Saudi-led Opec Plus cartel decided to cut production by 2m barrels a day – the opposite of what Biden administration officials had pleaded with the Saudis to do. After the shock of that embarrassing announcement, which threatened to raise gas prices around the US midterm elections, Biden vowed: “There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done.”
I thought you liked the free market?
It’s only free for American companies.
When Canadian companies like Bombardier try to get involved in the free market, they get blocked by the US DOJ until they run out of money.
Canadian private jet companies just can’t catch a break1.
1 Unless its a federal election year, and Québec seats are up for grabs.
That classic free market system where a cartel has regular meetings to set production levels to maximise their profits.
welcome to monopoly capitalism, the inevitable end stage of free market systems
A free market is a distinct concept from a perfect market. You’re describing a perfect market operating under ideal conditions.
A free market with laissez-faire policies lends itself directly to cartels and monopolies because a perfect market cannot exist without government intervention. Maybe you should’ve paid attention in ECON 101.
I dunno, maybe they changed the terminology since I took it. Seems to me “free market” was not previously imbued with all that meaning you guys are reading into it. I’m not convinced it isn’t just an Americanism. To me a “free market” is simply one that’s substantially free of distortion, resembling to a notable extent a perfect market. But I’ll certainly avoid the phrase in future.
A “free market” is an unregulated market. At least, that’s how it’s sold in politics. An unregulated market lends itself towards cartels and monopolies.
Indeed, I am convinced of it. Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to help fill in my ignorance there. It was a pleasure being your crazy person on the internet for the day.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between free-markets and market concentration. If by a free-market, we use the standard neoclassical meaning of one where there is no/very little/minimal government or public regulation to influence demand or supply or the price mechanism, which in material terms implies that those are completely controlled by private capital and its owners, then there is nothing stopping this from being an oligopoly, a cartel or a monopoly. Actually lack of public regulation has generally lead to more concentration, not less.
I think you are confusing the neoclassical ‘perfect competition’ (which does not, and cannot, exist in the real world) and neoclassically defined ‘free’-markets.
Please don’t try drop econ-101 learns on Marxists if you don’t know the definitions of free-market economics, perfect competition or oligopolies.
If it involves “an oligopoly, a cartel, or a monopoly” then it is not a “free market” according to what they taught me in econ 101, everything convincing that I’ve heard since, and what Adam Smith explicitly wrote down when he first described the idea. Wikipedia cites Karl Popper in saying that in classical economics a free market is one that’s “free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities,” and that it’s a market in which economic rents are minimised. A monopoly is by definition antithetical to a free market. Any neoliberal suggestions that attacking the whole concept of public regulation of markets will always make them more free are simply lies, and should not be accepted.
That there is at present little or nothing preventing any imperfectly but approximately free markets that might otherwise exist devolving into less free ones dominated by monopolies, cartels, corrupt and captured regulators, out-of-control rent seeking, frauds that rely on information asymmetry, and other such perversions is (obviously, I thought) the reason why I’ve been consistently saying that “free” markets are not something we see much of in reality. Perhaps that’s not exactly congruent with Marxism, but I don’t think it’s inconsistent with it either.
If it involves “an oligopoly, a cartel, or a monopoly” then it is not a “free market”
Markets unregulated tend towards oligopoly, cartels and monopoly over time. Free market is interchangeable with private autocracy.
“The free market is so wonderful that the slightest unpleasant activity makes the free market no longer wonderful but that isn’t the free market’s fault except everyone with means is able to make that unpleasant activity happen, which again isn’t the free market’s fault and we can not possibly have a better system.”
Actual free markets are almost as rare as actually existing socialism.
DAE LE BOTH SIDES WHICH MEANS STATUS QUO SIDE IS BEST
free market is when good so obviously when the market does something bad it must not be the market
the free market produced the triangle trade ffs
Ah, of course, real capitalism has never been tried
A “free market” as the term is usually understood is a well-defined thing, which of course has many problems and failure modes, but is not well-represented by a market dominated by a large cartel routinely controlling prices. It is also not the same thing as capitalism.
How is it defined? Usually understood by whom? Are you talking about abstract concepts or historical examples of “free markets” and their development?
Cartels and monopolies are the result of “free markets” btw. The strongest agents will organize to dominate and destroy the competitors however they can.
The free market is an abstract concept, one which rarely exists in anything like its ideal form due to its instability under current conditions of capitalist development. The original definition given by classical economics is still the prevalent one. Despite what slogans from some proponents of capitalism would have you believe, not only are free markets not identical with it, but capitalism tends to take markets further and further from anything resembling their theoretically ideal state of freedom.
I always find it funny how hung up the media class has been on Keshoggi. Its a fairly intense bit of class solidarity I suppose. Like in terms of pointless and evil acts of the Saudi Arabia state it doesn’t even rank but its seemingly the only thing journalists remember
it’s just very memorable and visceral how it was carried out
deleted by creator
via a drain pipe.
The Blob (1988)
Probably because in a free from authoritarian government the free press is supposed to be the ultimate checks and balances on personal liberty. When you can’t even write something negative about a leader without being dismembered in a hotel and disposed of in duffle bags like trash, that should be ringing alarms for anyone that isn’t licking boots.
Wasn’t he investigating payments from MBS to Jared Kushner?
free press is supposed to be the ultimate checks and balances on personal liberty.
So what does it mean when “free” press is all just owned by rich chucklefucks who have a vested interest in making things as unfree for the working class as possible?
It means that the alarm bells went off and people paid more attention to capitalism, and voting in people that actively worked against them, because those elected officials treated people they disliked even worse. Then we got a wanna be dictator that went full “journalists are an enemy of the state” because they say mean (TRUE) things about him. Journalists now choose between being able to eat, or sounding the alarm that costs them a job (and falls on deaf ears).
Meanwhile all those dead Yemenis don’t even warrant a mention, especially since it might have people asking why we were over there helping kill them in the first place
Removed by mod
The war in Yemen had very little coverage in the West. People are talking about all the drones being used in Ukraine, but they’d been using drones with similar devastating effecet in Yemen - the main difference being they tended to target people rather than tanks.
See, Yemen is a bad place where bad things are allowed to happen. By Western logic stuff only becomes real if it enters our imaginary bubble of perpetual safety. That’s also why 9/11 and the Ukraine invasion got such a big reaction.
To be clear, the bubble is not real, it can all happen here.
Journalists are extremely protective of their own, they really like to believe they are a separate class above the regular people. They go as far as releasing press freedom indexes that include feelings, and penalize not granting them additional rights.
Putin taught Kim Jong, who taught MBS, who taught Modi. When one or two civilians lives are an acceptable compromise to retain a relationship with another country, you open up that route for all.
Edit: The triggered tankies from Hexbear just soothe my soul. Cry more.
please read a fucking book
yeah nobody knew about assassinations or political killings until Putler invented it in 2002
Machiavelli who
this post gave me brain damage
Death to America
Please tell me you’re doing a bit.
“In my fantasy land, everything I say is true”
Lmao classic just saying stuff
And Sauron taught Voldemort who taught Thangos who taught Putler.
Incredible bit
Wow not kidding pretty much all hexbear… and I’m sorry they are upset cause Putin didn’t originally come up with murder? Like not even defending anything just in here to shout and make noise because their favorite shitstain was called a mean name? They truly are peak rational humans huh? How could we not see their superiority? ತ_ತ
Google the name of your favorite politician shaking hands with one of saudi arabia rulers
Anybody find one with Bernie?
Isn’t he part of the democratic party? Just look for pictures of his ceos
You couldn’t find one with Saudi rulers either?
Just wondering what you think, didn’t Jamal Khashoggi write articles defending Hisbullah and other terrorist orgs that Saudis didn’t like? I am not justifying the actions of SA, but just wondering here.
How is that even relevant? Is it ok to kill a person and just brush it off only because that person wrote articles?
If you need help explaining just how fascist the west is to an average person, point out how they keep aligning themselves with some of the most savage murderous regimes in human history. There isn’t a single answer that doesn’t make them look like a complete monster.
The west’s own savage actions so massively dwarf anything Saudi has done in this period that it’s a pretty silly guilt by association point.
Maybe to you, but these people are either unaware of their actions or think their actions are good. You have to tie it to something else.
If freedom of press is one of the ways you can assess how fascist a state is, which it is, then I wonder which countries you consider better than the west. China? Russia? North Korea? Yeah, all places renown for not silencing journalists, poisoning political opponents or ruling with an iron fist. All places where you can just criticize the government, publicly, on prime TV, in the journals, without repercussions.
Also all places where they don’t murder people for their political views, where they don’t incarcerate them, torture them, send them to “re-education camps” or try to genocide entire ethnic groups in order to reduce dissent.
At the end of the day, “the west” remains the only place where you can actually go on tv, in the squares and protest against the government decisions, criticize them and even vote for the government to leave power. Is it perfect? Hell no, it’s a disgusting system rigged by the rich and powerful, but it’s still miles ahead of any totalitarian, authoritarian dictatorship.
Also it’s not like China isn’t buying lots of oil from Iran, a country which it’s as much a savage murderous regime as Saudi Arabia, and from Russia, an imperialistic warmongering nation. And the reason it’s clear, they need energy as much as the west needs energy. It’s the reason why everyone puts up with those kinds of people.
The sooner we, as a species, can move away from oil, coal, gas and the likes, the better it will be for everyone. No more energy wars and a cleaner planet overall.
How much good has your criticism of the government done?
Do you have affordable housing? Are your healthcare needs covered? Is your taxpayer money going to help improve your life? Is the homeless issue solved? Has your government avoided going to war? Has your government fixed the rampant racial inequality in the prison system?
I say this like it’s to an American, but really it applies to most Western countries.
Well, some of those point have improved in some countries of the western block. Not everyone is American btw. And I’m not saying the west is perfect, but when making a statement like “this is why the west is the worst” you also need to tell me who is better.
Lots of these issues are extremely present in other non-western countries as well and even more so. Or are you telling me that outside of western countries everyone else has affordable housing, free, good and available healthcare, a good and fair justice system, no racial inequality and no wars?
Sure, I’m not denying that conditions aren’t perfect, but the argument being made is that having a democracy influences government policy to align with citizens’ interests.
Looking at per-capita wealth, the West should be doing much better on these key issues under the assumption that the government exists to make people’s lives better.
See the problem with this logic is that you’re weighing the west’s real actions at best, or probably their white washed actions against fairytale versions of their adversaries who only exist in the west’s propaganda. It’s not hard to be better than someone written to be a caricature of evil.
So it’s OK to fund death squads and start war at every country that even remotely approaches socialism if you allow the illusion of freedom. Got it.
China? Russia? North Korea? Yeah, all places renown for not silencing journalists, poisoning political opponents or ruling with an iron fist.
They’re all better than the USA. The rest is what the US told you to think.
Yes, then try to go to Red Square in Moscow with a pro Ukraine sign, go to Tienanmen square with a sign against the occupation of Tibet or a sign against Xi. Even if you don’t believe that, just to see what happens.
Then, do the same in any western country, with a sign against the local government or pro Russia or whatever you prefer. Just try it and report back please. Let’s see who has more freedom of speech.
Going with your example here, try to highlight Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, and how there’s lobbies for Israel that are basically worldwide (it’s most prevalent in USA, AIPAC and CUFI being the big 2) spreading Pro-Israel propaganda. Israel’s propaganda machine also has bot farms (called war rooms) distributing propaganda just like the Kremlin bots.
Try pointing all of that out, then see what happens then in the very country that touts its freedom of speech. (Hint: You get put on a list and you’re smeared so bad your job is in jeopardy).
I suggest you read up on this, it’s interesting. Here’s a link for some reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
Generally, pointing something out that a state doesn’t want to be pointed out will involve the state cracking down on you, it’s just state policy. Shouldn’t be but it is. I support all dissidence.
I’m gonna tell you a secret, no one is going to arrest you for saying what you are saying in the USA. I’m pretty sure most Americans are not even that much into Israel to begin with. It’s just a game of geopolitics.
And we are talking about the USA again. The west is not just the USA btw. Also, I’ve been to Israel, a couple times now, and that place is so fucked up, it’s not even a joke.
This being said, have you tried doing what I said? Answer me clearly. Go to Red Square, protest against the occupation of Ukraine. Go to Tienanmen square, protest against the occupation of Tibet. Just try it.
I’ll go to Rome or Paris or London to protest against Israel if you want, it’s really not a big deal. Actually, it’s more likely somebody would join me than arrest me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This being said, have you tried doing what I said? Answer me clearly. Go to Red Square, protest against the occupation of Ukraine.
Well in Russia’s case, they just arrest everyone and put them in jail for 5-15 years and make up laws saying that you can’t criticise the army/government or protest. So people stop protesting because they don’t want to go to the shithole that is Russian jail, or even worse like in one case with a schoolgirl doing a non-approved drawing, the father being subject to CIA torture methods (i recall one of them he had the russian anthem blasted at him at ear-damaging volume, which is what the CIA done in Guantanamo bay).
Also, the elections are rigged in Russia (just so you know that information).
This is a brain dead take because it’s just guilt by association. Having diplomatic relations with countries around the world doesn’t mean that you endorse or support their government. A country that’s ruled by a shitty ideology like Fascism or Marxism is something to be weary of, but these countries do in fact exist and they do play a role in global politics and economics. For example, the UAE and Israel normalizing relations doesn’t mean that they support each other, but they recognize each other’s influence and understand that diplomacy and cooperation is more beneficial and productive than shunning each other.
I mean we tried to sanction, shun, and ignore authoritarian countries like Cuba and North Korea for decades… How has that worked out for us? My point is that we can’t cut relations with every country we don’t like. There are situations where that should be the case and there are definitely arguments for us to be more cautious when dealing with these types of regimes, but we can’t cut ourselves off from the vast majority of the world (which is authoritarian) nor can we force countries to adopt our ways (we tried with Iraq and Afghanistan, it didn’t work).
shitty ideology like Fascism or Marxism
Crakkka, I aint reading past that
Lol it’s funny how racists are always either Fascist or Marxist. Let me guess you’re scum who’s dumb enough to follow one of these failed murderous ideologies
👋
Seethe and cope trash
