More reason to pay the lower ranked players more potential destruction of the games credibility

Anyone seeking to influence the outcome of last month's elite ATP World Tour Finals would have faced a hefty ante.

Champion Novak Djokovic pocketed more than $2 million for his week's work, including a walkover in the final against Roger Federer. Merely setting foot on the court in London guaranteed all eight qualifiers a $155,000 participation fee.

But as the gap between tennis' haves and have-nots continues to spread, top players are concerned about the sport's susceptibility to match fixing and other corrupting tactics, especially at the lower-levels of the game.

"I think it's illegal and I think it is ruining the reputation of our sport," Djokovic told USA Today Sports last month. "We don't have any room for that. But the reality is different."

Djokovic knows that reality first hand. In 2006, he was approached via an intermediary and offered $100,000 to fix a match.

How widespread or serious the problem is remains unclear. Since its formation in September 2008 to police against corruption, the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) has issued 11 official sanctions, five for life, including one last month for 22-year-old French umpire Morgan Lamri.

The secretive, London-based TIU does not reveal its budget nor will it comment on the record about any of its investigations, according to spokesman Mark Harrison. It is funded by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, WTA and the Grand Slams.

The TIU's cases have involved obscure figures ranked well below the top-100, such as 27-year-old Russian player Andrey Kumantsov, who was banned for life this year for betting and match-fixing. Kumantsov reached a career-high of No. 261 in 2010. He had career earnings of $103,856.

Outside of official sanctions, evidence is growing that criminals are looking for cracks.

"Courtsiding," where individuals try to beat the small delay between actual and live scores by sitting courtside and transmitting data from a match, resulted in an arrest at last year's Australian Open.

This fall the names of Italian tennis players Daniele Bracciali and Potito Starace — both of whom were among a group of five Italians given betting suspensions in 2007-08 — surfaced in a soccer match-fixing investigation.

And in a story published last month by The Guardian newspaper in Britain, a former Interpol officer and director of integrity at the International Centre for Sports Security cited tennis as the third-most vulnerable sport after soccer and cricket.

ATP chief Chris Kermode is aware of the danger. He said authorities take it seriously and did not believe it was "endemic" in the game.

"Sport fundamentally is about being real," Kermode said last month. "As soon as it isn't, then it's a problem."

Access to players

The growth of live match streaming over the Internet, coupled with the far-flung nature of tennis tournaments around the globe, have made it ripe for exploitation for those looking for any nugget of advantageous information.

Still, players continue to worry about 20th century problems. Access to locker rooms and lounges, even though the tours have tried to crack down in recent years, remains troublesome.

"Unfortunately there are a lot of possibilities," Djokovic said. "You can get access to many rooms or buildings or corners where players are usually hiding and talking about some very intimate stuff, about their injuries and so forth."


Bob Bryan (right) and Mike Bryan after beating Marcel
Bob Bryan (right) and Mike Bryan after beating Marcel Granollers (ESP) and Marc Lopez (ESP) in the men's doubles final of the 2014 U.S. Open tennis tournament at USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.(Photo: Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports)


Mike Bryan, part of the No. 1 doubles team, estimates that 25%-30% of players have been approached to fix matches in person, by email or via anonymous phone calls.

He says he has never had anyone solicit him to throw or alter an outcome, but knows players who have. His biggest concern isn't the top players but those toiling on the edge of solvency.

"When you're playing a Challenger-level or a small tournament and are offered $50,000 and you're a journeyman, what do you do?" he said.

The ATP and WTA tours tout their tough sanctions, education efforts and no-tolerance policy when it comes to corruption. But is that enough?

Privately, officials admit that they lack the resources to monitor thousands of matches.

"That's the problem with gambling and sports," ATP Player Council President Eric Butorac said. "The money that we're playing for isn't high enough."

Addressing pay

Tacitly, authorities might be addressing the economic vulnerability. In a report released Wednesday, the ITF proposed increasing prize money at its Pro Circuit — the lowest level of sanctioned professional tennis and a stepping stone to the ATP and WTA tours — by up to 50%. Purses at the Pro Circuit events run from $10,000 to $100,000.

In its study, the ITF found that the top 1% of male and female players earned more than 50% of all prize money, which in 2013 totaled $162 million for men and $120 million for women. The proposal needs approval by the federation board, which meets in March, and would take effect in 2016.

Nowhere in the report is there a mention of what affect this might have in deterring match-fixing or other illicit activities. However, ITF spokesman Nick Imison wrote in an email that "improving standards of living for players is one factor in many when it comes to the issue of integrity."

"This could be a good first step by the ITF to address the issue," said Ryan Rodenberg, an assistant professor of sports law analytics at Florida State University who has examined how pay disparity in tennis could encourage players to seek alternative money-making schemes.

Players in recent years also have extracted substantial prize money increases from the four Grand Slam events, which are owned independently. Much of it has been aimed at padding early rounds.

But last week the ATP announced a 14% annual increase in prize money at its nine Masters 1,000 tournaments through 2018. The Masters are the highest-level events below the majors.

Kermode recognizes the disparity problem.

"Clearly we've got to be able to provide that tour where someone isn't losing money and it's sustainable, but I want to incentivize them to go up," said Kermode, who has formed a committee to review Challenger-level purses, which are one step below the ATP.

Meantime, risks persist. Butorac, a doubles specialist ranked No. 20, recalled the night he received an unsolicited phone call at his hotel. He promptly reported it to authorities.

He declined to say where it was and whether the person offered money or made threats.

"They told me to not talk about it," he said of TIU officials. "It's definitely a scary situation when you get a phone call."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/2014/12/21/match-fixing-evidence-brings-concern/20736905/

More even than PED this issue threatens the very integrity of the game. With most lower ranked players or even players ranked in the top 100 barely making money on tour the lure of the gambler and the fix is very strong. Tennis because you only have to bribe on guy to completely control a result and because of the financial struggles of the lower ranked guys is one of the most susceptible sports to the fix. We here little reporting on this issue I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Tennis Integrity Unit and that already they have handed out 5 lifetime bans.

A thought provoking Xmas article.  What are you doing to me  socal. I wonder if they could use some of the prize pot of the big tourniescand give that to the pot of the challengers. One might call it an investment in the players if tomorrow. Few things lose trust in a sport more than match fixing though. It's a worry tbh

temporary21 wrote:A thought provoking Xmas article.  What are you doing to me  socal. I wonder if they could use some of the prize pot of the big tourniescand give that to the pot of the challengers. One might call it an investment in the players if tomorrow. Few things lose trust in a sport more than match fixing though. It's a worry tbh

Yeah, they need to do a better job of supporting the lower ranked guys but that means a bit of wealth redistribution from the top to the bottom. I think though if you see someone making a huge bet on an event where no one should care at all then the red flag goes up if lets say an early round at some 250 sees a huge spike in money wagered at that event.

To redistribute the wealth they need a strong effort from the players council. Federer would have been a candidate but he's gone. Who's left that might make the point ?

Well yes if your going to be paid a few hundred pounds to win a match and someone offers you the equivalent of a years earnings to lose it must be tempting...

This is no different then a college graduate starting a professional career. Offer this person a higher salary, and he works for the next company.

Giving handouts to players for so-called 'sustainability' is a sham and degrades the basis of professional sport. Is the challenger player working as hard as someone at the top of the game? Teach a person to fish, not put a fish on dinner table. The size of a fish a person catches is commensurate with their individual capability, is it not?

In the corporate world, is there no difference between the 7pm cleaning crew and the CEO of the company? Players need to consider if a pro sports career is the right  one for them, or find a sport which supports their lifestyle.

If you want to get rid of match fixing, stop sports betting. Period.

Courtsiding reminds of someone sitting in a Stock Exchange and watching stock prices, and law of averages dictates, that they will win and lose, both.

laverfan wrote:This is no different then a college graduate starting a professional career. Offer this person a higher salary, and he works for the next company.

Giving handouts to players for so-called 'sustainability' is a sham and degrades the basis of professional sport. Is the challenger player working as hard as someone at the top of the game? Teach a person to fish, not put a fish on dinner table. The size of a fish a person catches is commensurate with their individual capability, is it not?

In the corporate world, is there no difference between the 7pm cleaning crew and the CEO of the company? Players need to consider if a pro sports career is the right  one for them, or find a sport which supports their lifestyle.

If you want to get rid of match fixing, stop sports betting. Period.

Courtsiding reminds of someone sitting in a Stock Exchange and watching stock prices, and law of averages dictates, that they will win and lose, both.

Yes but it isn't in the power of tennis' governing bodies to make illegal the activities of third party sites and sports betting bookies. It isn't about a handout. It is about allowing for a broad based growth in prize money to take some, not all but some of the incentive for this kind of activity away. Plus you need the lower ranked players to develop in order to get good matches at lower rounds and in smaller events. If you play the lower ranked guys crap they will over the long haul play like crap and it will act as a hurdle to production of better players at the higher ranks as well.

The way to stop the bribing us to publicise that games are very susceptible to be fixed and that anyone betting may well be playing a rigged game.

Put people off the betting, kill the market for bookies, kill the bribing.

There's no other solution. You can't make betting illegal and there's no way to pay lower ranked players so much that they won't takes bribes. Officially, to do so the prize money for any match has to be greater than the bounty for throwing it, which is obviously impossible.

If we want to get radical, abolish punishment for match fixing for anyone outside the top 100. Those inside won't do it because the ban would cost them more, those outside don't do it because nobody will take bets on their matches so nobody would bribe them. Market solutions are always the best.

I wouldn't suggest a communist way of thinking. If course the better players deserve much better "pay" than the journeyman. That being said though tennis is a very expensive profession to keep up both money wise and its toll on the body.  There needs to be enough money for the new guys to at least break even and if there's. It enough then rigging matches starts to look an excellent  prospect. Quite a bit of match rigging is an organised crime soo its hard to stop. Maybe suspend betting on minor tournies

Who can suspend betting? It's got nothing to do with the sport, you & I can do it now if we want.

Won't work. Betting in India is illegal, Cricket is a known spot and match fixing hot spot. You will however not be suprised to learn it's done the square root of nothing to slow down betting on cricket, worldwide, and more specifically India.

I don't think online betting is illegal in India and in a couple of states betting is legal.

To my knowledge betting on cricket in any form is illegal in India. Horse racing might be legal, can't remember.

What I meant was a ban on betting on smaller tournaments, as in bookies cant offer odds on anything in those tournaments. Problem is that its quite hard to get bookies to anything by legal means, especially in the UK. That way you get betting only in big tournies, with players who are better off and less tempted, and you can monitor better.

Regulation never works, if it did there'd be no drugs, prostitution, etc. all it does is fund illegal income streams and incentivise corruption.

The answer is always to remove the illegality; most undesirable activity fails to flourish without the energy provided by regulation.

So......

* legalise all drugs (not because there'd good, they're degenerate and use of them is profoundly stupid) and kill the organised crime supply chains.
* Legalise prostitution and deprive the pimps and slavers of income (you still have to contend with other forms of slavery and child abuse, that's a crime against another person and cannot be handled in the same way).

and in the same vein.....

* Declare any match fixing by a players outside the top 100 an unpunished offence and watch the betting market die, and thereby the income to fund fixing. The top 100 still get life bans, that provides more than adequate financial disincentive.

Great post, amen!

BB, laws and regulation do work that is why every first world country has a plethora of them. I don't want to get into a political debate that is off topic but really what has proven not to work is market solutions. Market solutions are not the silver bullet they work in many situations and don't work in many situations. I just don't believe in silver bullets in general. Already, I think there are few people that will be waggering on the qualification round matches at Del Ray beach and if there is a spike in action it is easy enough to dig into those specifics. I would also like to see the use of lie detectors. I think when it comes to the integrity of the game (ie gambling and possibly PEDs) with improving technology when there is suspicion we might require the use of lie detector tests. However that might be a tough sell to the players.

No, 1st World countries have loads of laws because there a ruling structure which requires maintenance. Obviously regulation doesn't work: it was tried in the USA to prohibit one drug (alcohol) and it went exactly as it is now for other drugs - failed, just funded crime. There used to be regulations against homosexuality too, did that 'work'?

Lie detectors - fakeable, and anyway they're a breach of liberty without clear cause.

Market always works, because markets aren't fat capitalists scheming, it's people making free choices. I'm tired of people saying highly structured, regulated organisations backed by State monopolies, such as banks, can have anything to do with a free market, it's just lame. Markets are people having the freedom to decline any offer, end of. That's all a market is. It's State regulation that interrupts that process and messes everything up.

Obviously laws on betting corruption don't work. I mean, how obvious does it have to be? It's why there's a thread. And prostitution? Narcotics?

bogbrush wrote:No, 1st World countries have loads of laws because there a ruling structure which requires maintenance. Obviously regulation doesn't work: it was tried in the USA to prohibit one drug (alcohol) and it went exactly as it is now for other drugs - failed, just funded crime. There used to be regulations against homosexuality too, did that 'work'?

Lie detectors - fakeable, and anyway they're a breach of liberty without clear cause.

Market always works, because markets aren't fat capitalists scheming, it's people making free choices. I'm tired of people saying highly structured, regulated organisations backed by State monopolies, such as banks, can have anything to do with a free market, it's just lame. Markets are people having the freedom to decline any offer, end of. That's all a market is. It's State regulation that interrupts that process and messes everything up.

Obviously laws on betting corruption don't work. I mean, how obvious does it have to be? It's why there's a thread. And prostitution? Narcotics?

If markets always work how do you explain the great depression style collapses that occurred in 1817,1837,1857,1873,1897, 1906, 1929, and 2007. These were not mere recessions of a loss of one or two points GDP but massive Depressions that at the time were known as Panics. If you are interested google the term 19th century economic panic. In an era with little to no regulation where your laisezze faire free market ruled supreme in the world with little or no government interference said free market crashed on a depression level scale every 20 years till the 1930s when the Western Middle class tapped out and went for the welfare state. In fact, last depression was called the Great Depression and it lasted a decade and reduced millions of the inhabitants of the richest Capitalist state in the world to the equivalent of Dehli shanty town dwellers and the said wonderful free market did not repair itself until massive social, infrastructure, and military spending by the nasty Federal Government pumping money into the system. The government repaired the market not vice versa. Free markets are not perfect, like everything else in the known universe including the universe they break and have a shelf life. What would the US economy of looked like if they let half the banks in America go bankrupt back in 2007 would it be pumping right now with 5 percent economic growth?

In short, the stuff you spout about Economics BB has been discredited and disproven for approximately 80 years. Not by me but by reality, (ie the 19th century panics, the great Depression, Roosevelt, and Keynes), the free market doesn't always work we had 150 years of it from the birth of the industrial revolution to the great Depression and every first world country abandoned it for the activist welfare state as a result of its abject failure in the 1930s. Not a single country worth considering applies your silly libertarian notions to business or to life. Not Sweden, france, America, Canada, UK, Germany, China, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, not one first world country operates in the ideal that you espouse. Not because it isn't fashionable and the world's economists and politicians aren't as smart as you but because said system was tried and failed miserably in not one but 7 depression level cataclysms in a century and half.

As for lie detectors they are not a breach of liberty if voted on by the players before hand, and if a basis of suspicion is established with evidence prior to their use. The FBI uses them, and while not admissable in court they are used by most law enforcement agencies in the US in investigation. In my time as a criminal defense lawyer I stopped two false prosecutions for sex crimes by submitting a believable client who was accused of really laughable charges to a lie detector test. If they were charged their lives would be ruined and the accusers were highly dubious individuals with dubious claims. Both passed, and the cops on weight of those test refused to prosecute without that cover they would have been pretty much forced to charge my clients. They can be faked but it isn't that easy I would give them 95-98 percent accuracy if done with a good test and with a good operator.

There's no point debating superficially, the crashes you describe in most cases have their roots in fraud usually facilitated or driven by States. As for the choices of 1st World States to embrace more regulation, a welfare dependency culture, etc, - well I'm trying to work out why anyone would think that people with their hands on the levers of power would release the let them go. Education, money monopoly, laws and regulations - that's how everyone is kept in place.

And yes, helicopter economics makes it look like you're growing. Congrats on growing 5% as measured by something that's printed by the boatload.

As for solutions, I've given one that would solve match fixing in a trice. You haven't got an answer that has a prayer. Mines based on making bad choices unattractive, yours is based on making them even more lucrative. Notice the difference?

Never pictured Boggy as the liberal, and SoCal as the proverbial Tory... Where's that damn popcorn emoticon

kingraf wrote:Never pictured Boggy as the liberal, and SoCal as the proverbial Tory... Where's that damn popcorn emoticon

That's not how I'm seeing it ?
SoCal the liberal pragmatist, Boggy the libertarian.
To be fair the definitions of these words have really changed throughout the years.

Bogbrush wrote:Congrats on growing 5% as measured by something that's printed by the boatload.

You can measure GDP adjusted for inflation.

Bogbrush do you not believe then in the NHS, or is all state intervention in the economy bad ?

Just because something is fundamentally bad doesn't mean everything it does it designed for ill, it's not that easy. A collaborative health scheme does massive good, but it also leads (alongside patent law, centralised procurement, twisted incentives) to misdirected investment and profiteering.

Look at how big pharma sweeps up ownership of stuff it didn't invent (like your DNA) and charges monopoly prices. Sure, that doesn't need an NHS but it's all part & parcel of what happens when someone else decides they know what you need. That's what I mean by needing to look at the whole effect, not just judging on whether one aspect or another is desirable.

The debate is vastly bigger than can be covered here. For instance, a free market - where anyone can refuse any offer of exchange made to them - requires people who minds have not been messed up from birth by a central education agenda, or religious dogma. We have exactly those things so sadly many (most?) are brought up as if 'domesticated'. What surprise that there's such popular support for the cages? As for citing the decisions of rulers (as social does) as vindication for their rule, well that's obviously flawed.

Bogbrush wrote:A collaborative health scheme does massive good, but it also leads (alongside patent law, centralised procurement, twisted incentives) to misdirected investment and profiteering.

Of course, and the NHS does have its inefficiencies too, but I would still take it a million times more than simple a free market.
Even if you had perfect competition and the market truly free, poorer people (unemployed, low income) would simply not be able to afford drugs needed for certain health conditions, and chronic health conditions.
If something like medicine is socialised, then it can be funded out of a disproportionate (called 'progressive') income tax system, which means the rich essentially subsidise those who can't afford it.
I don't think you have to be a socialist or left wing to see why that is a good, compassionate thing. Of course it won't be perfect, but better than the alternative.

bogbrush wrote:There's no point debating superficially, the crashes you describe in most cases have their roots in fraud usually facilitated or driven by States. As for the choices of 1st World States to embrace more regulation, a welfare dependency culture, etc, - well I'm trying to work out why anyone would think that people with their hands on the levers of power would release the let them go. Education, money monopoly, laws and regulations - that's how everyone is kept in place.

And yes, helicopter economics makes it look like you're growing. Congrats on growing 5% as measured by something that's printed by the boatload.

As for solutions, I've given one that would solve match fixing in a trice. You haven't got an answer that has a prayer. Mines based on making bad choices unattractive, yours is based on making them even more lucrative. Notice the difference?

No BB, the economic growth is measured in a variety of factors two tangible results for example are nearly 300,000 added jobs per month and a massive up tick in housing starts, upward trend in corporate spending in plant and equipment, etc. If printing money assured economic alone then it wouldn't result in real tangible benefits it would result in hyperinflation. By the way the dollar is strengthening against every major reserve currency so foreign traders and business people who you admire so much are also seeing the tangible results. By the way are you suggesting that you have a problem with printed fiat money, if it is valuable feel free to send all your fake printed money to me, PM me for my account information.

In short BB, libertarianism is an abject failure and has failed over and over and over again wherever it has been tried in relation to business. Fraud in the marketplace that you allude to is a perfect area where you need regulation, laws, and courts, and it is simply unsupported BS that government fraud caused all the 19th century panics. No it was the wonderful free market breaking down of its own accord, the free market isn't perfect it has major inefficiencies, corruption, and routinely breaks. And economics shows that the less regulation and government intervention and yes government spending those wicked downturns are more brutal and last much longer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Bogbrush wrote:A collaborative health scheme does massive good, but it also leads (alongside patent law, centralised procurement, twisted incentives) to misdirected investment and profiteering.

Of course, and the NHS does have its inefficiencies too, but I would still take it a million times more than simple a free market.
Even if you had perfect competition and the market truly free, poorer people (unemployed, low income) would simply not be able to afford drugs needed for certain health conditions, and chronic health conditions.
If something like medicine is socialised, then it can be funded out of a disproportionate (called 'progressive') income tax system, which means the rich essentially subsidise those who can't afford it.
I don't think you have to be a socialist or left wing to see why that is a good, compassionate thing. Of course it won't be perfect, but better than the alternative.

American healthcare system a perfect example of private commerce suffocating our economy and households under bogus pricing. Prior to recent reforms my mother spent one night in a hospital, had no procedures run on her, paid for her surgery separately (part by her and part by her insurance) and had her insurance charged 50,000 dollars for one night spent in the hospital. If you want to see private sector rapaciousness look at the US healthcare system the most costly and least efficient in the developed world and the healthcare system that is also the most market based.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Bogbrush wrote:A collaborative health scheme does massive good, but it also leads (alongside patent law, centralised procurement, twisted incentives) to misdirected investment and profiteering.

Of course, and the NHS does have its inefficiencies too, but I would still take it a million times more than simple a free market.
Even if you had perfect competition and the market truly free, poorer people (unemployed, low income) would simply not be able to afford drugs needed for certain health conditions, and chronic health conditions.
If something like medicine is socialised, then it can be funded out of a disproportionate (called 'progressive') income tax system, which means the rich essentially subsidise those who can't afford it.
I don't think you have to be a socialist or left wing to see why that is a good, compassionate thing. Of course it won't be perfect, but better than the alternative.

You have to go deeper, examining the right way to operate a flawed system is pointless.

Take the poor in Britsin. Why are they poor? Food is cheaper, in relation to income, and better quality than ever. So is clothing. What causes people to be poor?
The cost of land and housing. Why? Because land is held by few individuals so most people can't have access to it and if they can its use is tightly regulated. Why? Because it was taken by force. Thing about it logically - do you agree with anyone owning portions of atmosphere? If not, why land? Nobody ever built the land so how can they possess it? Who did they make a contract with to own it?

A free solution would be that land starts off as a common asset and to use it people would need to rent exclusive access. That rate would replace taxes on income.
It's the same for stuff like oil & gas - someone digs it up so they own it? It's garbage.

We should own the improvement we make with our labour, and keep all of that. We should rent use of shared assets from everyone else. What we decide to do with those rental proceeds is up to everyone - have a NHS if you like, it's up to you. Fractional Reserve banking is complete fraud and at the root of almost all the collapses socal take about, yet it's underpinned by a State. Banks only collapse because they commit systemised fraud which is sanctioned BY THE STATE.

In a free market you'd be sued as soon as you enter into fraudulent contracts such as lending money you don't have. In a regulated one you go right ahead, and when it goes wrong the State gives you everyone else's money. And to top it off and keep it all going, they tell you it's caused by free markets and only the State can protect you. It's a laugh really. What your criticising isn't a free market, it's corporatism backed by government.

socal1976 wrote:no BB, the economic growth is measured in a variety of factors two tangible results for example are nearly 300,000 added jobs per month and a massive up tick in housing starts, upward trend in corporate spending in plant and equipment, etc. If printing money assured economic alone then it wouldn't result in real tangible benefits it would result in hyperinflation. By the way the dollar is strengthening against every major reserve currency so foreign traders and business people who you admire so much are also seeing the tangible results. By the way are you suggesting that you have a problem with printed fiat money, if it is valuable feel free to send all your fake printed money to me, PM me for my account information.

In short BB, libertarianism is an abject failure and has failed over and over and over again wherever it has been tried in relation to business. Fraud in the marketplace that you allude to is a perfect area where you need regulation, laws, and courts, and it is simply unsupported BS that government fraud caused all the 19th century panics. No it was the wonderful free market breaking down of its own accord, the free market isn't perfect it has major inefficiencies, corruption, and routinely breaks. And economics shows that the less regulation and government intervention and yes government spending those wicked downturns are more brutal and last much longer.

It was you who used 5%, not me. Of course printing money gets stuff going. It also covers the cost of the last fraud failure for the perpetrators and stokes up the next one.

Read my posts and ask yourself if it sounds like I admire forex traders.

Laws and Courts are fine. Contracts need enforcing, and we had Common Law (the only one you need) long before a Parliament. Britain is almost the only country in the World to have developed a law based on commonly agreed principles, it's something everyone should read about. Of course, once we got Corporate government it had to go, now we get legislation - something completely different.

Yes and who operates the courts. Being sued is not the answer to business malfeasance. Your average joe has no way of holding multinational megabillion dollar corporations with mega million dollar lawyers accountable. If a petrochemichal factory opens up next your kids school and due to lack of regulation or poor safety Bhopal's all the kids in your neighborhood please tell me how the free market is going to compensate you if little BB, god forbid is blinded or has cancer? Sueing after the fact is a very poor means of regulation and you can never truly compensate anyone when they are dead.

socal1976 wrote:American healthcare system a perfect example of private commerce suffocating our economy and households under bogus pricing. Prior to recent reforms my mother spent one night in a hospital, had no procedures run on her, paid for her surgery separately (part by her and part by her insurance) and had her insurance charged 50,000 dollars for one night spent in the hospital. If you want to see private sector rapaciousness look at the US healthcare system the most costly and least efficient in the developed world and the healthcare system that is also the most market based.

Why do no doctors choose to offer their services competitively? I'm interested in why nobody allegedly chooses to compete. In the industry in which I work competition is ferocious, leading to lower prices for better quality, year after year.

What stops that happening?

socal1976 wrote:Yes and who operates the courts. Being sued is not the answer to business malfeasance. Your average joe has no way of holding multinational megabillion dollar corporations with mega million dollar lawyers accountable. If a petrochemichal factory opens up next your kids school and due to lack of regulation or poor safety Bhopal's all the kids in your neighborhood please tell me how the free market is going to compensate you if little BB, god forbid is blinded or has cancer? Sueing after the fact is a very poor means of regulation and you can never truly compensate anyone when they are dead.

Yes, who operates the Courts. That's a good question. You're a lawyer, you answer it.

Leads me onto the absurdity of limited liability, the corporate person, and other constructs that incentivise abusive behaviour. Now, were those created by a free market or a State? Hmmmmm.

How do you think a business President/CEO/Chairman will act if he knows the actions and liabilities of his company are his own? Better than now? It's only regulation that protects him from that, you know.

BB what you fail to address is that there abuses that I readily acknowledge by both the public and private sector. You seem to think that a market solution to all of the world's problems exist and there should be an almost non-existant sphere public action. Tell me how the market will protect us, compensate us, or prevent a Bhopal or Chernobyl.

Limit liability is a good point, which I tend to agree with you on. Corporate immunity is basically a big problem in the modern world and should be addressed. But who cares if you can lock up the CEO or take all his assets after a disaster. If after the BP disaster, the CEO was locked up and bankrupted would it have changed the disaster that took place? Would it have addressed the aftermath? The market solution works for some things and doesn't for others. Its the absolutism in libertarianism that dooms it to failure in the real world.

As for the US healthcare system the reason they charge more is because they can. And the reason that there isn't a private affordable healthcare system is mainly due to the massive cash cows with huge lobbying power in the form of the hospitals and the drug companies. The drug companies sell the same pill in America 25 dollars a pill that they sell in Germany or in Canada for a fraction of the cost. Why? Because they can and people can choose between death and disease or bankruptcy and blackmail. Its called the free market and it has been a disaster in the American healthcare system by far the world's most expensive system while yielding lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than in most 1st world countries. Plus the health insurers are like an oligarchy. And they need to pay out huge salaries to their execs and provide growth to shareholders. The freest healthcare system in the first world its not surprisingly the most expensive and doesn't necessarily in 99 percent of cases get the best results.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
Even if you had perfect competition and the market truly free, poorer people (unemployed, low income) would simply not be able to afford drugs needed for certain health conditions, and chronic health conditions.
If something like medicine is socialised, then it can be funded out of a disproportionate (called 'progressive') income tax system, which means the rich essentially subsidise those who can't afford it.

You have to go deeper, examining the right way to operate a flawed system is pointless.

Take the poor in Britsin. Why are they poor? Food is cheaper, in relation to income, and better quality than ever. So is clothing. What causes people to be poor?

Look you make some fair points, and I do agree with your criticism of corporatism (and you're also right that it is mistaken for capitalism too often); but your solution of a absolute total free market would be disastrous.
A few points from me-

Firstly I think it's vital that the government does have some revenue, and with this provide a safety net- and I also think in a compassionate society some industries (health, education, some infrastructure) should be nationalised.
Think about this, if we take someone who is truly poor (no skills so unemployed, and no wealth accumulated), how will that person's child ever get an education in a total free market ? Even if the cost of private schools were brought down so no supernormal profit was made (as would be the case under perfect competition), it would still be too expensive for someone who is truly poor to send their child there. So this child, whose parent/ parent is poor, has no opportunity for education. And when that child is ill, he/she wouldn't get 'free' healthcare (unlike now where a slightly inefficient service is subsidised by those who can afford it via progressive taxation).
How is that in any way desirable ? The child doesn't have an education and can't access healthcare.

Secondly you assume that a free market always leads to perfect competition, as long as there's no government intervention. Simply not true, there are ways companies can operate to create a monopoly or an oligopoly. (Limit pricing early on, then take advantage of economies of scale, and then rip off customers...) Sometimes the government regulation can actually work to ensure the free market really is driving competition.

Thirdly there's a case of transparency. Government regulation can force firms to reveal what their product is, and even try to verify it. Think of the horsemeat scandal a few years ago- that was in part caused by the government cutting the funding of our regulatory bodies which check meat coming in to the UK. But the point is it was not customers who actually found out or realised that they were being sold the wrong product. It's common sense, if we had no regulation at all, things like these would be even more common as long as the companies could trick the consumer.

Bravo, IMBL the free market often leads to monopolies and oligarchies that actually wipe out the competition and charge whatever they like with little fear of competition. That is the problem with no government regulation model BB espouses. And secondly, society benefits on the whole with some industries and some areas reserved to the public sphere (ie education, healthcare, consumer protection, etc.) Thoroughly agree with your post. It is simply naive to think that megabillion dollar companies can be held to account by the local court system where some little guy holds their feet to the fire. Plus even if the little guy can take them to the cleaners it fails to prevent harm or acts as a punishment mechanism once some disastrous harm takes place.

socal1976 wrote:If you want to see private sector rapaciousness look at the US healthcare system the most costly and least efficient in the developed world and the healthcare system that is also the most market based.

Good point. Compare the US system to the UK system.
Not only does everyone get covered in the UK system (free at the point of entry), but it is also more efficient than the American system. (More efficient in terms of money put in vs what you get out, and also US spends double what Britain do as a proportion of GDP).

socal1976 wrote:Bravo, IMBL the free market often leads to monopolies and oligarchies that actually wipe out the competition and charge whatever they like with little fear of competition. That is the problem with no government regulation model BB espouses. And secondly, society benefits on the whole with some industries and some areas reserved to the public sphere (ie education, healthcare, consumer protection, etc.) Thoroughly agree with your post. It is simply naive to think that megabillion dollar companies can be held to account by the local court system where some little guy holds their feet to the fire. Plus even if the little guy can take them to the cleaners it fails to prevent harm or acts as a punishment mechanism once some disastrous harm takes place.

Yep, glad you agree with me on this.
When it comes to this topic, I make a serious effort not to be 'left wing socialist' or 'right wing capitalist'. I see myself as a 'practicalist'.
By that I mean it's clear to me that neither extremes (economy totally nationalised or economy totally free market) are desirable. Corporatism, which I see as basically corruption, I'm fully against. Any economy has to find the best hybrid balance of socialism and Capitalism, and the compromise between the two which works most effectively should be put into place.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If you want to see private sector rapaciousness look at the US healthcare system the most costly and least efficient in the developed world and the healthcare system that is also the most market based.

Good point. Compare the US system to the UK system.
Not only does everyone get covered in the UK system (free at the point of entry), but it is also more efficient than the American system. (More efficient in terms of money put in vs what you get out, and also US spends double what Britain do as a proportion of GDP).

socal1976 wrote:Bravo, IMBL the free market often leads to monopolies and oligarchies that actually wipe out the competition and charge whatever they like with little fear of competition. That is the problem with no government regulation model BB espouses. And secondly, society benefits on the whole with some industries and some areas reserved to the public sphere (ie education, healthcare, consumer protection, etc.) Thoroughly agree with your post. It is simply naive to think that megabillion dollar companies can be held to account by the local court system where some little guy holds their feet to the fire. Plus even if the little guy can take them to the cleaners it fails to prevent harm or acts as a punishment mechanism once some disastrous harm takes place.

Yep, glad you agree with me on this.
When it comes to this topic, I make a serious effort not to be 'left wing socialist' or 'right wing capitalist'. I see myself as a 'practicalist'.
By that I mean it's clear to me that neither extremes (economy totally nationalised or economy totally free market) are desirable. Corporatism, which I see as basically corruption, I'm fully against. Any economy has to find the best hybrid balance of socialism and Capitalism, and the compromise between the two which works most effectively should be put into place.

Precisely, what has worked in every single first world country is a mixed economy that blends elements of socialism and capitalism to differing degrees. A pure capitalist system is unworkable and unfair similar to a pure Marxist vision of utopia. That is why every single first world country blends both polar extremes and finds that said system works most effectively.

Rather than make lots of posts addressing each post, I'll try to capture the whole essence.

The mistake is to take the current situation and try to examine what would happen if we suddenly went all Libertarian; it'd be a disaster, because people just aren't ready psychologically and there's a host of vested interests including industry, politicians, media and all professional bodies (including educationalists, lawyers & doctors) who would stop it. My point is that the "way things are" is caused by the Statist model - some examples:

- socal, do you think the CEO of BP would have behaved differently if he'd known that he could be personally sued for the consequences of his actions? If you don't then I'm surprised, if you agree then the question becomes that taking his assets is immaterial, the guy wouldn't have been negligent in the first place. If he wasn't negligent then there's no change from now (and no worse).
- I should remind you that Chernobyl occurred in a 100% regulated, State-owned environment. Hardly a great argument there!

Healthcare. Worth a few paragraphs of it's own. First, you're right about what they do but ignore why they can get away with it. To get into this you have to understand that healthcare is a cartel of Pharma, Insurers, Hospitals & Medical Bodies. None of these people give a damn about patients, they're in it to protect themselves and make money. They realise they are all best served by sticking together and they are protected in this venture by governments who establish a massive network of protection for each of them because governments can only function by co-operating with corporate bodies.

The first and most impactful regulation is PATENTS. If any competent chemical processor could analyse, duplicate and produce any pill you'd have incredibly efficient market of cheap, generic, pharmaceuticals. You'd have research retreat back to the World of academia (from whence it sprang) and we'd have loads of great things being donated to the World by geeks who got paid modest salaries to not have to work in the real World. Most of the great breakthroughs were made not for profit, and that tradition still continues today, except now most of the talent is sucked into big corps who use patents to exert monopoly control. Take patents away and not only do drugs prices collapse but the whole lobby vanishes overnight, along with most of the abnormal profit margins that flow to Insurers, Hospitals and Doctors.
After that, the Doctors unions (their professional bodies) act as a barrier to entry for treatment, backed up by the State who makes it illegal to compete with them.

IMBL - a monopolistic situation can only survive by offering better terms to customers than another. Sure, they may charge more than they otherwise would but they can only keep that going by undercutting anyone else. Lowering barriers to entry (again, almost always facilitated by State regulation) means they have to keep it up. If a monopoloy acts predatorily to extinguish competition on price then it falls to the competition to invent new, better services or products to stuff them - a complacent monopoly will always be vulnerable to this because.. well.... it's become complacent. Look at the churn of leadership in telecommunications, networking systems, etc.

In the end you have two choices - a system which offers the illusion of control but at the cost of creating the whole abusive network in the first place, and which has no interest in removing the problem, just tidying it up so you accept it - and another which suffers from the handicaps of being scary if you've been trained to think this other crap is the only way things can be, and having the failures of the first system ascribed to it (which doesn't stand up if you think about it properly).

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If you want to see private sector rapaciousness look at the US healthcare system the most costly and least efficient in the developed world and the healthcare system that is also the most market based.

Good point. Compare the US system to the UK system.
Not only does everyone get covered in the UK system (free at the point of entry), but it is also more efficient than the American system. (More efficient in terms of money put in vs what you get out, and also US spends double what Britain do as a proportion of GDP).

socal1976 wrote:Bravo, IMBL the free market often leads to monopolies and oligarchies that actually wipe out the competition and charge whatever they like with little fear of competition. That is the problem with no government regulation model BB espouses. And secondly, society benefits on the whole with some industries and some areas reserved to the public sphere (ie education, healthcare, consumer protection, etc.) Thoroughly agree with your post. It is simply naive to think that megabillion dollar companies can be held to account by the local court system where some little guy holds their feet to the fire. Plus even if the little guy can take them to the cleaners it fails to prevent harm or acts as a punishment mechanism once some disastrous harm takes place.

Yep, glad you agree with me on this.
When it comes to this topic, I make a serious effort not to be 'left wing socialist' or 'right wing capitalist'. I see myself as a 'practicalist'.
By that I mean it's clear to me that neither extremes (economy totally nationalised or economy totally free market) are desirable. Corporatism, which I see as basically corruption, I'm fully against. Any economy has to find the best hybrid balance of socialism and Capitalism, and the compromise between the two which works most effectively should be put into place.

Precisely, what has worked in every single first world country is a mixed economy that blends elements of socialism and capitalism to differing degrees. A pure capitalist system is unworkable and unfair similar to a pure Marxist vision of utopia. That is why every single first world country blends both polar extremes and finds that said system works most effectively.

You threw in a joke at the end there, right?

bogbrush wrote:The mistake is to take the current situation and try to examine what would happen if we suddenly went all Libertarian; it'd be a disaster, because people just aren't ready psychologically and there's a host of vested interests including industry, politicians, media and all professional bodies (including educationalists, lawyers & doctors) who would stop it. My point is that the "way things are" is caused by the Statist model - some examples:

I recognise that, I do think both Socal and myself see what you're trying to say, obviously the transition now into your model could not happen overnight. However our criticism is based on what would happen if we successfully went libertarian.
We have to be careful of Russel Brand line of thinking here. Just because you can find flaws in the current system, doesn't mean other systems may not have even more fundamental pertinent shortfalls.

Bobgrush wrote:The first and most impactful regulation is PATENTS. If any competent chemical processor could analyse, duplicate and produce any pill you'd have incredibly efficient market of cheap, generic, pharmaceuticals. You'd have research retreat back to the World of academia (from whence it sprang) and we'd have loads of great things being donated to the World by geeks who got paid modest salaries to not have to work in the real World.

The discussion with patents is an interesting one, and I have a lot of sympathy with your position, as well as you pointing out that pharmaceutical companies don't work in the best interests of patients a lot of the time.
However... the fact companies get patents give them a huge incentive to invest huge amounts of money in the first place. If not for the patents, and the retained supernormal profit companies get from it, would there be so much investment in medicine ?

bogbrush wrote:IMBL - a monopolistic situation can only survive by offering better terms to customers than another. Sure, they may charge more than they otherwise would but they can only keep that going by undercutting anyone else. Lowering barriers to entry (again, almost always facilitated by State regulation) means they have to keep it up.

As I said earlier, there are ways big companies can continue to abuse a position of monopoly. Government regulation, such as 'monopoly commission' can actually if effective work to avoid the existence of monopolies and create more competition.
High start up costs, and high sunk costs, can mean new start up companies could struggle to take the risk of competing with well established monopolies and oligopolies in a free market.

Also out of my 3 points Bogbrush, you only dealt with 1 of them. What about these 2:

Firstly I think it's vital that the government does have some revenue, and with this provide a safety net- and I also think in a compassionate society some industries (health, education, some infrastructure) should be nationalised.
Think about this, if we take someone who is truly poor (no skills so unemployed, and no wealth accumulated), how will that person's child ever get an education in a total free market ? Even if the cost of private schools were brought down so no supernormal profit was made (as would be the case under perfect competition), it would still be too expensive for someone who is truly poor to send their child there. So this child, whose parent/ parent is poor, has no opportunity for education. And when that child is ill, he/she wouldn't get 'free' healthcare (unlike now where a slightly inefficient service is subsidised by those who can afford it via progressive taxation).
How is that in any way desirable ? The child doesn't have an education and can't access healthcare.

(Btw the point I was trying to make here is that even if we can establish perfect competition with a free market... some still would not be able to afford education/healthcare. Separate from the argument over whether we would be able to achieve perfect competition itself.)

There's a case of transparency. Government regulation can force firms to reveal what their product is, and even try to verify it. Think of the horsemeat scandal a few years ago- that was in part caused by the government cutting the funding of our regulatory bodies which check meat coming in to the UK. But the point is it was not customers who actually found out or realised that they were being sold the wrong product. It's common sense, if we had no regulation at all, things like these would be even more common as long as the companies could trick the consumer.

In points;

1. Probably the most insulting thing said to me! He is a tw@t!! My opinions are actually thought through and logically secure.

2. This is the line pumped out by big Pharma to maintain patents but it's wrong. Boffin kids do science because it's what they want to do, not to get a patent. I'd argue that there's more available to the common good by vocational research driven through academia than there is through distorted research to develop monopoly patents. Many of the very biggest discoveries of the past were given free, or made without the patent incentive. Marie Curie deliberately declined to patent radium treatment so as not to hinder use and there's loads more.

3. Monopoly commission works to offset the problems caused by the State creating barriers to entry in the first place. If someone is so big and great that nobody can compete, then that's effectively brilliant for consumers because those economies must be being passed on (otherwise the new entrant could compete). More realistically, new entrants should compete by offering greater variety, market segmentation, innovation rather than trying to beat a big boy at his top game.

4. Formal education is overrated. What matters most of all is that a child is brought up to be interested in learning by their parents, and learns basics early. Parents are everything, not money, and an enquiring mind that searches for knowledge will always win out. My Mum taught me to read & write before I went to school, I did comprehensive education and all I'd have had better from private school is the sports and confidence those institutions provide (I know, my kids go there). Abraham Lincoln learned to write on a chalk board at home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Abraham_Lincoln

5. Health is something that's in all our interests and in any sensible free system we'd wisely insure, the difference being that - unlike the absurd corporatist version operating in the States - costs would be low, entry barriers to providing health would be low, and there'd be plenty to go around.

In the end there's winners & losers in life. It's wired into our DNA and nothing will ever change that. All I argue for is that people be freed from the artificial constraints on them to find their own ways. Educated self-interest will always drive co-operation, there'd always be schools, hospitals, etc. - or does anyone want to suggest they were started by the State (because none of them were!).

1. Hah! Apologies, I wasn't comparing you directly to Russel Brand.
I'm just pointing out there is an issue with this sort of logic: System A, which is in place currently, has flaws. System B, which I propose, doesn't have these specific flaws. Therefore System B is flawless.

2. Firstly Big Pharma aren't all bad, for example some big pharmaceutical companies do send out a lot of free treatments to Africa and other developing countries.
But most importantly, I simply don't think the huge amounts of money would be spent on research for new medicines if not for the patents and profit they get.
Also the huge amount of retained profit can be reinvested. Removing patents totally would not be a good idea.

3. There are barriers to entry that are independent to a state, which could help prop up a monopoly or oligopoly making supernormal profit. For example high start up costs, or high sunk costs.
The state can have a vital role to play in ensuring competition in the market.

4. Lots of people will really disagree with you that formal learning is overrated...
What happens if parents aren't academic, or aren't literate ? Formal education is not overrated at all, it's very valuable to millions.

5. Can you clarify, under your health system, how would a poor unemployed person with little wealth afford treating a chronic healthcare disease ?

Your end point- yes there are winners and losers in life; and the state may not have started education and hospitals- but the state can ensure that everyone has access to education and healthcare, even the poorest.

1. Brand doesn't do that, he just promotes his own brand (ha ha) and is looking for new profitable ways to promote himself.

2. Oh how nice of them. Make sure everyone knows too, right? Marie Curie disagrees.

3. Super-normal profit isn't a problem. It's up to others to innovate past them.

4. Most of them will be teachers I suppose. Education is essential if you want to join in with badged classes, and I never said its useless, just overdone. If you want to understand how deluded the teaching profession can be, just sit in a few A level Business Studies classes then see if it has any use in business.

5. They might not be able to, just like they can't now.

if the State is so good at bringing education to all shouldn't numeracy & literacy issues be long gone? My old Mum left school at 13 and she's miles ahead - and she came from true poverty.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convert anyone. This began with match fixing and I'm pretty relaxed that nobody has managed to improve on my free market solution. Most ideas follow the pattern of taking what doesn't work now, and doing it more.

1. lol, of course Brand does a lot of that too.

2. My main point here was, it is the creation of patents which incentivise companies to pour in billions and billions into new medicine research. The pharmaceutical industry needs reforms, but banning patents totally would be disastrous.

3. My point here was that even in the free market, consumers can still get 'ripped off'. Sometimes you need the government to regulate and ensure more competition with monopoly commissions etc.

4. Alarm bells ringing here. I don't think it's just teachers who will say formal education is important.
Under a total free market society, as you seem to advocate, formal education simply would not be accessible to the poorest children. If their parents are both working or not literate, they simply will not have an opportunity to have an education.
That is a travesty, far far beyond any downfalls of A level business studies.

5. 'Might not be able to' receive healthcare ?
Alarm bells ringing here again for me. Currently people of all wealth in this country can access healthcare, and don't have to worry to pay a doctor. Yes the NHS has issues, it's not perfect, but it is sure as hell better than the alternative of having poor unemployed people dying early unnecessarily as they can't afford medical treatment.

Your idealistic free market world, even at its best, would take away the opportunity for young poor children to have an education and those in poverty would suffer without healthcare. Society now isn't perfect, but I promise you it's better than the travesties you would get with your alternative.

We can agree to disagree on this, I am not trying to convert anyone either.

Just as well, neither of you convinced me either way.

kingraf wrote:Just as well, neither of you convinced me either way.

Did I convert you though ?

I'm not sure it's possible to disagree totally with both myself and Bogbrush on this specific issue. You either think a total free market works or you are sceptical as I am.
Obviously though I recognise the next step, agreeing on exactly how the economy should be run, what the compromise is between the free market and government- two people could only really roughly agree on that.

It Must Be Love wrote:1. lol, of course Brand does a lot of that too.

2. My main point here was, it is the creation of patents which incentivise companies to pour in billions and billions into new medicine research. The pharmaceutical industry needs reforms, but banning patents totally would be disastrous.

3. My point here was that even in the free market, consumers can still get 'ripped off'. Sometimes you need the government to regulate and ensure more competition with monopoly commissions etc.

4. Alarm bells ringing here. I don't think it's just teachers who will say formal education is important.
Under a total free market society, as you seem to advocate, formal education simply would not be accessible to the poorest children. If their parents are both working or not literate, they simply will not have an opportunity to have an education.
That is a travesty, far far beyond any downfalls of A level business studies.

5. 'Might not be able to' receive healthcare ?
Alarm bells ringing here again for me. Currently people of all wealth in this country can access healthcare, and don't have to worry to pay a doctor. Yes the NHS has issues, it's not perfect, but it is sure as hell better than the alternative of having poor unemployed people dying early unnecessarily as they can't afford medical treatment.

Your idealistic free market world, even at its best, would take away the opportunity for young poor children to have an education and those in poverty would suffer without healthcare. Society now isn't perfect, but I promise you it's better than the travesties you would get with your alternative.

We can agree to disagree on this, I am not trying to convert anyone either.

2. It really wouldn't. Stuff would be developed for the reasons I explained. What we'd be free of is the misdirection of resources and the racket that pervades health provision today.

3. no, they do more to create the environment for monopolies to exist than they do to break them. At very best they just encourage oligopolies. You keep overlooking how the infrastructure acts to protect size and scale

4 + 5 just both so wrong. have you taken a look at the garbage state of education now? It teaches people little of use, just enough to be a work drone, and along the way trains the established thinking norms into kids. Look at the politicisation of history teaching, or the movement towards reaching societal norm thinking. Its virtually child abuse.

Anyway, it's far too big a topic to explore here, far too profound a problem.

I still fixed match fixing using these principles though!