This came up elsewhere and I'd love to have it answerd; it seems to me that a self-contradictory stand is held by the right for each of these topics, where they selectively pick which economic argument they want to use depending on the issue at hand.

If you increase the minimum wage, the argument goes, owners will then pass that cost along to their customers, even if they have healthy profit margins that could absorb it. They do this as they are in business to make money- the profit motive. They generally don't have to worry about negative consequences, as fellow businessmen that provide the same service are in the same position, aren't running charities, and are therefore likely to do the same. Conclusion- Don't raise the minimum wage as its pointless and chaotic.

Meanwhile, if a society were to privatise a previously state run service/industry, this will lead to better quality(often in lower prices) as competition will force operators to do everything they can to compete. If another argues that the introduction of a profit-motive will, if not immedietly, eventually eclipse any efficiecy gains made, its pointed out that theirs no great big conspiracy of owners to act in lockstep with each other- indeed owners will undercut each other, severly punishing any owner who tries to price gouge by taking all their business away from them. Conclusion- Privatise!

So in the 1st argument, the profit motive is king- in the 2nd we're asked to ignore it. In the 1st example, "The Market" is a force driven on rationality, that will force prices up- in the 2nd its is driven on rationality, and will force prices down. In the 1st owners operate as a disiplined unit- in the 2nd they are bar brawlers, fighting for the privilidge of serving you, the customer.

Notice a certain lack of consistency? I don't; in all such arguments one thing stands out very clearly- the rich win. Whether they're keeping their vast income, or buying up even more sectors of the economy so they can make even more of a vast income out of those, the arguments may change, but the beneficiairies when they prevail remain the same.

There are forces which drive the price up and forces that drive the price down.

And in the second, you are not asked to ignore the profit motive; it is the profit motive which makes those privatized industries more efficient in the first place as the businesses attempt to maximize it by becoming more efficient. Government run industries don't have that motive as they are typically based off of tax money even if they do make some profit.

And in the first, they don't operate as a disciplined unit, they operate according to the same forces.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

So the argumnet goes. Its not the same forces doing differnt things in different arguments?

More to ignore the facet of the profit motive that is bad, so as to sell the idea of privatisation.

Sure they do, they act together. The same forces? Not competition certainly, but yes the profit motive, or greed in this case.

Why not in the 1st does competition trump the need for short-term profit, and why not in the 2nd does profit not trump competition?

Libertarianism is a joke, libertarians at the end of the day will side with the state-conservatives for a strong state to repress workers and protect private property and the exploitation-theft economy of capitalism.

Libertarians are either naive enough to believe, or are very cynical, and yet they believe that if they got into power and reduced the power of the state, that capitalism would survive.

Capitalism requires a big repressive state to enforce theft of the social product into private hands and it's forcible expropriation from it's rightful producers. Without this big state capitalism would collapse under it's own decay and rotten core.

Relevancy Qwaile?