Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But this is where you are wrong. It is completely because of the reality of human nature that a free market economy works. As soon as one seller becomes dishonest, a new seller opens shop, thinking they can make money by being a 'better company'. Buyers then pull out of the market and give business to the more honest, reliable company.
The free market relies on the fact that everyone is motivated by greed, and unfortunately excessive regulation does nothing but get in the way.
Then the mob moves in and puts a gun to honest man's head. What then? This happens often and if it's not the mob its some other kind of thief with a big stick.
First I have to retract the mercantile modifer because in the strictest since it doesn't apply. Instead I would like deal with the latter argument that this has more in common with a cooperative farm support system than anything approaching market capitalism.
The author argues that Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program is akin to purchasing stock in a company. If that were the case, each member of the CSA would in effect would become an equity holders, owners, in the farm/company, In this case the "investors" are not equity share holders, they have no legal ownership of the land, or the equipment, just the farmers produce. By pooling their resources they have in fact become a buyers cooperative whereby they can exert greater buying power of the farmer's produce (much like Walmart). In some years this can reap greater price savings while in other years it could result in much higher prices based upon the yield of any given years harvest. The farmer interestingly enough, bares no financial risk for a poor quality harvest, nor does he realize greater profitability during bountiful ones. The program is what it says that it is, a market stabilization program that insulates local agriculture from market forces by insuring that they will have the capital to bring produce to market and a guaranteed buyer for that produce.
The author also attempts to make the argument that this program is similar to commodity markets. But unlike commodity markets where commodities are purchased with the intent to be resold for a profit in this case the buyers have no impact on the price of the produce. A member of the CSA pays in advance for a share of the produce at a price that appears to be the same year in year out. This is so contrary to how commodity markets operate that it would seem that no further explanation would be needed. Suffice it to say that the price of goods sold in a commodity exchange are based upon buyers predictions of future harvests, or on current market demand which is not determined not by some preset price but rather an evaluation of the quality and size of the harvest and how they will be affected by demand or lack thereof. Even the author admits that in some years their "investment" is rewarded with produce far exceeding any possible demand. That isn't how a capitalist market is suppose to work, because it is a buyers cooperative, not a mutual fund.
So not only do market forces not exist for the farmer, they don't exist for the buyer as well. The members of the CSA have made a choice that they gain greater satisfaction from maintaining locally based agriculture than trying to find the best product for the best price at any given time. Quite progressive idea actually, but not something that a true capitalist would admire, which once again leaves my scratching my head at the economic thinking of the so-called Austrian school of economics.
Don't you think the Farm Stand is closer to the ideals of freedom than it is socialism?
If it had been a socialist stand everyone would receive an equal share, regardless of effort or input.
lol, You buy a share of land and you buy a share of produce. The product on which this market operates is land, NOT produce. Produce is a payback mechanism.
Again, from the article:
"To join a Community Supported Agriculture program, you buy a share of the farm's produce each season, which entitles you to a weekly box of locally grown vegetables and fruit. In a sense, members are not purchasing produce per se, but the rights to a certain proportion of produce should it be successfully delivered."
You don't purchase land, you don't purchase capital, you do not share a fiduciary responsibility for any tortuous acts, you do not share any fiduciary risks for debts incurred by the farmer all of which equity partners/share holders share with the principle entity. In short, a member of the CSA is not an equity partner, they are members of a buyer's coop.
Quote:
Now do you want to debate the CSA's financial model?
How on earth can you discuss this topic without discussing the financial model of the scheme upon which it rests? How absurd.
Quote:
Can you actually respond to my points regarding the fit of the CSA model to a free market economy?
I already did, and at quite length.
"To join a Community Supported Agriculture program, you buy a share of the farm's produce each season, which entitles you to a weekly box of locally grown vegetables and fruit. "
I am not surprised that you missed the entire argument.
Quote:
It is OK to admit you are wrong.
Can I interest you in purchasing a mirror?
Quote:
If you had even the most basic knowledge of economics...
Let's compare your rebuttal above to the following and let others decide who has a degree in economics from Cornell University and who is talking out of their ass:
The author argues that Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program is akin to purchasing stock in a company. If that were the case, each member of the CSA would in effect would become an equity holders, owners, in the farm/company, In this case the "investors" are not equity share holders, they have no legal ownership of the land, or the equipment, just the farmers produce. By pooling their resources they have in fact become a buyers cooperative whereby they can exert greater buying power of the farmer's produce (much like Walmart). In some years this can reap greater price savings while in other years it could result in much higher prices based upon the yield of any given years harvest. The farmer interestingly enough, bares no financial risk for a poor quality harvest, nor does he realize greater profitability during bountiful ones. The program is what it says that it is, a market stabilization program that insulates local agriculture from market forces by insuring that they will have the capital to bring produce to market and a guaranteed buyer for that produce.
Quote:
regulation is to prevent monopolies and such simplistic goals. Regulation of business and control of business are two very different things. Regulation was meant to exist to bring economies back to free market from monopolistic or oligopolistic systems. No more, no less. Please actually read up on economics a bit before you take such hard lines in debates.
There are a myriad of reasons for regulation of business that encompasses far more than monopolistic behavior, some examples, the National Labor Relations Act, the National Occupational and Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act and others.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 04-19-2011 at 08:33 PM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
Freedom has been evolving, we are in an era where all information is instantly available, freedom has a much better shot on a large scale now.
Force and violence had a good run, now it is time to give freedom a chance.
Freedom doesn't evolve. It remains what it always has been... freedom. What you're really confusing with freedom is the greater ability to share information. This ability of the information, like anything else, works both ways. It helps and it curbs. In the end, freedom remains what it always was.
Freedom doesn't evolve. It remains what it always has been... freedom. What you're really confusing with freedom is the greater ability to share information. This ability of the information, like anything else, works both ways. It helps and it curbs. In the end, freedom remains what it always was.
I should say the ability to keep freedom is evolving. It should either be a goal or not. For me it is a goal.
"...freedom remains what it always was." - A purchasable commodity. The more you can buy the more you have. A drunk looking for free shelter has very little freedom. A worker locating where there is work has a bit more. An executive with a huge investment portfolio from his huge bonuses has a lot more because he can quit anytime he wants. A publicity crazed billionaire has the most because he can campaign for high office without any experience or outside money. He is the freest of them all.
I should say the ability to keep freedom is evolving. It should either be a goal or not. For me it is a goal.
The tools are not the goals. They are a means to the ultimate goal that has always existed. Again, information is a tool, that can help or damage, as it always has been. As with any tool, people use information to justify their goal which doesn't change... freedom.
The same tool can be used to figure out that certain things are simply theoretical. Take The Wealth of Nations, for example. Adam Smith used information as the tool, to come up with the theories with a few contemporary examples applied, and also saw the practical side of it that human nature is not to be discounted.
This. Capitalism is actually the solution, not the problem. If we simplified the tax code and closed all loop holes and just had people whatever their bracket called for we could probably lower the overall tax rates. I'm not opposed to big business or rich people, I support them making as much money as they want/can, but what I don't support is them using that money to buy off politicians to destroy competition. I'm pretty sure libertarians and true conservatives can agree with me on the separation of business and state.
What we need is a fair tax based on consumption.
Between politics and business you need to remember money talks and BS walks.
But this is where you are wrong. It is completely because of the reality of human nature that a free market economy works.
A free market isn’t a free market when people use their power and influence to get the system gamed in their favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
As soon as one seller becomes dishonest, a new seller opens shop, thinking they can make money by being a 'better company'. Buyers then pull out of the market and give business to the more honest, reliable company.
That is unless the dishonest company gets the system gamed agents the honest one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
The free market relies on the fact that everyone is motivated by greed, and unfortunately excessive regulation does nothing but get in the way.
But excessive regulation is greed motivated as well, it keep competition from setting the price of things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
