A free market means a free market. When one monolithic organization with access to controlling capital makes its goal not to preserve the freedom of the market, but to extract value from the rest of the market for itself and its shareholders, that's not a market. That's a centrally planned economy.
The bankers have turned Communist oligarchs in all but name.
And fascism is just a regular government, and secret police are just regular police, and martial law is just regular law... You know -- since I've got you here anyway -- I've always wanted to tell you how much I loved your novels, Mr. Orwell.
Actually you are incorrect, a free market is one in which people voluntarily interact for mutual gain, i.e. it is not coercive. If their is government interference then it is not a free market, cornering a market does not make it any less free if done solely through voluntary trade.
So if I'm born into a world where someone has cornered the market on, let's say, food, and their perfectly rational strategy is to choose not to sell food to anyone who competes with them, I'm not any less free to compete than if one person didn't get to make that decision?
Why is it that a subsidy (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then collects money from taxes progressively) is bad, but an investment (which pays farmers to grow one thing, then sells it at a high price once someone gets hungry enough to buy it, and pocketing the cash) is good?
Huh? If you're going to claim two things are the same, it's good form to refer to them by their proper names before arguing similarity. And, if you're going to attribute a position to someone, you might want to have some evidence that they actually hold that position. (The fact that Hitler was bad does not imply that he killed puppies.)
I'm against payments to farmers other than by folks voluntarily buying said farmer's output. That's a special case of a more general rule that applies to every work product.
So I'm against "pays farmers to grow one thing" if it isn't money paid by folks who want and get said thing in exchange for said payment.
And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point: A subsidy is when the government pays for food, then gives it out for free (it costs less to the consumer than it would otherwise.) An investor pays for food, then sells it at a higher price, extracting the value for himself (it costs more to the consumer than it would otherwise.)
That's the only difference; in neither case do the people who wind up actually eating the food, i.e. everyone else, have a choice what to pay.
You're trying to draw this distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" payments which doesn't exist in the real world. I guess taxes are supposed to be involuntary, while food purchases are voluntary? Except that in the real world, if you don't buy food you die, and when one group of people who know they will never be hungry have the power to raise food prices across the board... That's a very twisted idea of "voluntary."
> And yet I note you haven't actually challenged my point
That's because, as I pointed out, you didn't actually express a point to challenge. You blathered some vague description and an accusation.
Now that I can see what you were trying to say, the error is clear.
The "food investor" spends his money, not mine. If he's wrong, he loses his money. Moreover, the food investor doesn't stop someone else providing food. Govts do that all the time.
Moreover, govts tend to go all-in on their decisions - so the amount lost when they get it wrong is much larger. Investors aren't monolithic - some get it right, some get it wrong.
Yes, you need food, but unless govt gets involved, you have considerable choice about how to aquire it.
> Except that in the real world, if you don't buy food you die
Speak for yourself. The "square foot" folks have shown that it's possible to grow an amazing amount in a very small area. And yes, poor people have the time.
> when one group of people who know they will never be hungry have the power to raise food prices across the board
Govts are the only group with that power. If I don't like the prices from ADM, I can buy elsewhere. If I don't like the food prices set by govt, there is no "elsewhere".
For some reason I thought I read this article about how between 2005 and 2008 investment into grain futures pushed the price of real grain high enough that hundreds of millions of people across the world starved, while hundreds of millions of bushels of grain sat in silos, resulting in inflated food prices everywhere which still have not returned to what they should be, meaning people at the margins who starve every single day.
But I guess I must have imagined that. It's good to know only governments have that kind of power here in Bizarro World.
> thought I read this article about how between 2005 and 2008 investment into grain futures pushed the price of real grain high enough that hundreds of millions of people across the world starved
Starved? Exaggerate much?
What, exactly, kept them from buying something else instead?
> which still have not returned to what they should be
What is this price "that should be"?
If you think that wheat should be sold at a given price, what is stopping you from providing it at that price?
You're claiming that "investors" are buying grain for less and waiting for the price to go up. What stops you from buying at the same price that they buy and selling at a lower price than they demand?
Exaggerate? Not really, no. For the first time since we started counting, food insecurity increased as a proportion of the population. 250,000,000 more people went hungry in 2008, the worst increase ever-- while the grain harvest itself was one of the most bounteous, filling up silos and going to livestock feed instead of bread. But of course this is all in the article you didn't read.
Never mind that, though. If you are seriously trying to draw some kind of moral distinction between a child "literally" starving and a child who goes to sleep every night not having had enough to eat, having a little bit less every night... I don't say this a lot, but God damn you, sir.
A free market also implies some transparency does it not? If it's crystal clear what is being bought & sold, then everyone can make informed decisions and take their gains/losses honestly. When things like derivatives are created specifically to obscure the product and mislead potential buyers, then is it truly a free market? Shouldn't the government's roll be oversight (aka interference) if deception is creating a clear advantage for one party in the transaction? Your premise of mutual gain falls short in these cases.
What happened whe the Soviet Union gained control of the Sahara desert? For five years, nothing, then a shortage of sand.
It seems we can replace Soviet Union in such jokes with Investment vehicles.