Subscribe: Comments on: Peter Robert Garrett – in the exit lounge
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
don  downward  free set  free  garrett  government market  government  market  markets  moving prices  pressure prices  price  prices  rog  sdfc 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Peter Robert Garrett – in the exit lounge

Comments on: Peter Robert Garrett – in the exit lounge

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Last Build Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 22:44:14 +0000


By: ken n

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:28:15 +0000

rog those of us who want substantial deregulation of trades and professions do accept that some regulation is appropriate where there are significant safety issues. Especially when a government is shoveling billions into a field where there were obvious risks from unqualified people.

By: Garrett not being sacked? at Catallaxy Files

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:47:46 +0000

[...] When I wrote that Peter Garrett’s position was untenable back on 11 February, I had assumed that he would have departed by now. [...]

By: rog

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:13:18 +0000

JC hates government involvement in "free trade", excepting insulation

By: rog

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:11:46 +0000

Cave canem, te necet lingendo

By: sdfc

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:10:22 +0000

Then you're less concerned with market efficiency than with keeping the government out of the market at all costs. And you say you're not ideological.

By: rog

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:09:51 +0000

You just cant stop telling others what to think and do, can you JC? Some weird sort of "libertarian"

By: JC

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:48:37 +0000

I don't think the government should be involved in markets through ratty schemes like fuelwatch .. period. If there are enough people wanting that sort of info an information post would arise as it has in other markets. Suppliers under the Dudd scheme weren't free to set their prices as they wouldn't be allowed to change for 24 hours. Prices are extremely important and should be left the fuck alone by governments, especially one like Rudd's which knows fuck all about markets and it's leadership even questions the viability of markets. I'm not in favor of downward moving prices or upward moving prices. I only want free prices not influenced by government intervention in any way.

By: sdfc

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:40:26 +0000

So you don't think increasing information flow is beneficial to a market. Suppliers are free to set their price, no one is forcing anyone to sell below cost.

By: JC

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:35:09 +0000

I disagree. You don't want to be placing undue pressure on prices one way or another. The cheapest price is not necessarily always he best thing for numerous reasons if the government is fucking around with a market. Believe it or even something as basic as petrol is not a fungible commodity between stations and producers. You want station owners to be making a profit in the free market and not fucked over by governments dictating when they can move prices. Furthermore the effect on prices by imposing 24 restrictions would be to stifle downwards movement as stations would be loathe to go low knowing that they could be caught on bad price decision and not selling at optimal levels. Government imposed shit like that is bad.

By: sdfc

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:11:34 +0000

It makes sense because the more users, the greater the downward pressure on prices.