[nickik]

While I at the moment can not give all the referneces. One thing we know is true, is that there is a far greater amount of monopoly or cartel created by goverment then by market.

If you look long enougth you can find some cartels and monopolys that are stable for some time. Even when most of these where not able to really raise prices where far.

If you look at goverment enforcment of cartel and monopolys you will find a unbelivable amount. If you add tarrifs to that (ie blocking import of steel from japan). You will find that regulation far more often helps big buissness.

This is what people dont understand about free marketers. I do not belive that it is impossible for goverment action to imporove short run and maybe even long run conditions, but I belive it is far more like that this power is misused.

So yes you can go out of your way and figure out some asymetiric cost for whatever groupe you like. You can then go on and argue that in order to rebalance this the state needs to do 'something' (perfeclty show in the thread by all the people point out that employes can easly switch jobs and therefore there wage is below equillibrum). Stigliz for the win. This all works out great in theory but runs flat against a wall in practice. When it does run against a wall its of course just because of 'republicans' blocking all sencible policy or whatever.

So this is the reason for free market views, it is not as some people seam to belive that 'the free market is always perfect'.

[Romoku]

One of the general misunderstandings of libertarianism is "since you're pro-market you must be pro-business." Free market libertarians are generally business/labor neutral as libertarianism simply provides the framework for the players. A libertarian would view a business/labor union that relies on government cooperation as a failure.