Thread: Bilateral Economics
Re: Member’s post of 11/30/24
I think Rockefeller was on balance a hero, but not an Ayn Rand Hero.
Of course. Except, from my limited knowledge, you donāt have to say āon balance.ā
At several points he led the formation of cartels and other such actions to establish prices and volumes he deemed rational.
I donāt think he did. I think thatās among the lies told about him. But assume itās true. Whatās wrong with that?
A cartel is a contractual arrangement among producers to control their property in a certain way to achieve their greedy, selfish goals. That is exactly what morality endorses their doing. Just as it endorses any peaceful activity buyers engage in to achieve their greedy, selfish goals.
But cartels cannot raise prices, so they are not actually selfish. The prices for something like oil cannot be higher than what would be the costs of production of potential competitors, plus the average rate of profit.
If it would cost the most efficient potential entrant $1 to produce a barrel of oil, and if the average rate of profit is 10% (adjusted for risk), then nothing can make oil sell for more than about $1.10. Nothing except governmental coercion, that is. A cartel trying to sell for $1.20 would draw in a lot of capital to finance a competitor ($1.20 would mean you get 20% on your investment when the average is half that).
Leftists will then talk about ābarriers to entryā as if the facts of reality were a ābarrierāāI mean the fact that Joe the Plumber canāt build an oil well using a pick and shovel. What they call ābarriers to entryā an entrepreneur calls āan opportunityā and an investor calls āa great place to put my money.ā
The last refuge of the Leftist is the idea of āpredatory price cuttingā which is total nonsense. Itās not worth going into all the contradictions in that idea. You merely need to note that the resources of a Big Tycoon or Giant Cartel are as nothing compared to the total economyās funds seeking the most profitable investment. If Rockefeller and his supposed cartel-mates had $100 million dollars (waiting in some money bin!) to tide the cartel over periods of predatory price-cutting, the New York Stock Market plus the exchanges in London, Paris, Germany, etc. had $100 billion dollars to finance a competitor.
If the cartel bought him out, that would be great for the competitorāand would produce a stampede of copy-cat investors wanting to be similarly bought out.
The whole animus against āgiantā firms and āmonopoliesā comes from confusing production and destruction. Since a bigger army means more power, it is assumed that a bigger business means more power. Well, it often does: more productive power, not coercive power like an army.
I can take this back to ābilateral economicsā: ābilateralā refers to two sides of a trade, not the two sides consisting of victor and vanquished.
Trade is win-win. War is lose-lose. Both sides lose in a war, but one side loses more.
And behind not understanding trade, behind the idea that businessmen are motivated by the desire to make people worse off, is the sick morality of altruism. Altruism preaches: I should lose, and let you win. It considers trade to be evilābecause a trade has no loser, no sacrificial victim. Didnāt Jesus chase the money-changers from the temple?