Is the public utility subject to the sovereignty of the market if it’s service is enfoced via coercion? In this section Mises argues that publicly owned services still adher to the rules of capitalism whether they like it or not. I agree with him if the public is allowed to voluntarily partake in that good or service. But if the good/service is enforced via coercion I would argue that the public utility can operate without servicing consumer demand. It is forced to exist, it does not exist because taxpayers want it.
Is this an error where Mises didn’t think a government would take it that far? Or was it an argument that Mises was trying to use for his day and age?
It does indeed sound like he’s talking about people having an option of not buying what the guy is peddling. Because being forced to buy something whether you want to or not is just another word for outright theft.
Let us assume that a mugger empties his victim’s wallet and leaves him a lollipop. The mugger claims he merely forced the victim to buy a lollipop for $10,000, but he certainly didn’t steal anything. Well, is that an absurdity or not? Of course it is, we all agree.
Similarly, even if the state gives us a little something in exchange for what it takes by force, as it looks like is gonna happen with forced medical insurance, it’s theft.
Taking it one step further, even if it gives us equal value for what it took by coercion, it’s still theft
Mises wasn’t talking about theft. I mean, if you have a free market and there are thieves running around loose picking people’s pockets, it’s still a free market.
The “public” institution, in his example, purchases a certain set of its factors of production from “private” institutions. For, if it did not, it would not be “within a society based on private ownership of the means of production”, it would be its own society.
If a “public” institution has to purchase any of its factors of production from “private” institutions, it is “subject to the sovereignty of the market”. For the “private” institutions, tautologically, freely choose whether to construct or sell to the “public” institution any certain product.
I believe that he is saying that the market always rules, regardless of ownership [state or private]. In the end, the power of the market effect cannot be escaped/over-ruled, “even” by governments. The market always wins[:D]
Never the less, that fact does not deter all those dreamers from trying [“this time it will be different”!] - never has, never will - which can give you a constantly renewed source of laughs , provided you drink enough[:)]
I believe that he is saying that the market always rules, regardless of ownership [state or private]. In the end, the power of the market effect cannot be escaped/over-ruled, “even” by governments. The market always wins
Never the less, that fact does not deter all those dreamers from trying [“this time it will be different”!] - never has, never will - which can give you a constantly renewed source of laughs , provided you drink enough
it’s a nice thought, but not what he was saying, if you look up the context.
The “public” institution, in his example, purchases a certain set of its factors of production from “private” institutions. For, if it did not, it would not be “within a society based on private ownership of the means of production”, it would be its own society.
If a “public” institution has to purchase any of its factors of production from “private” institutions, it is “subject to the sovereignty of the market”. For the “private” institutions, tautologically, freely choose whether to construct or sell to the “public” institution any certain product.
Very true as far as it goes, but what about the next line on that page:
"T hey are subject to the laws of the market and thereby depend on the consumers who may or may not patronize them. They must strive for profits or, at least, to avoid losses."
Yes I agree with Dave. It seems as if Mises didn’t consider a public utility that was disbursed via coercion. Such types of business’s do not meet consumer demand. They force consumer demand to exist than fill it. They break economic calculation not on a monetary level but by removing the option of choice from the consumer and make the decisions for their preferences for them. Public utilities cannot gauge or measure how many people actually want to participate in their services and they have no incentive to improve their services as there is usually a lack of competition.