• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Or they could just expel Enewald - that'll cut their problems at a stroke.
 
Or they could just expel Enewald - that'll cut their problems at a stroke.

Haters gonna hate. :p

Too much freedom for you to handle? :D

Fearing the rationality of the common man?
What a shame that our members of the parliament have so little faith in the common citizens that they feel superior to them in so many ways...
 
Too much anarcho-capitalist butthurt in actual fact.
 
I would be okay with that, as long we keep all kind of pseudo-socialists planners away from the party. If they want to build a socialist state, let them join Labour.

From what I can tell, you're not what I'd call a liberal in the sense of any of the various varieties of British Liberalism - I'm sure we could set up a Libertarian party for you though :p
 
Though, in fairness, some of us have been telling that to Mark Littlewood for years and yet he's still hanging around ;)
 
Last edited:
From what I can tell, you're not what I'd call a liberal in the sense of any of the various varieties of British Liberalism - I'm sure we could set up a Libertarian party for you though :p

Sound like Whig party member to me :p For free-market and all ;)
 
Sound like Whig party member to me :p For free-market and all ;)

The Whigs most definitely were not liberals though - they can be considered the fore-runners of the development of the liberal philosophy but they're not actually part of it themselves. Witness, in fact, how most Whigs were left behind by political liberalism.

And let us not forget that the Whigs were massively protectionist for that matter.
 
Last edited:
The Whigs most definitely were not liberals though - they can be considered the fore-runners of the development of the liberal philosophy but they're not actually part of it themselves. Witness, in fact, how most Whigs were left behind by political liberalism.

Yeah they were only like pro free-trade and free-market during the 19th century and end of the 18th. And they were classical liberals and later on became the liberal party who were before they became social liberal classical liberal. So both these parties were like Enewald, that is pro free market :p
 
Ah, but how can you support the free market when you support a system that will inevitably lead to monopolies and the stifling of competition?
 
Ah, but how can you support the free market when you support a system that will inevitably lead to monopolies and the stifling of competition?

How do you know it will inevitably lead to that? The only monopoly creators I've seen are state issued monopolies and monopolies, duopoles or oligopoles creatd as an effect of regulations and protectionism.

So how will it inevitably lead to that? As I've said it is only the economics with much state intereference who will get monopolies either because the government issue them or because of varios regulations.
 
The Whigs most definitely were not liberals though - they can be considered the fore-runners of the development of the liberal philosophy but they're not actually part of it themselves. Witness, in fact, how most Whigs were left behind by political liberalism.

And let us not forget that the Whigs were massively protectionist for that matter.

That's all news to me...
 
That's all news to me...

They were protectionists in the start. But they changed to free trade. Just like the liberal party changed from classical liberal to social liberal. But according to him the liberals should be classical liberals now sincethey once were that. >.<
 
Dear old Tanzhang is going all ad hominem since he have no real arguments?

I don't argue twice with the dogmatic beyond redemption. :)

I'm sure we could set up a Libertarian party for you though

I suspect that there's only room for one Monster Raving Ego Party in this AAR, and I'll be damned if that role goes (once again) to the same DDP we all grew sick and tired of back in Blood and Iron.

So how will it inevitably lead to that? As I've said it is only the economics with much state intereference who will get monopolies either because the government issue them or because of varios regulations.

I assume he's referring to the United States in the late 19th Century. Rockefeller/Carnegie/Vanderbilt and so on. :)
 
How do you know it will inevitably lead to that? The only monopoly creators I've seen are state issued monopolies and monopolies, duopoles or oligopoles creatd as an effect of regulations and protectionism.

So how will it inevitably lead to that? As I've said it is only the economics with much state intereference who will get monopolies either because the government issue them or because of varios regulations.

The free market is about competition, right? Survival of the fittest and all that jazz. And the inevitable outcome of such competition is one dominant player in each particular field (see: IBM, Microsoft, Enron, etc.) because that's what happens with competition - eventually something comes along that out-competes everyone else. Either that or you'd see what has happened in so many sectors - a cartel of major companies happily fixing prices to deny consumers choice and maintain the status quo.

Now the free marketeer response to that situation is that competition will deal with that problem as, if you have one big company with a monopoly exploiting it's position then sooner or later a smaller company will come along and compete more effectively and bring it down to size.

Except that, without competition regulations (e.g. a system where there are no external rules enforced by government) then there's nothing to stop the monopoly companies and cartels from using their financial, economic and market clout to strangle competition in the cradle to protect their position. And with competition being prevented from ever being able to compete then the free market itself is no longer free.

That's why there's no such thing as a "free market" - in order for a market to be free the market itself has to have some kind of ground rules and external regulation to enforce those rules in order to make sure that it remains competitive.

In fact, sensible state involvement is the backbone of a healthy market.
 
Last edited:
I don't argue twice with the dogmatic beyond redemption. :)



I suspect that there's only room for one Monster Raving Ego Party in this AAR, and I'll be damned if that role goes (once again) to the same DDP we all grew sick and tired of back in Blood and Iron.



I assume he's referring to the United States in the late 19th Century. Rockefeller/Carnegie/Vanderbilt and so on. :)

And there it was high tarriff walls and the market was still regulated allthough in a lesser degree. And interstingley enough it didn't hurt the consumers ;)
 
The free market is about competition, right? Survival of the fittest and all that jazz. And the inevitable outcome of such competition is one dominant player in each particular field (see: IBM, Microsoft, Enron, etc.) because that's what happens with competition - eventually something comes along that out-competes everyone else. Either that or you'd see what has happened in so many sectors - a cartel of major companies happily fixing prices to deny consumers choice and maintain the status quo.

Now the free marketeer response to that situation is that competition will deal with that problem as, if you have one big company with a monopoly exploiting it's position then sooner or later a smaller company will come along and compete more effectively and bring it down to size.

Except that, without competition regulations (e.g. a system where there are no external rules enforced by government) then there's nothing to stop the monopoly companies and cartels from using their financial, economic and market clout to strangle competition in the cradle to protect their position (witness Microsoft in the 80s and 90s before the big anti-competition lawsuits began). And with competition being prevented from ever being able to compete then the free market itself is no longer free.

That's why there's no such thing as a "free market" - in order for a market to be free the market itself has to have some kind of ground rules and external regulation to enforce those rules in order to make sure that it remains competitive.

In fact, sensible state involvement is the backbone of a healthy market.

What is all this talk of microsoft and ibm? :eek: You have to live in some fantasy world. Come back when you're back in 1949 :)
 
And there it was high tarriff walls and the market was still regulated allthough in a lesser degree. And interstingley enough it didn't hurt the consumers ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of: if you give big business the power to make even bigger cartels and trusts, then they'll do it. What did Smith say about people of the same or similar trades meeting together? :)

What is all this talk of microsoft and ibm?

IBM actually existed in 1949!
 
What is all this talk of microsoft and ibm? :eek: You have to live in some fantasy world. Come back when you're back in 1949 :)

The free market is about competition, right? Survival of the fittest and all that jazz. And the inevitable outcome of such competition is one dominant player in each particular field because that's what happens with competition - eventually something comes along that out-competes everyone else. Either that or you'd see what has happened in so many sectors - a cartel of major companies happily fixing prices to deny consumers choice and maintain the status quo.

Now the free marketeer response to that situation is that competition will deal with that problem as, if you have one big company with a monopoly exploiting it's position then sooner or later a smaller company will come along and compete more effectively and bring it down to size.

Except that, without competition regulations (e.g. a system where there are no external rules enforced by government) then there's nothing to stop the monopoly companies and cartels from using their financial, economic and market clout to strangle competition in the cradle to protect their position. And with competition being prevented from ever being able to compete then the free market itself is no longer free.

That's why there's no such thing as a "free market" - in order for a market to be free the market itself has to have some kind of ground rules and external regulation to enforce those rules in order to make sure that it remains competitive.

In fact, sensible state involvement is the backbone of a healthy market.

^ Fixed.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of: if you give big business the power to make even bigger cartels and trusts, then they'll do it. What did Smith say about people of the same or similar trades meeting together? :)



IBM actually existed in 1949!

IBM actually made the calculation machines used by the Nazis to administer the Holocaust IRL :p

And Coke, of course, invented Fanta so it could keep selling fizzy drinks in Nazi Germany.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.