tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2778743155448259302.post4821789407646478483..comments2023-01-17T08:20:40.994-08:00Comments on Practical Distributism: The bogus, self-serving notion that poverty is simpleDavid W. Cooneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447605091816577300noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2778743155448259302.post-76503400754233112162016-02-15T19:23:47.118-08:002016-02-15T19:23:47.118-08:00I apologize for the long delay in responding to yo...I apologize for the long delay in responding to your question, but here it is.<br /><br />Let's take the ideal system you started to outline above. I acknowledge that you ended your list with "etc.", but I think one item you made a point to include is very revealing. The absence of regulatory laws that allow large corporations to keep competition out of the market. Those who advocate economic liberalism seem to believe that the absence of such laws would prevent large corporations from keeping competition out of the market. Economic history shows this is not the case. <br /><br />Economic liberalism seems to always rest on an underlying, often unstated, assumption that without regulation the market will automatically be fair and balanced and, therefore, free. However, this is simply not the case. Once one competitor gains any significant economic advantage over the others, he can use many anti-competitive behaviors to get rid of his competition. Using economic power to manipulate the power of the state is merely one tool in the arsenal. Now, advocates of economic liberalism reject this particular tool, but don't include anything to effectively prevent it. <br /><br />Economic liberalism also rejects any form of regulation that would effectively protect the competition from the large corporation. With the notable exceptions of fraud and theft, the large corporation is left essentially free to engage in predatory anti-competitive behavior in the market. Those who advocate economic liberalism are always praising the forces of the free market, but then do not criticize when the large corporation charges below market prices, or pays below market wages, or outsources labor to countries where the workers are essentially slaves. Advocates of economic liberalism always insist on ethical behavior, but they also vigorously advocate against anything to enforce it on the grounds that the imposition of ethics interferes with the natural market forces. In other words, everyone should exercise scruples in their business activities, but with very limited exceptions we can't do anything about it if they don't. <br /><br />Take wage negotiations. The typical argument I hear from so-called conservatives is that wage agreements are freely negotiated so there is no need for government at any level to interfere. However, are they really freely negotiated? What conditions are required for those negotiations to be truly free? <br /><br />In order for negotiations to be truly free on both sides, both sides have to have the same negotiating power. A multi-billion dollar corporation offering a low-wage job on the one hand, and a low skilled person who might face eviction and hunger (for himself and his family) on the other is an all too common situation in wage negotiations. There is no level playing field and the wage negotiations in these cases cannot be truly considered fair or free. Yet, instead of calling out the corporations for exploiting these people, the "conservatives" attack the poor and praise the corporation. Remember that government assistance programs started because corporations were paying miserable wages - not the other way around. If conservatives want to end these government programs, they need to exert pressure - economic pressure - against the companies that pay wages so low that they make these programs necessary.<br /><br />Ethical behavior is praised, but not required. It is good business sense, but nothing is in place to prevent it unless it reaches the legal definitions of theft or fraud. Practically anything that brings higher profits is hailed as good business practice even if it ultimately is made possible through some social injustice. Economic liberals don't look at the social costs of such things because that is not part of their economic formula - even if it is important to them, it is a side issue from economics. David W. Cooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03447605091816577300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2778743155448259302.post-65561323638061474572016-01-04T10:23:20.388-08:002016-01-04T10:23:20.388-08:00Thank you for your question. Circumstances prevent...Thank you for your question. Circumstances prevent me from making a detailed response at this time. I will try to do so next week. In the mean time, I recommend the Distributism Basics articles on this site - particularly the one on the science of economics - that offer some explanation. Additionally, I answer this to some extent in the article titled "Utopia," published on this site in December 2013.David W. Cooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03447605091816577300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2778743155448259302.post-89062709375480144652016-01-02T16:35:18.609-08:002016-01-02T16:35:18.609-08:00How does economic liberalism increase poverty? Let...How does economic liberalism increase poverty? Lets say we have an ideal system where in economic liberalism can function without interference by central planners: For example, currency competition, banking competition, the absence of regulatory law that allow larger corporations to keep competition out of the market...ect... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com