Does anybody believe in the free market?

[Sage_Rat]

@Exapno_Mapcase

He was certainly both Scottish and a believerin the free market as he and most economists defined it for most of the next two centuries.

No true Scotsman

The OP has defined everyone to be non-faithful and then asked, “Why is no one faithful?” Well, because that’s a silly definition.

One might note, for example, that no one really likes to dance. Does anyone dance 24 hours a day? Do they replace all their joints with a ball bearing and a minimalistic magnetic cup, so that their limbs can all freely rotate through an inhuman arc? Do they wear implanted speakers so that there is music playing right into their ears without pause? Why do you think there is such a dearth of true dancers?

Maybe some aspect of life is enjoyable in it’s purist and most unrelenting form.

But I would suggest cycling through some activities in your head and trying to think of one that you can’t attach the word “too” to, and come up with a scenario that would explain the “too”. Can you even think of one where you can’t succeed? I mean sure, most of those will be silly, but likewise it’s silly to suggest that there shouldn’t be obvious excesses of free marketry if it’s a good thing.

The point being, though, if you can’t think of an activity that is “too” proof then how reasonable is it to expect that anyone would embrace purism of free marketry and not be a lunatic? How reasonable is it to think that the ability to envision a “too” case means that the activity is bad?

If you did find a person who was attracted to my definition of dancing purism, that would be a crazy person. They might exist, but they’re not going to be someone worth mentioning as “a person who really loves dancing” except as a cautionary tale.

But having found that one “cautionary tale”, have you actually learned something? Because nutball dancehead exists, should we really be scared of dancing?

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Riemann

In general, Libertarians don’t understand how an effective free market economy works any better than Communists, because Libertarians don’t understand that free markets require careful regulation in order to function.

I’d agree with most of this except I’d alter that last from from ‘in order to function’ to ‘in order to survive’.

An unregulated free market - which sounds counterintuitive, I know - is a system with a positive feedback loop. It’s prone to spiraling out of control and collapsing to either monopolistic corporatism or anarchistic revolution when people’s basic needs are not met.

[Riemann]

Yes, I’d agree with that. A classic example of how poorly regulated markets are dysfunctional is the U.S. banking industry leading up to the 2008 crash. During cyclical growth, there’s a strong incentive for lenders to lend recklessly, because it increases short term profits. A conservative banker who considers what might happen to a borrower in a future economic downturn is likely to lose his job in favor of a reckless banker, because in the short term the reckless banker has made more loans, and in boom years when nobody is going bust more loans means greater profits. That’s why banking must be strictly regulated to prevent reckless lending.

The 2008 crash was not caused by “evil” bankers, except in a superficial proximate sense. The true underlying cause was a regulatory environment that was not fit for purpose. Nothing should depend on bankers being “good” rather than “evil”. Human nature is what it is, that’s why we need a legal system and regulations. If the regulatory environment is well designed, the only thing necessary for a stable banking industry and loan market is that bankers follow the law, and compete with one another in the free market that operates within the legal and regulatory framework.

[Riemann]

@Exapno_Mapcase

As long as it’s a year later than the OP’s statement, it’s all good.

I think, having said that, you need to come back and tell us third-year stuff about what the free market *really *is.

I get that you’re snarking back at RickJay’s snark. But in the interest of fighting ignorance, ignore the snark element - I think RickJay’s comments at post #13 were also accurate and on point.

[l0k1]

Just so I’m clear:

The OP suggests that a free market, one in which hairdressers do not need to be licensed is preferable to a regulated market with licensed hairdressers. Is it better for the people being injured by unlicensed hairdressers? Or are they just collateral damage that we have to accept in order for apprentice surgery to be a thing?

[GreenWyvern]

If by ‘free market’ you mean a market that is totally unregulated, with no consumer protections, no bank guarantees, no laws or recourse to the courts for any kind of service or transaction… NOBODY wants that except anarchists.

It’s a mistake to think that there is one clearly defined version of what ‘free market’ means. There are many possible variations, and many possible types and degrees of regulation, but everyone sane agrees that there must be some kind of regulation.

Just as unregulated government ends in dictatorship and oppression, a totally unregulated market would end in some kind of financial serfdom, if it didn’t end in anarchy and collapse.

[Hari_Seldon]

Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.

I have never heard of an injury caused by a rogue hairdresser. On the other hand I read of a case a few years ago (sorry I cannot cite it) of someone who knew how to do cornrows that no licensed hairdresser could do. Her customers were quite happy but she was put out of business by the licensing bureau. She could not afford the cost of the training.

[RickJay]

@l0k1

Just so I’m clear:

The OP suggests that a free market, one in which hairdressers do not need to be licensed is preferable to a regulated market with licensed hairdressers. Is it better for the people being injured by unlicensed hairdressers? Or are they just collateral damage that we have to accept in order for apprentice surgery to be a thing?

It depends on what a realistic assessment is of the consequences of having unlicensed hairdressers.

I mean, do you KNOW what the likely results are? Neither do I; I honestly do not know why hairdressers in my jurisdiction have to be licensed. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but maybe it’s just rent-seeking. Based on the performance of the folks at Supercuts, it is certainly no guarantee of quality. The people who work in nail salons aren’t licensed; why not? Lots and lots of professions aren’t, and lots are, and the connection between the need for licensing and whether a profession is licensed is not always entirely clear.

A free market without government intervention simply cannot work, let’s all agree on that. Aside from maintaining a monopoly on legal force, where government intervention is generally needed is in areas of market failure, an economics terms that means, well, exactly what you think it means.

I live in Ontario, Canada. In Canada, we have government-run health insurance; everyone pays according to their ability to pay and gets universal basic health insurance. We do not have universal grocery provision; if you want food you go and buy it from a private business that’s willing to sell you food. If you are very poor the government will give you some money, but they’re still generally expecting the free market to sell you the food.

If you just had the government work based on need and importance, this makes no sense; food is just as important as health care. I’d argue more so. But it’s based on free market logic; the free market works INCREDIBLY well to get people food. It is extremely efficient; if you think about the logistics of it, the fact nations of millions of people can efficiently feed pretty much everyone without most people being involved in creating food it’s honestly kind of amazing. Health insurance, however, simply doesn’t work as a purely private matter; it is a famous example of adverse selection and market failure. If the government tried to run all the grocery stores, it’d be a disaster. If the government gave up its role in health insurance, THAT would be a disaster.

As a free market advocate, my position is that we should have as free a market as possible where the market works, and it usually does. But it is observable fact that in some respects it doesn’t. Controlling pollution requires government interference. Ensuring highway safety, too. Health insurance. National defense. The use of radio frequencies.

[Northern_Piper]

And just to add to RickJay’s good post, in Canada the doctors aren’t public servants. They’re independent contractors, whom the government pays.

The need for government intervention in healthcare is to fund the system, to ensure everyone has access, because that’s where health care economics indicate markets don’t work.

However, once the funding system is in place, we rely on doctors to provide services as independent businesses, setting up their own clinics, hiring their own staff, and running their own practices. Health care economics shows that at that stage, normal market systems do work, with the important additional benefit of professional independence for the doctors.

[Northern_Piper]

As for hair-dressers being licensed, I imagine it’s because of the need to ensure high hygiene standards. You don’t want to get lice because your hair-dresser didn’t stérilise the combs used on that last customer who had lice. (My barber always puts the comb he’s used in a glass jar filled with a blue liquid. Can’t remember the label, but it’s something about sterilising.)

If the hair cut involves shaving, that can mean minor nicks. You don’t want to get a communicable disease because the razor still had a bit of blood in it from the last customer.

Those are just my guesses. Don’t know if we have any hair-dressers posting who could help?

[RickJay]

That makes sense - sort of. Of course, there are two ways to approach that; licensing the individual barber, and licensing an establishment that sells the services of barbers.

To make an obvious point, licensing the hairdresser doesn’t make any sense at all if your goal is site hygiene. In any other similar industry, it’s the WORKPLACE that is licensed, inspected, and subject to written standards. The city issues licenses and conducts inspections of restaurants, not chefs, and that is invariably site-specific. Food processing inspections are site-specific; so are GMP audits of drug manufacturers.

Ontario’s exam to get a license is famously hard, has questions not obviously related to cutting or styling hair, and has often been criticized as being unfair to people for whom English is a second language. Anyway, that’s a bit of a rabbit hole.

[Northern_Piper]

True about inspecting kitchens, but i’ll bet to get your journeyman’s papers for food prep or chef, food safety would be a big part of it.

You want the kitchen to be run safely, so inspections, but that’s difficult to achieve if the workers in the kitchen haven’t been trained in food safety as a condition of getting their ticket.

[Ludovic]

@Hari_Seldon

I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination)

I don’t agree or disagree with the rest of your post, but there has been at least one instance where a Coke insider has offered to secretly sell their formula to Pepsi: Pepsi just turned them in to the cops. They don’t want the bad publicity from the public thinking they have to steal stuff from their competitor because their own wasn’t good enough, not to mention the actual legal consequences, and the approximate formula is probably readily available online anyway.

[l0k1]

@RickJay

It depends on what a realistic assessment is of the consequences of having unlicensed hairdressers.

I mean, do you KNOW what the likely results are? Neither do I; I honestly do not know why hairdressers in my jurisdiction have to be licensed. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but maybe it’s just rent-seeking. Based on the performance of the folks at Supercuts, it is certainly no guarantee of quality. The people who work in nail salons aren’t licensed; why not? Lots and lots of professions aren’t, and lots are, and the connection between the need for licensing and whether a profession is licensed is not always entirely clear.

A free market without government intervention simply cannot work, let’s all agree on that. Aside from maintaining a monopoly on legal force, where government intervention is generally needed is in areas of market failure, an economics terms that means, well, exactly what you think it means.

I live in Ontario, Canada. In Canada, we have government-run health insurance; everyone pays according to their ability to pay and gets universal basic health insurance. We do not have universal grocery provision; if you want food you go and buy it from a private business that’s willing to sell you food. If you are very poor the government will give you some money, but they’re still generally expecting the free market to sell you the food.

If you just had the government work based on need and importance, this makes no sense; food is just as important as health care. I’d argue more so. But it’s based on free market logic; the free market works INCREDIBLY well to get people food. It is extremely efficient; if you think about the logistics of it, the fact nations of millions of people can efficiently feed pretty much everyone without most people being involved in creating food it’s honestly kind of amazing. Health insurance, however, simply doesn’t work as a purely private matter; it is a famous example of adverse selection and market failure. If the government tried to run all the grocery stores, it’d be a disaster. If the government gave up its role in health insurance, THAT would be a disaster.

As a free market advocate, my position is that we should have as free a market as possible where the market works, and it usually does. But it is observable fact that in some respects it doesn’t. Controlling pollution requires government interference. Ensuring highway safety, too. Health insurance. National defense. The use of radio frequencies.

I’m not fully versed in hairdresser injuries, but my state’s DLLR feels that it’s enough of a problem to warrant it’s own webpage Complaints - Maryland Board of Cosmetologists - Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing

And the government doesn’t regulate things for no reason. Licensing and regulation are reactive measures. If I wanted to, and could read the articles that came up when I googled “hairdresser injury unlicensed”, but knowing that they exist is good enough for me to conclude that hairdressing is a trade that requires training, and that training is regulated through licensing by the state. I think the alternative is a crap shoot where we let the market decide after injuries occur.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@l0k1

I’m not fully versed in hairdresser injuries, but my state’s DLLR feels that it’s enough of a problem to warrant it’s own webpage Complaints - Maryland Board of Cosmetologists - Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing

And the government doesn’t regulate things for no reason. Licensing and regulation are reactive measures. If I wanted to, and could read the articles that came up when I googled “hairdresser injury unlicensed”, but knowing that they exist is good enough for me to conclude that hairdressing is a trade that requires training, and that training is regulated through licensing by the state. I think the alternative is a crap shoot where we let the market decide after injuries occur.

I think a lot of it goes to consumer confidence. Good hairdressers can be harmed if bad hairdressers give the entire profession a bad reputation. Even if a business is not highly regulated by the state, professional and trade organizations will frequently step on and offer some sort of certification in their field.

Interior design is a good example. Most states do not require interior designers to be licensed or certified in order to practice. There are a couple of professional organizations that hold courses and give exams to certify interior designers. While the states generally don’t require interior designers to be certified, most of them have title laws that do not permit them to refer to themselves as registered or certified unless they are.

So I think that if the laws requiring hairdressers to pass a state exam were to be repealed, then some professional organization would step in to fill the void. Because in the absence of any sort of enforceable minimum standard, selecting a hairdresser would be more difficult for the consumer. And there is a risk, from the hairdresser POV, that the quality of cuts nationwide would decline and damage the reputation of the business.

So your neighbor’s wastrel kid could legally cut your hair for $5, but most consumers would search out a stylist certified by the Hairdressers of America or whatever the dominant trade organization calls itself.

[Northern_Piper]

@l0k1

I think the alternative is a crap shoot where we let the market decide after injuries occur.

Or where you rely on unlicensed lawyers with no training to sue the hairdresser for negligence!

[Northern_Piper]

@Hari_Seldon

Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.

But that’s why the courts closely scrutinise non-compete clauses. They have to be reasonable in their terms, in scope of employment or occupation, location, and duration. The courts favour the liberty of the individual to earn their livelihood and will cut down or set aside over-reaching non-compete clauses.

[Northern_Piper]

@Hari_Seldon

Let me just point out that one example of our unfree markets are non-compete agreements that many companies insist that all employees sign. I am not talking about the people who have real trade secrets (although what Pepsi would do if they had the Coke formula passes my imagination) but employees who just want better pay on the basis of their experience. A typical example of capitalist overreach.

But that’s why the courts closely scrutinise non-compete clauses. They have to be reasonable in their terms, in scope of employment or occupation, location, and duration. The courts favour the liberty of the individual to earn their livelihood and will cut down or set aside over-reaching non-compete clauses.

Note that restricting the scope of non-compete clauses is actually a limitation on the free market. It restricts the freedom of contract of the parties. The courts take a dim view of non-compete clauses because of the power imbalance between the employer and employee, and will not leave this issue to be settled by the operation of a free market in employment.

[doreen]

@RickJay

That makes sense - sort of. Of course, there are two ways to approach that; licensing the individual barber, and licensing an establishment that sells the services of barbers.

To make an obvious point, licensing the hairdresser doesn’t make any sense at all if your goal is site hygiene. In any other similar industry, it’s the WORKPLACE that is licensed, inspected, and subject to written standards. The city issues licenses and conducts inspections of restaurants, not chefs, and that is invariably site-specific. Food processing inspections are site-specific; so are GMP audits of drug manufacturers.

Ontario’s exam to get a license is famously hard, has questions not obviously related to cutting or styling hair, and has often been criticized as being unfair to people for whom English is a second language. Anyway, that’s a bit of a rabbit hole.

Men- talking about haircuts and shaving. You’re right, if it’s just hygiene you’re worried about, you could license/inspect the workplace to make sure they have the canister with blue liquid for combs and so on. You could make sure one person has a certificate and is responsible for ensuring that the establishment meets hygienic standards. But that’s not all that’s involved for hairdressers - there’s also dying,perming straightening, and in some places the same license required to perform those tasks also allows the person to perform waxing. And for those tasks, it’s not just hygiene that’s important.There’s also the need to recognize skin conditions that preclude waxing, or knowing the appropriate dye to use on eyelashes and so on. This is why some places (maybe most) have two licenses - cosmetology ( which includes the preceding tasks) and barbering (which is haircuts and shaving) and the barbering license typically requires much less education than the cosmetology one.

[MrDibble]

@GreenWyvern

If by ‘free market’ you mean a market that is totally unregulated, with no consumer protections, no bank guarantees, no laws or recourse to the courts for any kind of service or transaction… NOBODY wants that except anarchists.

Don’t tell us what we want. Anarchism isn’t chaos, and not all anarchists are against regulated markets. Far from it.