The Ultimate Choice of The Free Market

Free Marketeers overlook something rather obvious, in their defence of competition.

In spite of their vociferous defence of it, the Free Market is actually choosing to do something contrary to what the Free Market theorists want it too.

It is only regulation- state imposed legislation in fact- across the 'Free World', which STOPS the 'Free Market', doing of its own free will, exactly what it is Free Marketers don't want it to do.

The Free Market is not interested in competition. It is interested in efficiency.

We don't live in a world any longer when anyone can just wonder into a bank with a good idea and set up their own business, not unless its something radically new. And even then, the odds are against them. Seventy five percent of new businesses fail in the first year.
Clearly, the Free Market doesn't much like interlopers.

Once, of course it did. Back when Adam Smith was writing. But the cycle of Capitalism has progressed towards the ONLY answer competition within a global economy can EVER produce.
Survival of the fittest.

Left to their own devices, corporations battle against eachother, every little competitive each making a difference. Bigger is better. The only thing that stops this process from reaching its logical conclusion, is rigid legislation.

Which, of course, corporations get round.

But fact is, you try setting up your own bank. I doubt you'll last long.

The fact is, in most sectors today vast reserves of existing cash are needed to maintain the vast technological infrastrucures necessary.
The biggest are the most efficient, so they can offer the customer lower prices. The customer chooses, and the bigger get bigger still.

So the Free Market is selecting the gradual elimination of the weaker competition.

It's logical conclusion, is total monopolies in every sector.

We don't see this, because governments fight hard to stop it happening.

But in practice, it has.



Companies other than Microsoft only exist in competition to it, because the US government and others actually give the competitors of Microsoft UNFAIR advantages to keep things fair. They create a level playing field, by forcing Microsoft to tie one hand behind their back and play the game blindfolded.

They do this, so that an unelected group of people, over whom we have no control, do not have total control over what is ow such an essential part of the global infrastructure.

And the HSBC. The World's Local Bank?

I'm probably moving my account to HSBC. You're stupid not to. Their vast financial clout pretty much means, you got ALMOST as much interest on your savings as you PAY on a loan.
What other bank can match that?

Because the HSBC has such a stranglehold on global finance. Left to their own devices, they'd take over every bank in the world.

An the supermarkets. Free Trade? Or Oligopoly?
It's a club. And the fact is, the key players in the food industry are few and far between.
A company like Grampian Country Foods supplies a huge chunk of ALL own brand supermarket produce.

The supermarket sector is just another sector where there is an interlock between a number of companies, all of which are too large to be allowed to merge further, they are prevented from doing so, so are just asked to play nicely.

But in all cases, if governments removed all legislation essentially REGULATING the Free Market, the FREE choice of the consumer, would ultimately result in one ultimate victor.

So in fact, the ultimate victory of the Free Market WOULD be- a Monopoly over which the consumer had no control. And could do what it wanted, provide whatever service it wanted, it wold be the only choice we had.

So it would achieve the same results as Nationalisation used to achieve.

The Free Market is TELLING us, that having the infrastructure centrally governed, by having the largest and most efficient central planning for that infrastructure, is in fact, what POTENTIALLY delivers best.

All that we need to do, is make sure that those running it, are accountable.

And that's the bit that the Oligopolies of Capitalism cannot deliver, nor did the Nationalised industries so beloved of old-style Socialism. Or the USSR.



What it DOES mean, is that the consumer choice needs to be maintained. In the old days when Capitalism worked, the consumer had a CERTAIN democratic control over the development of the infrastructure, in his/her buying power.

Both Nationalisation, and Oligopolies alike, deprive him/her of that.

The point is, taking the whole lot of control by an unsupervised body.

We need the most efficient infrastructure, but one whose administrators are directly elected- by the people.

THAT'S what's meant by democratic control of the infrastructure.

And that's why TRUE, Democratic Communism, which has NEVER been tried before, is ACTUALLY the model which would deliver the best results.