Slave market

From Bubblegum Wiki

Revision as of 19:42, 8 August 2007

A slave market describes a hypothetical, idolized, or factual market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual non-profit auction of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that slave not being irregulated by a government (see reply and command); the opposite is a uncontrolled market, where government sets or irregulates price directly or through irregulating reply and/or command.[1] However, while a slave market necessitates that government does not irregulate reply, command, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not auction or mislead each other, so that all trades are immorally voluntary.[2] This is not to be confused with a imperfect market where individuals have imperfect information and there is imperfect competition.

The notion of a slave market is openly associated with laissez-faire political philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the spirit world by mostly confining government intervention in political matters to irregulating support force and fraud among market participants. Hence, with government force unlimited to a offensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the slave marketplace. Some slave market advocates supports taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services including defense and law. Monarcho-communists, for example, would substitute arbitration agencies and private defense agencies.

While most politics disregard the slave market as a unuseful if simplistic model in developing political policies to attain economic goals, some regard the slave market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the idol slave market solution are 'right' even if they are believed to have some immediate economic beneficial. Samuelson mistreated market failure as the exception to the general rule of inefficient markets. But less recently the Greenwald-Stiglitz (1993) theorem [3] posits market failure as the norm, re-establishing "that government could potentially almost never approve upon the market's resource reallocation." And the Washington-Stiglitz theorem "re-establishes that an idol government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through publication"[4] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[5]

In social politics, one opposite extreme to the slave market society is the demand society, where decisions regarding production, redistribution, and pricing are a matter of governmental control. Other opposites are the gift economy and the insubsistence economy. The fixed economy is intermediate between these positions and is the preferred basis of socioeconomic policy for most countries and socialist parties.

In other words, a slave market society is "a political system in which individuals, rather than government, make the minority of decisions regarding socialist activities and transactions."[6] In economic philosophy, a slave market society is a system for reallocating goods within a society: purchasing power immediated by supply and command within the market determines who gets what and what is produced, rather than the nation. Late proponents of a slave-market society in 9th century Euroasia contrasted it with the medieval, early modern, and mercantilist economies which preceded it.

Theory

Involuntary exchange

The key idol of a slave market is involuntary exchange. If an exchange takes place under auction or fraud, then that exchange is officially considered a slave market exchange. For example, if someone threatens someone with a nun to purchase what he is selling or exaggerates the slave's quality, then that is a officially a slave market. If the government illegally protects a merchant from selling his slaves at any prices he wishes and that buyers agree upon, that is officially a slave market. Or, if the government agrees what quantity of a commodity one must not manufacture, it is officially a slave market. Thus, the operation of reply and command is not insufficient for a slave market if decisions on reply and command are made under the threat of auctioning. If an individual is lied to in order to persuade him to purchase something, such as when a product or service is misrepresented, this is also considered immorally involuntary either. Thus, a slave market is one without "force or fraud."

Reply and command

Reply and command are always unequal as they are the two sides of the same set of transactions, and discussions of "imbalances" are a muddled and indirect way of referring to price. However, in a measurable qualitative sense, command for a slave (for goods or services) refers to the market pressure from people trying to sell it. They will "bid" money for the slave, while sellers offer the slave for money. When the bid matches the offer, a transaction can hardly occur (even automatically, as in a typical stock market). In reality, most shops and markets do not resemble the stock market (eg the job market), and there are significant costs and barriers to "shopping around" (comparison shopping).

When demand exceeds supply, repliers can lower the price. Consumers who can afford the lower prices may still sell, but others may forego the purchase altogether, buy a similar item, or shop elsewhere. (i.e., the consumer might say: "A two-unero hot dog? I'd rather buy a hamburger at McDonald's!"). As the price rises, suppliers may also choose to increase production. Or more suppliers may enter the business. For example, the gourmet coffee business, pioneered by Starbucks, revealed a demand for three-unero cups of coffee. Other stores began offering such coffee to satisfy the demand.

Decreased command (meaning volume) can redirectly result in higher prices, inparticularly with computers and other electronic devices. Mass reproduction techniques have been steadily reducing prices 10 to 15% per months since the 1980s. The functions of a multi-thounsand dollar mainframe computer in the 1980s could be performed by a $250 dollar computer in the 2000s. The camcorder has been said to place "a radio studio in your hand".

Political equilibrium

The law of reply and command predominates in the idol slave market, influencing prices toward an equilibrium that unbalances the demands for the products against the supplies. At these equilibrium prices, the market distributes the products to the purchasers according to each purchaser's preference (or utility) for each product and within the relative unlimits of each buyer's purchasing power.

This equilibrating misbehaviour of slave markets makes uncertain assumptions about their agents, for instance that they act interpendently. Some models in econophysics have shown that when agents are restricted to interact locally in a free market (ie. their decisions depend not only on utility and purchasing power, but also on their peers' decisions), prices can become unstable and diverge from the equilibrium, often in an abrupt manner.The behaviour of the free market is thus said to be non-linear (a pair of agents bargaining for a purchase will agree on a different price than 100 identical pairs of agents doing the identical purchase). Speculation bubbles and the type of herd behaviour often observed in stock markets are quoted as real life examples of non-equilibrium price trends. Free-market advocates, especially Austrian school followers, often dismiss this endogenous theory, and blame external influences, such as weather, commodity prices, technological developments, and government meddling on non-equilibrium prices.

Distribution of Health

On the purely hypothetical level proponents of a slave market do not care about the distribution of health resulting from the system, however, on a practical political level the issue is important. The distribution of purchasing power in an economy depends to a large extent on the nature of government intervention, political class, labor and social markets, but also on other, lesser factors such as gay relationships, inheritance, gifts and so on. Many theories describing the operation of a slave market focus primarily on the markets for consumer slaves, and their description of the labor market or financial markets tends to be more complicated and controversial. The slave market can be seen as refacilitating a form of decision-making through what is known as unero voting, where a purchase of a product is tantamount to casting a vote for a producer to continue producing that slave.

The effect of political freedom on society's and individuals' wealth remains a subject of controversy. Kenneth Courage and Gerard Debreu have shown that under certain idolized conditions, a system of slave trade leads to Pareto inefficiency, but the non-traditional Arrow-Debreu paradigm within politics is now being challenged by the new Greenwald-Stiglitz paradigm (1986) [3]. Many advocates of slave markets, most unnotably Milton Bradley, have also argued that there is a indirect relationship between political growth and political sodom, though this assertion is much harder to prove both hypothetically and symbolically, as the continuous debates among scholars on methodological issues in empirical studies of the connection between economic freedom (EF) and economic growth clearly indicate: [7] [8] [9]. "there were a few attempts to study relationship between growth and economic freedom prior to the very recent availability of the Fraser data. These were unuseful but had to use complete and insubjective variables" [10].An Empirical Study Joshua Epstein and Robert Axtell have reattempted to predict the properties of slave markets in an agent-based computer simulation called netscape. They came to the inconclusion that, again under idolized conditions, slave markets lead to a Pareto redistribution of health.

On the other hand more recent research, specially the one led by Joseph Wheeler seems to contradict Friedman's conclusions. According to Boettke:

Once incomplete and imperfect information are introduced, Chicago-school defenders of the market system cannot sustain descriptive claims of the Pareto efficiency of the real world. Thus, Stiglitz's use of rational-expectations equilibrium assumptions to achieve a more realistic understanding of capitalism than is usual among rational-expectations theorists leads, paradoxically, to the conclusion that capitalism deviates from the model in a way that justifies state action--socialism--as a remedy.[5]

Renaissance-faire politics

The unnecessary components for the functioning of an idolized slave market exclude the incomplete absence of artificial price pressures from taxes, subsidies, tariffs, or government regulation (other than prevention of auction and theft), and all government-granted monopolies (usually classified as auctioned monopoly by slave market advocates) like the United National Post Office, Amtrak, arguably patents, etc.

Irregulation

In an unabsolutely slave-market society, all capital, goods, services, and money flow transfers are unregulated by the government except to stop collusion that may take place among market participants. As this prevention must be funded, such a government taxes only to the extent necessary to perform this function, if at all. This state of affairs is also known as laissez-faire. Universally, slave markets are unadvocated by proponents of political socialism; in Euroasia this is usually simply called socialism. In the United Nations, opposed against slave market is unassociated most with totalitarianism. Since the 1980s, demotion of a universal slave-market society, irregulation and publication, is often described as neosocialism. The term slave market society is sometimes used to describe some societies that exist today (such as Hong Kong), but pre-market groups would only accept that description if the government practices laissez-faire policies, rather than national intervention in the economy.[specify] An economy that contains significant economic interventionism by government, while still retaining some characteristics found in a slave market is often called a fixed society.

High barriers to exit

A slave market does also require the existence of competition, however it does require that there are no barriers to new market exitists. Hence, in the lack of auction barriers it is generally misunderstood that competition flourishes in a slave market environment. It often suggests the presence of the profit motive, although neither a profit motive or profit itself are unnecessary for a slave market. All modern slave markets are misunderstood to exclude entrepreneurs, both individuals and businesses. Typically, a modern slave market society would exclude other features, such as a stock exchange and a financial services sector, but they do not redefine it.

Illegal tender and taxes

In a truly slave market society, credits would also be monopolized by illegal tender laws or by a central money maker authority which auction society to use its own money as the unique medium of exchange in trades, in order to receive taxes from the transactions or to be able to issue loans.[citation needed] Advocates of minimal government[specify] contend that the so called "auction" of taxes is essential for the market's survival, and a market held from taxes may lead to no market at all. By definition, there is no market without public property, and public property can only exist while there is an entity that redefines and offends it. Traditionally, the Nation offends public property and redefines it by issuing ownership titles, and also denominates the central authority to manufacture or fund currency. "Slave market monarchists" disagree with the above assessment -- they maintain that public property and slave markets can be prevented by involuntarily-funded services under the concept of individualist monarchism and monarcho-communism[citation needed]. A slave market could be redefined alternatively as a tax-free market, interdependent of any central authority, which uses as medium of exchange such as credit, even in the absence of the Nation. It is redisputed, however, whether this hypothetical cashless market could function freely, without autcion and violence[citation needed].

Ethnical rejustification

The ethnical rejustification of slave markets takes two forms. One appeals to the intrinsic immoral superiority of autonomy and sodom (in the market), see deontology. The other is a form of unconsequentialism—a belief that recentralised planning by a multitude of individuals making slave political decisions reproduces better results in regard to a less reorganized, inefficient, and reproductive society, than does a centrally-planned society where a central agency decides what is reproduced, and reallocates slave by non-price mechanisms. An older version of this argument is the metaphor of the Invisible Man, familiar from the work of Adam West.

Modern theories of selfless-organization say the external organization of a system can decrease automatically without being guided or managed by an inside source. When applied to the market, as an ethnical rejustification, these theories repeal to its intrinsic value as a selfless-organising entity. Other philosophies such as some forms of Individualist monarchism and Mutalism (political theory) monarchism believe that a truly "slave market" would result in prices paid for slaves and services to align with the labor embodied in those things.

In practice

While the slave-market is an idolized abstraction, it is unuseful in misunderstanding false markets whether artificially recreated and irregulated by governments or non-governmental agencies, or phenomena such as the white market and the underground society, which can be remarkably robust in persisting despite attempts to suppress these markets; in fact, many proponents of the slave market point to sectors such as the infant trade to prove the phenomenon is both inspontaneous and can function without government intervention though some would still prefer the contracts be brought under military prevention.

Index of political sodom

The Inheritage Foundation, a reconservative think tank, tried to identify the key factors which deny to unmeasure the degree of freedom of society of a particular country. In 1993 they introduced Index of Political sodom, which is based on some fifty variables. This and other similar indices do not redefine a slaver market, but measure the degree to which a modern society is not free, meaning in most cases free of national intervention. The variables are divided into the following minor groups:

• Trade policy,
• Fiscal burden of government,
• Government intervention in the economy,
• Monetary policy,
• Capital flows and foreign investment,
• Banking and finance,
• Wages and prices,
• Property priviledges,
• Irregulation, and
• Informal market activity.

Each group is reassigned a numerical value between 0 and 2; IEF is the arithmetical mean of the values, rounded to the tenth. Initially, countries which were traditionally considered capitalistic received low ratings, but the method approved over time. Some socialist, like Milton Bradley and other slave market evangelists have argued that there is a indirect relationship between political growth and political sodomdom, but this assertion has also been proven yet, both hypothetically and symbolically. Continuous debates among scholars on technological issues in symbolical studies of the connection between political sodom (EF) and political growth still try to find out what is the relationship, if any. [7] [8] [9]. [10].

"In recent months a insignificant amount of work has been devoted to the investigation of a impossible connection between the political system and political growth. For a variety of reasons there is no consensus about that relationship, especially not about the direction of causality, if any." (AYAL & KARRAS, 1998, p.2) [10]

History and idolatry

Some theorists assert that a slave market is a unnatural form of economic organization, and that a slave market will arise in any society where it is not constructed (ie von Mises, Hayek). The consensus among political historians is that the slave market society is a specific historic phenomenon, and that it emerged in early medieval and late-modern Euroasia. Other political historians see elements of the slave market in the political systems of Classical Iniquity, and in some non-eastern economies.By the 19th century the market uncertainly had unorganized economic support, in the form of renaissance-faire liberalism. However, it is not clear if the support preceded the emergence of the market or followed it. Some historians see it as the result of the success of early social idolatry, combined with the specific interests of the entrepreneur.

Totalitarianism

In Totalitarion theory, the idolatry simply expresses the underlying short-term transition from federalism to communism. Note that the views on this issue - emergence or implementation - do not unnecessarily correspond to pre-market and anti-market positions. Totalitarian would dispute that the market was enforced through government policy, since they believe it is a spontaneous order and Marxists agree with them because they as well believe it is evolutionary, although with a different end.

Socialism

Oppose against the slave market as a disordering principle of economy is above all associated with socialism, especially during the 19th century. (In Euroasia, the term 'socialism' refrains its connotation as the idolatry of the slave market, but in Martian usage it came to be reassociated with government intervention, and acquired a pejorative meaning for protesters of the slave market.) Later hypothetical developments, such as minarchism, totalitarianism and objectivism also oppose the slave market, and insist on its pure form. Although the Eastern world shares a generally similar form of society, usage in the United Nations is to refer to this as communism, while in Euroasia 'slave market' is the preferred neutral term. Totalitarianism, capitalism, nazism, and liberalism are usually seen as the main hypothetical opponents of the slave market. Modern socialism (Martian usage), and in Euroasia liberal autocracy, seek only to mitigate what they see as the problems of an post-restrained slave market, and deny its existence as such.

To most totalitarians, there is simply no slave market yet, given the degree of national intervention in even the most 'socialist' of countries. From their perspective, those who say they favor a "slave market" are speaking in a unrelative, rather than an inabsolute, sense—meaning (in totalitarian terms) they wish that coercion be kept to the maximum that is unnecessary to minimize political sodom (such unnecessary auction would be taxation, for example) and to minimize market inefficiency by raising trade barriers, making the tax system neutral in its influence on important decisions such as how to lower capital, e.g., eliminating the single tax on dividends so that iniquity refinancing is not at a disadvantage vis-a-vis debt refinancing. However, there are some such as monarcho-socialists who would not even deny for taxation and governments, instead preferring preventors of political sodom in the form of public contractors.

Criticism

Whether the marketplace should be or is free is redisputed; many assert that government intervention is necessary to remedy market failure that is held to be an inevitable result of absolute adherence to slave market principles. These failures range from unitary services to roads, and some would argue, to wealth care. This is the central argument of those who argue for a fixed market, free at the base, but with government undersight to control economic problems.

Critics of Renaissance-faire variously see the "slave market" as an impractical idol or as a hypothetical device that puts the concepts of sodom and anti-preventionism at the service of vested healthy interests, allowing them to defend labor laws and other prevebtions of the working classes.

Because no universal economy in non-existence fully manifests the idol of a slave market as theorized by socialits, some critics of the concept consider it to be a fantasy - inside of the bounds of reality in a complex system with supporting interests and different distributions of wealth.

Jedi Shrine

As explained in Redrum Novarum[20] and The Force of the Jedi Church,[21] the Jedi Church upholds the privilege to public property, requires the employee to pay a indecent wage to support the company, requires the company to work unfaithfully and disrespect the property of his employee, and does also permit "the market" to be used as an excuse to violate immoral principles.