomplish?

 

OWS proves unemployment isn't 8.5 percent or anything less than 10.

 

Already said: stability in long term supply

 

impossible.....a drought will always cause interruptions no matter how good intensions are!

 

I referred to long term supply. You're referring to the short term

 

the same results can be obtained by trade.....go to places that have surpluses....both will benefit!

 

The same result isn't achieved. There are long term losses created by the supply instabilities. You're ignoring the market failure