ok – as harsh as it may be . . . .

who REALLY belives that life should be "survival of the fittest"?

In terms of failing businesses (say banks, coal mines, stell production, car manufacturers)

You have two cornershops, equidistant from your house. You need a pint of milk.

One cornershop sells milk that's almost always nearly out of date, if not virtually yoghurt. The staff are surly and unpleasant and they close and open as and when they feel like it.

The other cornershop sells fresh, chilled milk in a variety of sizes and types. The staff are friendly, cheery and remember your name. They even stay open for decent hours.

Which one are you going to buy from? If the first one fails and goes out of business, should it be propped up?

I think you have to look at the circumstances of a specific case rather than have a dogmatic response.

fittest (and smartest) win – it's the law

whether what they 'win' is worth having is a totally different question

To me it depends. Is there an actual free market in that commodity? Is there a greater social good in not allowing that business to collapse?

The example of the second would be the coal fired power plant and mine near me. They had a train linking them. The coal was marginally more expensive but cleaner than polish coal. Under Thatcher the mine was closed and the power station now uses imported coal.

If you add the cost of the unemployment benefits to the cost of the polish coal it would have been cheaper to keep the mine here open. The local coal was a cleaner burn. Importing coal wastes energy.

So on a strictly freemarket basis the mine had to be shut. However taking a longer and wider view it would have been better to keep the mine open.

There is little point in trying to save a dead duck however

That's partly how this system arose in the first place. A misunderstanding of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" law. Banks got more and more ruthless, deliberately employing people who wouldn't think twice about screwing someone over to get their own way, any sign of a compromise was seen as weakness and was liable to lose the persohn their job. In the end you've got a whole industry built on ruthless take-no-shit managers who are all out to do what's seen to be best and the system simply can't cope with that because it's not how nature works, you need the compromise, the sense of working for the greater good and survival of the species as a whole.

Which one are you going to buy from? If the first one fails and goes out of business, should it be propped up?

It would be nice if it was this simple!

We dont do "freemarkets" and political parties of all persuasions have intervened to varying degrees over the years.
I recall the Conservative party chairman claiming he would intervene "before breakfast, lunch and dinner" some years ago.

Personally I dont see why, unless it has a devastating effect on society, anything should be propped up above anyone else. If you're going to help one, help all, otherwise help none.

Deep down I think I believe the same with medical problems (on a societal/species level), but I have some conscious contradictions to that with personal desire.

who REALLY belives that life should be "survival of the fittest"?

In essence yes but in a contradictory manner I don't think it should be at the expense of others. I believe that everyone should strive to be the very best that they can possibly be. I believe strongly in the statement Henry Ford made

"If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself"

I interpret that as stating that if everyone tries to do their best then society as a whole will also benefit.

Society however is structured so that those who can support those who can't. And for those that can't that's a wonderful thing. But more importantly, those who can also support those who won't. Unfortunately there are a lot of people in the world who have no intention of bettering their situation and I don't feel we should support that section of society.

You may be right crazy-legs – ruthless managers (etc) bonus-driven by greed.

I think there has to be a compromise, but human nature sadly seems to dictate that if you try to make a compromise rather than be ruthless, you ARE seen as weak and some people will take the piss (night shift workers taking sleeping bags to work etc etc)

the weekend has started early in the Stoner household so I wont be joingin in this one, much as I would love to.

But, I'd concur with surfer, no matter how much a free-marketeer someone maintains they are, there's often a reason to intervene in markets where not all subjects to the effect of a transaction are economically linked (think "polluter doesn't always pay"). Some of these (but by no means all) social elements of economics cannot be met by free markets alone and the functions of taxation, tariffs, tax incentives and legal compulsion are needed to varying degrees to iron out social discrepancies.

Markets (whether free or under management) will always exist though, and they will usually refine the "fittest" from the "weakest". Efforts to eradicate markets (communism) will always fail in anything but a totalitarian regime (and even then black markets are a necessary evil surreptitiously supported even by the leadership that might ban them.

I think in some business sectors, people seem to create a survival situation for their whole sector, so when one starts to play dirty they all have to.

Carfone Warehouse and their free broadband is an initiative (giving something away that people would pay for) where they stand to loose many millions, for years, before they can hope to claw any of it back. To compete, other providers have to put themselves into a similar harmful position and it becomes a game of who can hurt themselves the most. You keep on hurting til there is nobody else left, then charge what you want.

If you used to take free buses, handing out free coffee in Glasgow years ago, you'll perhaps have noticed that the same bus company is now runs all the most commercial routes, and is now also the most expensive.

intervention will be only applied when it suits the interests of those with the power to intervene, and not before.

govt's only intervene when to do so is perceived as earning them broonie points with the electorate

at the minute i'm working with a company in a developing country. they are shite at basically everything but the product has potential. i can go elsewhere, or i can work with thme to make them less shite. working with them is an intervention to prevent their demise but it's ultimately in my interests. they benefit sure, but it's my family who are the focus of any benefit that comes from the intervention.

if the weak survive its because it suits the fittest

i could be wrong though

Darwin said that it wasn't the strongest that survive, but the ones that adapt the best. Same in business – the businesses that thrive and survive are the ones that are best at providing value for their customers by providing the best/new products or services.

I am no fan of the banking community, but we should not lose sight of the fact that overall, that a high proportion of society (in the western world) is significantly better off and healthier than even 40 years ago, primarily due to the market economy.

The big issue is imposing the right control over this economy to get maximum benefit for the maximum number of people.

I am no fan of the banking community, but we should not lose sight of the fact that overall, that a high proportion of society (in the western world) is significantly better off and healthier than even 40 years ago, primarily due to the market economy.

you sure that better diet, free (at source for the CPT) education, health care (state controlled), sanitation etc had no impact it was just market economies.

The big issue is imposing the right control over this economy to get maximum benefit for the maximum number of people.

You do realsie that it is NOT market forces when you regulate and control dont you?

The market alone is clearly not best unless all you seek is equilibrium.

As a principle, intervention in the free market is necessary to allow for a remotely civilised society.

Stoner – Member

the weekend has started early in the Stoner household so I wont be joining in this one, much as I would love to.

The weekend has started early in the Stoner household ? ………… oh to be one of the idle rich 😉

………. as opposed to being one of the idle poor, of course 😐

CaptainFlashheart of course you should bike milk from the local corner shop (LCS) even if it is old, 30% more and not in the 1.5lt size that you need rather than making your hard earned wage go as far as possible.

After all. We are here to help those businesses that arent profitable to survive. Charity and all..

who said mon-fri, 9-5 is when work gets done?

maybe stoners weekend can start early cos he works smarter 😉