Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CapitalistHogg™ who wrote (10406)	12/21/2007 2:43:37 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Maybe in some theoretical world but not in the real world. Your "real world" is a contrived one. People will tell you they have been "ripped off" when something is given to them free of charge, because something better could have been given. Cooperation can't be defined in free market theory. Microeconomics is not really that different than macro. Cooperation can't be defined, for there is not distinction between cooperation and manipulation. You can't tell when your efforts are being used by someone with whom you are cooperating for their gain and your loss. Demand is price inelastic. True. And perhaps that is why you are correct. There is no true consequence to a "ripoff" because the buyer is indifferent to price and gets no price info with which to harbor resentment. This is the nature of black market. You always get ripped off and you know it! You see, there's always a default free market in ideas. Not a free market because there is no rule of law. Not needed...oh but wait! that is why demand is price inelastic...hmmmm you got me there. One must not confuse the default free market in ideas with free markets in goods and services. Loyalty is thin in the biz. In this microeconomic example that was the point...A doesn't have loyalty, he cheats the system. A can't because there's no rule of law that enables the system to be defined. Therefore, it can't be established what constitutes "cheating the system". Necessarily in that environment loyalty is thin. B does have loyalty because it serves his purpose makes life easier safer and most importantly profitable. Can't confuse the market in ideas with the market in goods. B does not know the best interest of the group. No one knows that in any kind of market, free, fair, black, or white. Presuming to know that invites failure, collusion, and chaos. wrong wrong wrong. Socialism socialism socialism. A thinks he can get away with it (cheating customers)-- that equals chaos. Cheating can't be defined. This is equivalent to the schlep not being justified in feeling ripped off. In the real world this is pretty much how it works, since A may initially have an automatic feeling of ripped off, but once A gets high, A is glad he let the deal go down. B knows it is in his best interest to cooperate because not doing so would only invite trouble. Cooperate with whom? The only cooperation possible or necessary is cooperation with one's own belief about whether the price was right. One has to cooperate with one self's beliefs or one feels self cheated. In the biz you find this quite a lot. You're making all this money but you're always feeling that you're cheating yourself. You're mistakenly cooperating with someone else's ideal of success! customers know it is also in their best interests to cooperate. period. That's why I asserted that the schlep shouldn't be feeling "ripped off". They do tacitly cooperate. In a free market people haggle. You don't get that at the peddler level in the biz, although you do get it at the dealer level. Accordingly, when dealers haggle they don't feel "ripped off". This is where the drug market starts to resemble a free market. The rule of law enters when a burn yields a refusal to do further biz. The only time cheating works is when you can get away with it Who is being cheated? For cheating to be discernible one must have price info. And, remember, schlep doesn't really care about being burned especially when the product is good. --- ultimately that is bad for business --- unless you are absolutely isolated (dictatorship) cheating the system doesn't work in the long run. The system isn't defined and can't be defined for the reasons I've given. It starts becoming defined loosely at the dealer level where price info becomes available. Probably, but i do own the Wealth of Nations books I -III and occasionally read from time to time. Everything I've stated comes from Smith. Indeed, a black market arises when authority stops the function of a free market. A set of transactions does not define a free market, only a market. One set of "Authority" is merely replaced with another set of "Authority". ? Hence my point about "black market" being the ultimate capitalistic market, it IS Anarcho-Capitalism the finest and purest form of capitalism because one is made both self governing and democratic. Anarchism isn't free market capitalism. There's nowhere in Smith that that is claimed. Further, such a creation is neither democratic nor self governing. Because it lacks these properties the market becomes pyramidal and chaotic, ending up in complete failure where no one attends the market but engage in strict barter among a few. Pure cave man and does not improve survivability. Pirate ships are another perfect example of anarcho-capitalism both self governing and democratic if the Captain of the Ship didn't perform up to a "code of conduct" <read law> he was made to walk the plank! There is no capitalism in this model. Only pure tyranny.