| |||||||||||||
The Holy And Devine Free Market, Savior of AllThe Holy And Devine Free Market, Savior of AllPosted Oct 17, 2008 20:07 UTC (Fri) by zotz (guest, #26117)In reply to: The Holy And Devine Free Market, Savior of All by Ed_L. Parent article: Bruce Perens: A Vertical Market Seeks Open Standards (Datamation)
Can we say that a market in which limited liability corporations operate is a free market? Some of the players have unlimited liability while others have government granted limited liability. That right there puts the players on an unequal footing and it is the governments doing.
Yes? No? Why?
Now, whether this is a good thing or not is another discussion.
all the best,
drew
(Log in to post comments)
The natural market equilibrium, suppressed by almost all Posted Oct 19, 2008 21:10 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Can we say that a market in which limited liability corporations operate is a free market? Some of the players have unlimited liability while others have government granted limited liability. That right there puts the players on an unequal footing and it is the governments doing.There seems to be a symmetry here that I've never managed to describe succinctly—so you get the prolix one. What we have here (in corporations) is a way to allow money to band together to reinforce its power. A corporation with a hundred thousand stockholders in for $100 each is vastly more powerful than a hundred thousand random people with the price of a couple of tanks of gas. They do this by joining a governmentally-approved, nay, -encouraged money amplifier. The symmetry: a union. A way to allow a few hundred, a few thousand, or more people to band together to reinforce their power. It's obvious that one is for people with money, and the other for those without. In a free market, wouldn't they be equally supported?
|
|||||||||||||