Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Free Market

I. Introduction

This is a synopsis of what I consider to be the merits and limitations of an economic system predicated on a free market economy. This is my personal opinion, and not to be confused with official doctrine of any political or economic system. But I have qualified my opinions with literature and studies on the subject. When necessary, I will reference them, but hopefully the merits of the system will be evident from my explanations themselves.

I will break this into sections, first outlining the basic principles of a free market system. Some would associate it with libertarianism, others with the idea of a limited government, others with utilitarian ideals. These labels (and other similar ones) carry implications beyond what I wish to impart, so I will refer to it as a free market system rather than these to avoid confusion. Later sections will deal with specific policy formation in various economic aspects. Lastly, since much of this involves a diminished role in government, I will discuss what the government should still do to ensure basic freedoms and economic efficiency, as well as deal with some of the main criticisms often directed at free market systems.

This is necessarily quite lengthy. I will be as brief as possible, but I realize that I am speaking to a limited audience. I apologize for the length, but also hope that it can serve as either a basis for discussion and debate, as well as information for those who may be curious about the tenets of this philosophy. Keep in mind that this is a very shortened version of these ideas. A full analysis would be far longer, and this is about as short as it could be while still maintaining the integrity of the philosophy.

tldr

Originally posted by BackFire
tldr



I understand. I realize I'm speaking to a limited audience, and don't expect most people to read more than perhaps the intro post unless they are genuinely interested in the topic.

...

And yes, this is what I spent the last two days writing. If only for myself, but hopefully others too.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


I understand. I realize I'm speaking to a limited audience, and don't expect most people to read more than perhaps the intro post unless they are genuinely interested in the topic.

...

And yes, this is what I spent the last two days writing. If only for myself, but hopefully others too.



I am interested (as I am in favor of Free Market) and I am taking my time to read it by reading it in parts. By the looks of what you have typed you seem to have summed it up perfectly. Although I'd have to read it all before I can properly make that statement. Good job and kudos.

Thanks. And yeah, take your time (anyone else too). No reason this has to be a fast-paced thread if there's only limited interest.

I've been in the middle of a lot of economic reading recently, and had also encountered quite a few of the same arguments when I would bring up aspects of a free market system on the forums, so I felt like a full-scale analysis would be in order. And it's also useful for my own purposes too since it helps to be able to articulate it better.

A few rebuttals actually stymied me (like the education thing, which was a debate I kinda "lost" with a friend), so I'm hoping there are others that know as much about some of this stuff to increase my knowledge as well, regardless of whether its for or against these ideas.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


I understand. I realize I'm speaking to a limited audience, and don't expect most people to read more than perhaps the intro post unless they are genuinely interested in the topic.

...

And yes, this is what I spent the last two days writing. If only for myself, but hopefully others too.



It isn't really that long. I read about half of it...I didn't have time to read the rest. I am at work and all. I wil read the reset later.

Semi-bump to keep it in the public memory.

...

Anyway, to this end, if one is a free market advocate, of the current presidential candidates the only one that would have any appeal to libertarian sympathizers is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he'd never win the nomination, but he's actually very consistent with his beliefs and votes against government power and taxation.

That said, I hate most Republicans on most social issues, so it's hard to fully advocate anyone running on their ticket. But I'd probably vote for him over a Dem, but will vote Dem over whoever else might get the Republican nomination because they aren't nearly as good for free markets and are generally a lot less progressive on social issues.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Semi-bump to keep it in the public memory.

...

Anyway, to this end, if one is a free market advocate, of the current presidential candidates the only one that would have any appeal to libertarian sympathizers is Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he'd never win the nomination, but he's actually very consistent with his beliefs and votes against government power and taxation.

That said, I hate most Republicans on most social issues, so it's hard to fully advocate anyone running on their ticket. But I'd probably vote for him over a Dem, but will vote Dem over whoever else might get the Republican nomination because they aren't nearly as good for free markets and are generally a lot less progressive on social issues. You would vote for Hillary Clinton?

Seriously?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You would vote for Hillary Clinton?

Seriously?

I would probably just not vote if that were the case. I'm pulling for Edwards, but it's really a two-horse race right now, and I see Obama as the (much) lesser of the two evils between him and Hillary.

I would probably make an exception and vote Republican if Paul got the nomination, but he won't so it's a moot point.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I would probably just not vote if that were the case. I'm pulling for Edwards, but it's really a two-horse race right now, and I see Obama as the (much) lesser of the two evils between him and Hillary.

I would probably make an exception and vote Republican if Paul got the nomination, but he won't so it's a moot point. Vote libertarian then. Before you vote Hillary.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Vote libertarian then. Before you vote Hillary.

Clearly, but Paul is the only libertarian candidate...it's not a choice that we'll get to make come election day.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Clearly, but Paul is the only libertarian candidate...it's not a choice that we'll get to make come election day. Are there no third parties? How does an US ballot look like?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are there no third parties? How does an US ballot look like?

A bunch of people try to get the nomination from both major parties (Democratic/Republican). A winner is determined for both parties, then those two go at it in the general election. So it's essentially just two choices.

Occasionally someone will run on a 3rd party ticket, and there will likely be 1-2 semi-big parties that field a candidate (Green Party, Independents, etc.) but Paul is going for the Republican nomination but has very little chance of getting it. So he won't be on the ballot unless a miracle occurs and he gets the Republican nom (he's something like a distant 4th right now to get it).

He can (and has) run as a 3rd party libertarian (back in '88 I think) but he isn't this year so there's no libertarian candidate.

You do have a libertarian party though. Which does have candidates, don't you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do have a libertarian party though. Which does have candidates, don't you?

Ron Paul is, to my knowledge, the only one who has run on the libertarian ticket in recent memory. But America is a ridiculously polarized country. Over here you're either Democrat or Republican, and such a political war rages between the two parties that the vast (vast) majority of people are never exposed to anything outside of these two. The Green Party made a push a few elections back, but faded back into obscurity once the Iraq war caused another great divide in the country.

So yes and no. It exists, but it's nowhere near relevant enough to cause any change. Paul is a multi-term congressman, meaning there's at least pockets of the country that agree with libertarian principals, but still a tiny amount by any relevant comparison.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ron Paul is, to my knowledge, the only one who has run on the libertarian ticket in recent memory. But America is a ridiculously polarized country. Over here you're either Democrat or Republican, and such a political war rages between the two parties that the vast (vast) majority of people are never exposed to anything outside of these two. The Green Party made a push a few elections back, but faded back into obscurity once the Iraq war caused another great divide in the country.

So yes and no. It exists, but it's nowhere near relevant enough to cause any change. Paul is a multi-term congressman, meaning there's at least pockets of the country that agree with libertarian principals, but still a tiny amount by any relevant comparison. Why would you play into that though?

Theres hardly a difference between your great parties. I would vote for neither. Ever.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would you play into that though?

Theres hardly a difference between your great parties. I would vote for neither. Ever.

Which is a big reason voter turnout is so low. And yeah, if there isn't a candidate I like I just don't vote for one.

But the two parties control so much money and power that it's next to impossible for a 3rd party to ever gain much prominence. Not exactly a great system, but it's what we have currently.

Alright, woot to the free market! My reply is going to seem somewhat, if not highly critical of the free market or of libertarianism in general, which is sort of my point, but not entirely. I am a huge supporter of the free market and of limited government. However, a reply of "you rock Digi, cosign 2000%" would be kind of lame, and not entirely honest. Before I get to any meat or potatoes kind of thing, I want to address one line in particular:

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We are not anarchists, certainly.

I know you are referring to "libertarianism" with this, but lets not assume that free market ideology is limited to those who claim to be libertarian. Pragmatism aside, I'd be considered an anarcho-capitalist. The only reason I bring this up is to highlight a huge diversity in the ideologies of those who believe in free market, and especially to highlight the idea that many people who believe in the free market do so for ideological reasons as opposed to pragmatic. To draw a parallel, I personally believe, from a moralistic and ideological point of view, that freedom of speech is an absolute and can never be taken away. In this frame, someone in the media reporting sensitive troop movements in a war zone, which would clearly lead to the deaths of my nation's soldiers, should be protected. Pragmatically, the problems with this view abound. I hope to touch on some of the greater implications of this nearer to the end, but, imho, ideology and what is "right" should have no place in the discussion of politics, or at least should not be of the highest consideration.

Another sort of "intro" idea I want to throw out there is what I think is the only thing of value that Marx ever contributed to philosophy. He compared capitalism to a magician's apprentice. Traditionally, the magician's apprentice is an archetypal character in literature. He is always messing around with powerful magical forces, and while he is capable of some control, quickly he is overrun. I feel this analogy is highly applicable to modern markets, where the benefits from the highly powerful capitalist system are tied to a torrent of uncontrollable phenomena, many that have devastating impacts. I'll try to make this less ambiguous as I go.

I think it is important to talk about what is meant by "economic freedom". Much like "freedom of speech" there are many interpretations and clear limits that everyone would agree to. The fact that I am unable to purchase ICBMs on the open market is an abuse of my economic freedoms. That I cannot sell my child (who by all other legal precedence is my property) into prostitution is another. Neither of those cases would lead to greater personal or social freedom, but are economic freedoms. Clearly we are, even from the onset, not arguing about economic freedom, but about liberalization of certain government controls over certain facets of the economy.

To take that last point one step further, and to tie into what you said about communism, the facets of the economy that we (re: traditional libertarian views) would like to see open are those for which clear benefits can be hypothesized. Much like communism not being a realistic option, the free market must be considered in the same way. Even if there is a philosophical argument for how a free market can be beneficial, it is useless if in reality it doesn't work that way. For instance, there have been places in Europe that have attempted drug decriminalization for short periods. During that time, crime skyrocketed as gangs and suppliers flooded into the region. While I still do support drug legalization, this is an aspect of it that MUST be addressed, even if the controls to stem violence and crime may take away the "freedom" of any individual.

Post-modernism has brought to light the importance of understanding the cultural and social context that ideologies were created in. Smith lived in a time where the government basically stole from entrepreneurs. His ideas of trade and market liberalization are in reaction to the government of the time, and for that reason, do not necessarily apply directly to the modern economy. Libertarianism arose out of early American capitalism, where the conditions and infrastructure of the population were highly different than today.

In Atlas Shrugged (which i didn't finish.....), Rand's characters are talking about building railroads and inventing new types of metal. This is analogous to early American capitalism. There were no roads between cities, new and improved communication and transportation was required before a company could even begin selling a product. Investment into long term profit generation through building infrastructure was seen as the way to do business. Corporate bosses, while maybe not accountable to the people who used their product, were certainly loyal to them, and saw the mutual benefit to the people and their profit margin was highly important, and long term, constant growth in profit was valued over short-term, flash in the pan gains.

This doesn't exist today, for many reasons. The first being that government has usurped control of creating a nation's infrastructure. And, as I'm sure anyone who lives in a country where the state makes roads can tell you, they aren't really too concerned with the upkeep. From my personal view, government does only what is necessary for traffic systems just to work at sub-optimal levels. This work is long, takes far longer than predicted, expensive, and often not of the proper quality.

Another major issue is the distribution of wealth. It isn't that wealth is unequally distributed, but that enough wealth is held within the hands of a certain group of people (middle class and up) that, effectively, there are 2 markets. Or, put another way, there is a market that responds to the demands of the money, and since there is enough money in the middle (+) class market, the demand from outside of this market is essentially ignored. A good example of this type of issue is seen in medical research. Large corporations invest huge amounts of money into pharmacological research. Since they expect to see this money back, only diseases that affect a certain percentage of the population are financially worth curing. So, even if a disease is easily curable, if it affects .02% of the population, it will not repay the money invested by a company into research, testing, marketing etc. Much like poverty stricken communities, even if there was an effective way to engage people in these areas in the larger economy, the payoff would be so low that no company would do it.

I guess more specifically I should say, that the payoff of investing in the infrastructure of a poor community will not have fast enough profit generation for the huge investment it will take. And while this type of long term investment drove previous capitalism, it is out of style today. Stock prices and the accountability of CEO's to shareholders rather than the public or even their employees has changed this. Any CEO who let their company tank for 5 years in order to create a market for their product would be removed as soon as the stock price plummeted. Stocks, imho, prevent long term investment, especially since the government has passed laws stating that CEO's must be solely concerned with their stock price and shareholders.

What has happened as a result then, is that corporations no longer are in the business of responding to demands, but in fact, are in the business of creating demand. They must continue to motivate those who are able to participate in the economy to buy their product. Look at major music companies. Very few bands that are on the radio today have a longer shelf life than 2-3 years. MGA or SONY can create huge demand for a CD through advertising, hook a band into a terribly worded contract, make the money from initial record sales, then jump to the next hot thing and do it again. This constant hype then rehype drives people to buy lots and lots of CDs, but does little to actually satisfy public demand for good and meaningful music.

While I do agree that the government has played a role in this transformation from long term to short term capital investment, I don't see the free market as having any inherent protection against it. While government makes a problem worse, removing them isn't a solution. Especially given that, as technology increases, fewer and fewer people will need to be employed in order to produce the products in the marketplace. Adoption of technology can mean a loss of income for an individual in the economy.

Continued.... - unfortunately that may be later than sooner

I'll wait until inamilist finishes before responding. But good stuff, and thanks for taking the time to post a lengthy response.

Wouldn't a free market give people the freedom to be selfish bastards?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wouldn't a free market give people the freedom to be selfish bastards? If they stick to some rules, sure. Why not? It would also give the people the freedom to be altruist idiots.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wouldn't a free market give people the freedom to be selfish bastards?

Yes, one of the key ideas is that people are acting on their own selfish interests, but it is this self-interest that drives each person to spread their money much more efficiently than any government would. Also, anyone acting too selfishly would be bested my less greedy competitors and run out of business. The competition of the market is the check to this potential problem, which only becomes pertinent in the case of monopolies (which anti-trust laws in a free market system would protect).

Hopefully that answers your question, though the opening posts go into more detail if you're interested.

...

Also, since in's busy but made some good points in his first post there, I'll try to reply sometime in the next few days.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Shouldn't there be things to protect people from falling for tricks?

Yes, so what's your problem with the free market?

OK, here is my two cents on anything concerning a completely free market:

It doesn't work. You can NEVER have a true economic system work completely. In theory, yes, it is great. But in practice, it never works. Just like how pure communism never works, pure libertarianism can never work.

There are certain parts of all societies where government must step in. Just as there are certain portions of society where government should not be included.

One portion of the pure libertarian philosophy where I am diametrically opposed is welfare. Because, you see, welfare saves lives. Sure, there are people who abuse it; but for others, it truly save lives. I actually had this discussion with my dad last night. I said, 99/9% of those on welfare were following the rules. He countered saying it was more like 82 percent.

And I respect his opinion. Because, as a 14 year old (that's not a typo), he was collecting food stamps for his family. He was raised by a single mother and she was injured to the point where she could not go to the welfare office, so he was the one who had to go to the welfare office and get the food stamps; as I said, he was 14. and this was not unusual. he told me there were many, many people his age in line for food stamps waiting for food to help, and even save, the lives of their families.

This is just one areas where pure libertarianism (which advocates a pure free market) would cost people's lives. While government should be ultimately limited, to ignore moral authority is ridiculous, and in my mind, stupid.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
OK, here is my two cents on anything concerning a completely free market:

It doesn't work. You can NEVER have a true economic system work completely. In theory, yes, it is great. But in practice, it never works. Just like how pure communism never works, pure libertarianism can never work.


That's not true in this case though. It does work, though I suppose to some people the implications are too horrifying, so no one will do it. In my opinion it is also in that respect the opposite of communism. Which many people would like to try, but it really does not work.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
There are certain parts of all societies where government must step in. Just as there are certain portions of society where government should not be included.


Yes, libertarians agree.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
One portion of the pure libertarian philosophy where I am diametrically opposed is welfare. Because, you see, welfare saves lives. Sure, there are people who abuse it; but for others, it truly save lives. I actually had this discussion with my dad last night. I said, 99/9% of those on welfare were following the rules. He countered saying it was more like 82 percent.


The argument most libertarians would bring is not abuse of the system though. It is generally the taking money from most people to pay for a specific few which are not threatened by any person.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
And I respect his opinion. Because, as a 14 year old (that's not a typo), he was collecting food stamps for his family. He was raised by a single mother and she was injured to the point where she could not go to the welfare office, so he was the one who had to go to the welfare office and get the food stamps; as I said, he was 14. and this was not unusual. he told me there were many, many people his age in line for food stamps waiting for food to help, and even save, the lives of their families.


Of course one could make an argument for a sort of welfare system. Most people do not want to have people die in the streets of their towns. But it has to be reasonable. For one, it would be ridiculous to have people on welfare live a better life than anyone that is working. It would be unfair and harm the free market excessively. Personally I believe that charities would be the right way to go, as I oppose all government intervention except to protect people from harm brought onto them by other people.

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
This is just one areas where pure libertarianism (which advocates a pure free market) would cost people's lives. While government should be ultimately limited, to ignore moral authority is ridiculous, and in my mind, stupid.

Which morals though? Apparently not that of libertarians. So, yours I guess?

Blah, I'm so lazy....

something quick:

Welfare is a great idea, and makes people feel good, but it is not a solution to any problem. History and many many many sociological studies have shown that just giving people money, especially in poverty stricken environments, does not affect poverty and does not make life better for those individuals. It makes individuals dependent on hand-outs from the government, and it then makes entire communities dependent on government hand-outs.

On a case by case basis, an injured single parent probably requires different answerers than poverty in general, but even then, it is a reduction of human autonomy to just have a state support someone who cannot support themselves.

The problem with poverty today is exactly this. People with no real work skills or education being supported by government and ignored by the economy. No new or effective infrastructure goes into the regions because this is now the job of bloated and bureaucratic government, and jobs are reduced because they go overseas or increase technology. People need effective neighborhoods with real jobs where they can earn money and be good role models for their kids. They do not need to be treated like 7 year olds, getting their monthly allowance from the rest of society, just so a cycle of poverty can exist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true in this case though. It does work, though I suppose to some people the implications are too horrifying, so no one will do it. In my opinion it is also in that respect the opposite of communism. Which many people would like to try, but it really does not work.


lol, I like that

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
OK, here is my two cents on anything concerning a completely free market:

It doesn't work. You can NEVER have a true economic system work completely. In theory, yes, it is great. But in practice, it never works. Just like how pure communism never works, pure libertarianism can never work.

There are certain parts of all societies where government must step in. Just as there are certain portions of society where government should not be included.

One portion of the pure libertarian philosophy where I am diametrically opposed is welfare. Because, you see, welfare saves lives. Sure, there are people who abuse it; but for others, it truly save lives. I actually had this discussion with my dad last night. I said, 99/9% of those on welfare were following the rules. He countered saying it was more like 82 percent.

And I respect his opinion. Because, as a 14 year old (that's not a typo), he was collecting food stamps for his family. He was raised by a single mother and she was injured to the point where she could not go to the welfare office, so he was the one who had to go to the welfare office and get the food stamps; as I said, he was 14. and this was not unusual. he told me there were many, many people his age in line for food stamps waiting for food to help, and even save, the lives of their families.

This is just one areas where pure libertarianism (which advocates a pure free market) would cost people's lives. While government should be ultimately limited, to ignore moral authority is ridiculous, and in my mind, stupid.

We've never seen a purely libertarian government in a civilized nation and/or modern economy, so your first assumption is nothing but speculation.

Second, I (and any) free market advocate stresses the need for government intervention in limited areas. If you'll read my opening posts (I'm guessing you didn't based on your objections) I discussed how there would be alternative programs in place for impoverished families. Nobody would die as a result of the free market, and it's often government programs that make it even harder for poor individuals to survive.

Originally posted by inimalist
The problem with poverty today is exactly this. People with no real work skills or education being supported by government and ignored by the economy. No new or effective infrastructure goes into the regions because this is now the job of bloated and bureaucratic government, and jobs are reduced because they go overseas or increase technology. People need effective neighborhoods with real jobs where they can earn money and be good role models for their kids. They do not need to be treated like 7 year olds, getting their monthly allowance from the rest of society, just so a cycle of poverty can exist.

I would tend to agree, which is why I advocate a personally accountable negative income tax like one of the ones I outlined in the "distribution of wealth" section. Basically, it brings people closer to living wage but also expects something of them or the money is rescinded. Barring extreme circumstances, it requires them to agree to participate in schooling of some sort or to get a job. The government does its "share" to alleviate poverty but doesn't rely only on handouts, but instead creates a lower class that is also personally responsible for their survival and success.

Advocates against this argue (quite validly) that in our society, no one should need to be beneath the poverty line, and thus back a system where the government subsidizes to living wage with no strings attached. The downside is the lower class apathy and reliance you mentioned, which can be its own detriment to a society.

I see either one as preferable to the current asinine loophole-laden, government-heavy tax system. But the former appeals to me more than the latter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If they stick to some rules, sure. Why not? It would also give the people the freedom to be altruist idiots. Yeahs. My sister says its true. Other countrys are different.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, so what's your problem with the free market? Nothing, I just like to clarify things. A free market needs a safety net for people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In that small town, wouldn't, lets say WalMart, make a fortune if they would sell pencils at 45 pounds? And wouldn't then Tesco still make a fortune if they sold it at 40 pounds? .....and wouldn't the shopkeeper still make a decent living if he sold them for 40 pence? I don't understand.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Beyond that, there's nothing from stopping anyone in the hypothetical town (for that it all it is) from opening a new store and driving the other out of business or at least keeping them honest. What if that can't happen? No one else in the town can make pencils, or get pencils.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for "things fro keeping people from falling for tricks"....no, quite frankly, there shouldn't be. In a competitive market, it will be advantageous for businesses to treat the customer fairly even while making a profit, or they themselves will soon be without income. It takes care of itself. Your "things" would undoubtedly take the form of government restrictions on either individuals or businesses themselves, which would limit freedom and inhibit the market's natural course. Falling from tricks, you know, causing people to buy something outrageous or with outrageous prices. A free market doesn't stop that from happening absolutely.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
People can and will be dumb, yes, but is it the responsibility of gov't to hold everyone's hand at the cost of social and economic freedom? No, they are free to choose, for better or for worse. And more often than not it will be for the better. The current world wide governmental system is a bad one. One where force is it's prime assesity is something I do not agree with or propose. However, there should be something that allows people stability protection at all costs.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...all of this was referred to in my opening posts, so I'm not sure if it is still bothering you or if you just didn't read. I strayed off somewhere in II. Sorry, I will read it sometime tomorrow.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
If you have continued rebuttals for my points (either here or earlier) that's fine, but the questions are the kind of base level ones that suggest you're citing problems that I've addressed and haven't taken my responses into account. I'd recommend reading it, though, because I dislike typing the same justifications twice. I understand.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/79

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/79

The premise of that video seems enlightening (it's only 16 minutes everyone, and worth watching). As soon as I get the time, I'll give it a full viewing. And TED rocks so hard I can't even begin to describe it. I'd encourage anyone and everyone to peruse the site for other topics that may interest you. Most intellectual endeavors have lectures and talks devoted to them by some of the world's most interesting thinkers.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What if that can't happen? No one else in the town can make pencils, or get pencils.

Like I said, this is pretty much an obsolete concern in a modern economy, where technology offers numerous alternatives to business. I agree that this might be a problem in less developed countries, but that isn't the cocern of my thesis.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Falling from tricks, you know, causing people to buy something outrageous or with outrageous prices. A free market doesn't stop that from happening absolutely.

That exists today as well. One doesn't need to have libertarianism to have bad deals, or bad consumer decisions. But government intervention in this form would surely strip freedoms away from us. And a free market actually protects against it better than some other forms of gov't because competition ensures that if a business is scamming customers they will lose the trust of the market and will suffer monetarily. Creating trust is rewarded in such a system. Such scams would still occur, but they would be dealt with swiftly by the mechanisms of the market, without gov't intervention.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry, I will read it sometime tomorrow.

Cool. I think you'll enjoy it. I realize it's a decent amount of reading, but it helps to be on a level field of discussion.

I'm interested and I'm going to read it,but tomorrow,I'm to tired.
And I will leave my thoughts on it then.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nothing, I just like to clarify things. A free market needs a safety net for people.

Arguable. And even then it does by no means mean that they need a safety net provided by the government.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't understand.

I was just making the same point as Digimark. In your scenarion someone could still make a fortune selling pens cheaper. So that competition would make pencils go for a normal price. Also, how many towns are there left in the Western World that only have one supplier for such common goods?

My feelings on monopolies:

In a truly free economy, there are no problems with monopolies. For a company to hold a monopoly in a world with free access of business to resources and to the market, one must be operating at the most efficient level possible. For, in a truly free market, this company would have to be providing for all of the demand in a market, plus providing the product at the lowest possible rate. So long as access is possible, a monopoly, imho, actually serves the interest of the public.

This falls apart in the modern world, where government controls both resources and infrastructure, and thus any monopoly in those areas is protected from competition.

The only real problem with monopolies then is corporate ownership of all of one type of resource, which the free market would push against, but is not impossible through conglomeration. Government ownership of resources may be beneficial to prevent this, but access to those resources should still be competitive.

I have to do some reading up on Economic issues.
It's my weak point in a way.

I disagree with the idea of a Free Market.
From my understanding I identify more with the idea of a Mixed Economy but that's not to say I agree with it 100%.
I'll talk about a few things that I disagree with in the free market.
Government control of certain services, for example, Mail , Just because the Government has a program for it doesn't mean that there can't be private enterprise in that Field to for people who would want better quality or faster delivery or what have you.
For Example In The United States, the Government controls The United States Postal Service however for those who want better quality or something more there is a private enterprise alternative such as UPS and Fed Ex and DHL.
Same goes for health care, Just because I believe in a Government Controlled Health Care System doesn't mean that I am not against the Idea of Private Enterprise setting up a Private Hospital all long as they meet safety standards etc.


I would like to ask a question to, What would a Free Market Economy Position on Environmental Regulations on Corporations be?

Also,Good job Digi on writing that essay.

Originally posted by TRH

Government control of certain services, for example, Mail , Just because the Government has a program for it doesn't mean that there can't be private enterprise in that Field to for people who would want better quality or faster delivery or what have you.

The problem is they can't compete easily as the government has a huge financial backing that destroys most competition. And as always the taxpayer is the loser in that situation.

Originally posted by TRH
For Example In The United States, the Government controls The United States Postal Service however for those who want better quality or something more there is a private enterprise alternative such as UPS and Fed Ex and DHL.

The theory is that there would be even more such companies who would provide even better service at an even lower price.

Originally posted by TRH
Same goes for health care, Just because I believe in a Government Controlled Health Care System doesn't mean that I am not against the Idea of Private Enterprise setting up a Private Hospital all long as they meet safety standards etc.

Again, it severely interferes with the free market which in turn means that lives are lost due to government intereference. You could have cheaper and better treatment in a free market. You destroy a whole market for insurance and you give the goverment a monopoly status again influenced by the drug companies who now can sell the same products over and over again for more money, cause the government does not have to economize. Again, tax payers are ****ed, some of course much more so than others.

Originally posted by TRH
I would like to ask a question to, What would a Free Market Economy Position on Environmental Regulations on Corporations be?

There would likely be similar regulations as there are now, if they make sense. It is not allowed in a free market to harm and kill your customers or anyone else. So you could not pollute water or sell harmful products.

Bardock: Just for personal interest, do you think the government has any role in making healthcare accessible to everyone? I'm not talking universalizing the system, but any role whatsoever?

Originally posted by inimalist
Bardock: Just for personal interest, do you think the government has any role in making healthcare accessible to everyone? I'm not talking universalizing the system, but any role whatsoever? I am undecided. Ultimately I think not. But there could be reasonable programs for the poorest, that really can't afford anything. I was just thinking about it today, and it is a rather complicated topic. But ultimately I think government interference might do more harm than good.

Originally posted by TRH
I would like to ask a question to, What would a Free Market Economy Position on Environmental Regulations on Corporations be?


most major corporations have higher safety regulations than the government requires. The fact is, those regulations, in many areas, are too low because the government wants to attract companies that could also go set up in a developing nation that has cheaper labour and no environmental laws. Also, if a corporation is sued for not being safe enough, they stand to loose so much money that in most cases they take extra precautions to save their ass. The market works in this way to make better standards than even the government can enforce.

However, there still are huge environmental concerns. One of the major issues is that, up until recently, the environmental footprint of a company had no relation to their profit margin. This largely comes from deliberate government propaganda and terrible government run schools. Only now, in the face of insurmountable evidence that man is responsible for some environmental changes, do people start to care about how much pollution a company produces. When the market demands that companies go green, they will. It is much more effective than government imposed restrictions because it rewards companies who are willing to take the risk and invest into green technologies earlier.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am undecided. Ultimately I think not. But there could be reasonable programs for the poorest, that really can't afford anything. I was just thinking about it today, and it is a rather complicated topic. But ultimately I think government interference might do more harm than good.

would you have a doctor refuse to operate on someone who could not pay for it?

I guess more specifically, what about things like ERs, there are lots of terrible stories in America about people without insurance being dumped at "charity" hospitals instead of getter proper treatment in private ERs.

I think that is the only reason I would be in favor of moderate intervention, if only to allow deferred payment (also in an attempt to lessen the impact of expensive surgery).

Originally posted by inimalist
would you have a doctor refuse to operate on someone who could not pay for it?

I guess more specifically, what about things like ERs, there are lots of terrible stories in America about people without insurance being dumped at "charity" hospitals instead of getter proper treatment in private ERs.

I think that is the only reason I would be in favor of moderate intervention, if only to allow deferred payment (also in an attempt to lessen the impact of expensive surgery).

I would allow any doctor to refuse to operate if they aren't bound by contract.

I suppose one could argue for a system that Emergency's will be payed by the government. Of course that would bring it's own problems with it. Obviously I would never force a hospital to provide treatment to anyone, except for maybe most unlikely reasons.

TRH:
Your examples might hold some weight, but the gov't does indeed have a regulated monopoly on mail. The shipping services you mentioned have their niches, but are forbidden from competing with the gov't postal service in mail delivery.

But we'd have the equivalent of those companies, each at competing rates, if we privatized the mail delivery system.

In and Bardock:
I'll hold off on the health care issue for the moment, but inamilist covered the environmental stuff quite well.

A large concern for many is that they think all kinds of areas would go to sh*t because of a free market, not realizing that the system itself safeguards and checks itself in most cases. And usually it's better than if gov'ts regulated it themselves.

Also, nice video...I finally got around to viewing it. It's the market in action, and ably describes how top-down structure does as much (or more) harm than help, rather than bottom-up structure set up by the people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem is they can't compete easily as the government has a huge financial backing that destroys most competition. And as always the taxpayer is the loser in that situation.



The theory is that there would be even more such companies who would provide even better service at an even lower price.



Again, it severely interferes with the free market which in turn means that lives are lost due to government intereference. You could have cheaper and better treatment in a free market. You destroy a whole market for insurance and you give the goverment a monopoly status again influenced by the drug companies who now can sell the same products over and over again for more money, cause the government does not have to economize. Again, tax payers are ****ed, some of course much more so than others.



There would likely be similar regulations as there are now, if they make sense. It is not allowed in a free market to harm and kill your customers or anyone else. So you could not pollute water or sell harmful products. I just don't buy into the fact that prices would "go down".
Even though the Government has money,doesn't mean they always throw it into that.
I don't see how free health care could cause people to lose there lives,seems like it would be the opposite.



Just for the hell of it, USPS is pretty damn good and I have ordered shit UPS and never got it.

Also,the Mail could be considered a national security Issue.

Originally posted by TRH
I just don't buy into the fact that prices would "go down".
Even though the Government has money,doesn't mean they always throw it into that.
I don't see how free health care could cause people to lose there lives,seems like it would be the opposite.



Just for the hell of it, USPS is pretty damn good and I have ordered shit UPS and never got it.

Also,the Mail could be considered a national security Issue.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Maybe the USPS is great. But what about all the other government monopolies that are terribly wasteful and would be better off in a competitive market?

Also, why not allow others to carry the mail and compete with teh USPS? That way, if you value the government's protection in such matters, you'd have it, but you'd also have the choice of others if you so wished. And it's likely that the competition would drive down prices and make the services better.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're missing the forest for the trees. Maybe the USPS is great. But what about all the other government monopolies that are terribly wasteful and would be better off in a competitive market?

Also, why not allow others to carry the mail and compete with teh USPS? That way, if you value the government's protection in such matters, you'd have it, but you'd also have the choice of others if you so wished. And it's likely that the competition would drive down prices and make the services better. The Government does tons of wasteful things in the USA.

Mail is a national security issue in a way.
The government is in control for a reason, remember anthrax?

Originally posted by TRH
The Government does tons of wasteful things in the USA.

Mail is a national security issue in a way.
The government is in control for a reason, remember anthrax? How would that have been any worse if it had been a private business?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would that have been any worse if it had been a private business? It could have been.
And there are tons of different scenarios.

Originally posted by TRH
It could have been.
And there are tons of different scenarios. Which would make it more dangerous to have private organization bring the mail? Alright, bring them on.

Originally posted by TRH
I just don't buy into the fact that prices would "go down".
Even though the Government has money,doesn't mean they always throw it into that.
I don't see how free health care could cause people to lose there lives,seems like it would be the opposite.



Just for the hell of it, USPS is pretty damn good and I have ordered shit UPS and never got it.

Also,the Mail could be considered a national security Issue.

You don't have to "buy into it", it's a fact that competition lowers prices. Absolutely unrelated to you believing it or not.

As for Free Health Care that's a huge topic you can't address in one or two words.

Originally posted by TRH
The Government does tons of wasteful things in the USA.

Mail is a national security issue in a way.
The government is in control for a reason, remember anthrax?

The first sentence makes my point for me. The latter portion is false. Just because it says "government" doesn't mean there are any better security measures in place against things like that. Hell, someone could send anthrax now via UPS, FedEx, etc. Why not nationalize ALL shipping then, if its such an issue? No, if anything the competition would lead to better safety regulations for ALL companies involved.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The theory is that there would be even more such companies who would provide even better service at an even lower price.

It's like the big box stores, like WM, Target, Costco, Sam's Club, etc?

This is where I disagree with the theory. Sure, in theory, it leads to better service through lower prices and competition, but what actually ends up happening is we settle for less because we pay less.

What needs to happen is a fair price for a better product and a respectable customer service. These days, it's a matter of the same shitty product sold in all those stores, each trying to out pricepoint the next. So, we all settle for less.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's like the big box stores, like WM, Target, Costco, Sam's Club, etc?

This is where I disagree with the theory. Sure, in theory, it leads to better service through lower prices and competition, but what actually ends up happening is we settle for less because we pay less.

What needs to happen is a fair price for a better product and a respectable customer service. These days, it's a matter of the same shitty product sold in all those stores, each trying to out pricepoint the next. So, we all settle for less. That's our fault though. You could still get better product, but you rather have the cheap one. If there's a market for better products at a decent price it would be taken in a free market. You can't really force it anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's our fault though. You could still get better product, but you rather have the cheap one. If there's a market for better products at a decent price it would be taken in a free market. You can't really force it anyways.

Most people can't afford the better product. The idea that we'd rather have a piece of hormone injected, genetically altered slab of beef is crazy. Most people don't know what's in their food. Those that do don't shop at Food Lion or Wal-Mart, they have to go specialty stores.

You're right though, you can't force it. This is why it won't happen. And when you say it's our fault, I assume you include those people that own these retailers that take advantage of people, by offering them cheaper goods that are bad for them.

Originally posted by Devil King
Most people can't afford the better product. The idea that we'd rather have a piece of hormone injected, genetically altered slab of beef is crazy. Most people don't know what's in their food. Those that do don't shop at Food Lion or Wal-Mart, they have to go specialty stores.

You're right though, you can't force it. This is why it won't happen. And when you say it's our fault, I assume you include those people that own these retailers that take advantage of people, by offering them cheaper goods that are bad for them. No, those I don't include. Just the people that buy it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


Not really what I was addressing. Lower pricess have equaled lower standards, which have equaled across the market lower customer expectaions. And the success of those lower standards (lower prices) has been emulated by the competitors.

So when Bardock doesn't include those people that take advantage of the consumer, it isn't really our fault. It's the only ecomonic option left to them.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not really what I was addressing. Lower pricess have equaled lower standards, which have equaled across the market lower customer expectaions. And the success of those lower standards (lower prices) has been emulated by the competitors.

So when Bardock doesn't include those people that take advantage of the consumer, it isn't really our fault. It's the only ecomonic option left to them. It isn't. They have other options. Why should I include the people providing the service. They do nothing wrong. They just provide what the people want.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It isn't. They have other options. Why should I include the people providing the service. They do nothing wrong. They just provide what the people want.

All the while taking advantage of the fact that those people have no idea what they're buying.

Don't worry, you don't need to tell me it's not their fault those people have no clue what they're buying, I know that. The people are stupid, but it's not the fault of the people selling the poisoned goods or the cheaply made lawmowers.

Originally posted by Devil King
All the while taking advantage of the fact that those people have no idea what they're buying.

Don't worry, you don't need to tell me it's not their fault those people have no clue what they're buying, I know that. The people are stupid, but it's not the fault of the people selling the poisoned goods or the cheaply made lawmowers.

Not really. And those people could easily find out what they are buying. And what they are buying mostly not harmful.

If we are talking about poisoned goods, that's a different matter. You got any statistics how many people died due to poisoned goods sold by WalMart (for example)? Is it 2? Maybe 3?

Originally posted by Devil King
Not really what I was addressing. Lower pricess have equaled lower standards, which have equaled across the market lower customer expectaions. And the success of those lower standards (lower prices) has been emulated by the competitors.

So when Bardock doesn't include those people that take advantage of the consumer, it isn't really our fault. It's the only ecomonic option left to them.

But it usually isn't. Even if the Wal-Marts and McDonslad's of the world have the majority of their share of the market in their respective industries, there will always be niche markets for higher-quality goods and services. This is true of any industry, where a vast majority exists at some lower than average standard, but a better alternative exists for those who are willing to sacrifice more of their wealth for it.

Originally posted by Devil King
And what makes the business side of your last paragraph regulate themselves and participate in full disclosure?

Full disclosure? You're going to have to explain that.

And it's not they're regulating themselves so much as the system regulates itself. You seem to be too worried that individual businesses will exploit the customer without realizing that the bigger exploitive agent is the wasteful government institutions that have no direct competition. Their exploitation is

Consumers, because the system is voluntary, only spend money on things that they want and for deals where they think that they benefit. No one forces them into any deal, so the consumer regulates businesses. And thus, they'll make more intelligent spending decisions than if an impersonal institution tries to make them for everyone. So between businesses competing and consumers purchasing services and products with the greatest benefit to them, no one business or institution will get out of hand.

Full disclosure as far as how and where their products are made, what's in those products, etc.

I don't seem to be worried, I am worried. I see how screwed the consumer is now, and I don't see where less regulation and gutting the government in favor of the scouts honor policy is going to benefit any of us in the long run.

Originally posted by Devil King
Full disclosure as far as how and where their products are made, what's in those products, etc.

I don't seem to be worried, I am worried. I see how screwed the consumer is now, and I don't see where less regulation and gutting the government in favor of the scouts honor policy is going to benefit any of us in the long run.

Scouts honor has nothing to do with it. If you want, we can say that the gov't is still responsible for environmental regulations for businesses, or safety regulations for products (which would be covered in a subset of the "basic protection" area of my "Role of Gov't" section), that's fine. Part of the govt's responsibility is to the protection of its citizens....but not to deciding how they spend their wealth.

Beyond that, even strip away gov't regulations for a second (though we surely wouldn't in the real world). Once again, a compnay that gouges customers in any manner will not survive. Some minimal level of safety and earned trust is advantageous to business, not some evil that they do only to make money. In most industries, we're already in a relatively free market and it happens naturally.

And how "screwed" are we really? The only thing that takes a significant portion of my income that I don't voluntarily agree to are government taxes for programs I am against. Everything else I freely decide to spend.

Personally, I'm much more worried that my gov't isn't allowing me the freedoms I deserve because it deems itself worthy to dictate to me what I should and shouldn't spend money on.

Take the time to understand what this guy is saying, the english is a bit broken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGngWcehFOo

basically I agree with his main point, that welfare indentures people to the state, and destroys human autonomy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Scouts honor has nothing to do with it. If you want, we can say that the gov't is still responsible for environmental regulations for businesses, or safety regulations for products (which would be covered in a subset of the "basic protection" area of my "Role of Gov't" section), that's fine. Part of the govt's responsibility is to the protection of its citizens....but not to deciding how they spend their wealth.

Beyond that, even strip away gov't regulations for a second (though we surely wouldn't in the real world). Once again, a compnay that gouges customers in any manner will not survive. Some minimal level of safety and earned trust is advantageous to business, not some evil that they do only to make money. In most industries, we're already in a relatively free market and it happens naturally.

And how "screwed" are we really? The only thing that takes a significant portion of my income that I don't voluntarily agree to are government taxes for programs I am against. Everything else I freely decide to spend.

Personally, I'm much more worried that my gov't isn't allowing me the freedoms I deserve because it deems itself worthy to dictate to me what I should and shouldn't spend money on.

So, the key point is not just that a bad retailer won't survive because of consumer backlash, it's that these companies have means to circumnavigate bad press and pay offs and non-disclosure. The basis of the economic libertarian is total transparency (which I called scouts honor), but they have no incentive to cost themselves more money by adhering to that honor when it will cost them more and enforce a little business, marketing and masnufacturing integrity.

So what happens when the suddenly well informed consumer market then seeks to prevent something bad from happening to the next guy? They sue the retailer, and a judgment is passed down in favor of either the retailer or the plaintiff. This ruling becomes a matter of public record, which then influences other judicial rulings in cases where a precedent is illustrated. Then, groups are formed to make sure that these businesses are following procedure, which ends up resulting in government bureaucracy as motivated by public advocacy groups.

It's a perfectly logical social and economic theory, but not very realistic. In fact, it's where we started 230 years ago, and the natural evolution of our national mindeset has resulted in the very things that you don't like. I don't like them either. So I'm all for turning the clock back, but not at the expense of 230 years of experience and national growth.

Originally posted by inimalist
Take the time to understand what this guy is saying, the english is a bit broken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGngWcehFOo

basically I agree with his main point, that welfare indentures people to the state, and destroys human autonomy.


Welfare and social security and medicare/medicade and the IRS. They all do just that.

Originally posted by Devil King
Welfare and social security and medicare/medicade and the IRS. They all do just that.

actually ya. When the state is the only provider of medical treatment, you become pretty dependent on it. When your only paycheck comes from the government, you are loyal to whoever will keep paying it.

I'm not saying they are that bad as policies, but they certainly remove human autonomy.

I'd just thought I'd chime in here and comment on what DigiMark posted originally since I've actually got around to reading it all. I thought it was an excellent piece. You made some awesome points and I think you cleared up a lot of the fog around the Free Market. Even though I think you were kind of vague (maybe you've cleared it up since, I don't know haven't really been reading the thread) on some points like your proposal for education, but other than that you were clear and direct and addressed things nicely.

Edit: **** didn't read the new parts. Will do now.

Edit: Read it. As usual, nice read.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually ya. When the state is the only provider of medical treatment, you become pretty dependent on it. When your only paycheck comes from the government, you are loyal to whoever will keep paying it.

I'm not saying they are that bad as policies, but they certainly remove human autonomy.

But don't forget the programs we pay by way of income taxes, which means we're only getting back money we've already paid. It's unfortunate that the government uses it for what it will until we need it and then it becomes a reality that we aren't getting back the money we'v paid, but the money some one paid after us.

Originally posted by Devil King
But don't forget the programs we pay by way of income taxes, which means we're only getting back money we've already paid. It's unfortunate that the government uses it for what it will until we need it and then it becomes a reality that we aren't getting back the money we'v paid, but the money some one paid after us.

I have to agree with that one, just because middle class seems to pay for the poor and the rich.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I have to agree with that one, just because middle class seems to pay for the poor and the rich.

Which is why a voluntary system (social security was originally voluntary, btw, not mandatory) with competitors would be preferable. Keep the gov't program if you want, but just give people options.

Here is a link to an excellent article that summarizes the psychological aversion that many people (and society in general) seems to have for the free market.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/01/why-people-don%e2%80%99t-trust-free-markets/

It also provides some useful links and citations, though the article should speak for itself quite well.

Delayed reply, but oh well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Arguable. And even then it does by no means mean that they need a safety net provided by the government. I agree, I'm sure you're familiar with my strong disliking of government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was just making the same point as Digimark. In your scenarion someone could still make a fortune selling pens cheaper. So that competition would make pencils go for a normal price. Also, how many towns are there left in the Western World that only have one supplier for such common goods? I'm sure I explained that no one else could make pens. I don't know how many towns there are, but I'm sure there are some, and what about the East? Or Africa?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Delayed reply, but oh well.

I agree, I'm sure you're familiar with my strong disliking of government.

I'm sure I explained that no one else could make pens. I don't know how many towns there are, but I'm sure there are some, and what about the East? Or Africa?

We're not talking about those places. I can't pretend to know the economic climate of those types of countries/areas, but my original point(s) applies in force to developed nations.

But actually, the TED video on cell phones that inamilist posted earlier is a great example of how free market ideals can be applied even in undeveloped parts of the world.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We're not talking about those places. I can't pretend to know the economic climate of those types of countries/areas, but my original point(s) applies in force to developed nations.

But actually, the TED video on cell phones that inamilist posted earlier is a great example of how free market ideals can be applied even in undeveloped parts of the world. Okay, I doubt Britain will go away from the free market, thanks to Blair and Thatcher.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We're not talking about those places. I can't pretend to know the economic climate of those types of countries/areas, but my original point(s) applies in force to developed nations.

But actually, the TED video on cell phones that inamilist posted earlier is a great example of how free market ideals can be applied even in undeveloped parts of the world.

I've been talking about capitalism with a prof of mine from Sri Lanka, and from those discussions I am more inclined to say that capitalism and a free market are not over all positive things in the developing world.

A lot of the problems are just the traditional vs modern world stuff, but a lot of people are loosing out there. The call phone stuff is awesome, but for every community positively effected like that, there are countless stories of it going the other way.

I am beginning to think that a free market may require a strong state, which seems counter intuitive, but when one looks at governments in the developing world, it is obvious they cannot stand up to corporations, who end up more powerful in the nation than the state.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've been talking about capitalism with a prof of mine from Sri Lanka, and from those discussions I am more inclined to say that capitalism and a free market are not over all positive things in the developing world.

A lot of the problems are just the traditional vs modern world stuff, but a lot of people are loosing out there. The call phone stuff is awesome, but for every community positively effected like that, there are countless stories of it going the other way.

I am beginning to think that a free market may require a strong state, which seems counter intuitive, but when one looks at governments in the developing world, it is obvious they cannot stand up to corporations, who end up more powerful in the nation than the state.

Yeah, I make no claims to knowing what is best for countries outside of my own (USA) and similarly advanced nations. You may very well be correct in your estimation of growing and/or undeveloped countries. And the fact that history in general trends from centralized powers in one form or another, eventually to more decentralized business control leads me to believe that perhaps more of a socialistic state would be better for some fledgling countries. Though, of course, it would still need to be properly run, as any gov't is potentially a bad thing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22-2008jul22,0,5301697.story

An interesting article, and one that looks directly forward to not just a free market national economy, but one that spans the world.

It's a philsophical piece, not a prediction, granted. But it points to slow, incremental change in a positive direction.

The "free market" is a myth It's far too easy for those with large amounts of capital to manipulate things. It's also a formula for the concentration of wealth. The sad state of the current US economy is a good example. Rapid economic expansion was achieved through cheap foreign labor and products purchased mostly on easy credit. We now have national and consumer debt so high that it can never be paid off. The collapsing housing and financial markets are a clear indication of this.

But socialism doesn't work either. The failed communist experiment proves central state planning leads to economic disaster.

What's needed is a balance between the two. Western Europe probably has the best long term economically sustainable model.
Business must be allowed to operate but must also be regulated. Guidelines need to be set. More labor friendly laws need to be introduced. Credit must be afforded only to those who have the ability to pay it back. Business must not be allowed to offshore except in extreme cases. Anti trust laws must be strong and enforced. All shareholders in a corporation, not just the board of directors, must have a BINDING vote on executive compensation.

If a business or an industry fails, then let it. No bail outs at taxpayer expense. The current "housing bailout" on the table is not to help homeowners, it's to help investors. It's called "socializing your risks but privatizing your profits" which is what happens when moneyed interests put in power by a "free market" control a country such as in the USA. In the end the "free market" is anything but.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
All shareholders in a corporation, not just the board of directors, must have a BINDING vote on executive compensation.

Laughable.


Also, the US is hardly a good example of a Free Market.

i don't think anyone, and I'm sure I speak for Digi here, would think that American corporate socialism seen in modern times represents a free market

lest we forget, most people clamoring for a free market really want government protection of their interests. Corporations could not succeed the way they have in a truly free market (The case of the steel monopoly which Ayn Rand points out in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is probably the best example of this).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, the US is hardly a good example of a Free Market.

Not to nitpick, but this answer makes me question why you subscribe to the idea that Ron Paul's "let the Free Market resolve it for us" approach would makes any sense. As I have said to you before, the supposedly free market is anything but, so how can we truly rely on it to regulate itself?

Originally posted by Devil King
Not to nitpick, but this answer makes me question why you subscribe to the idea that Ron Paul's "let the Free Market resolve it for us" approach would makes any sense. As I have said to you before, the supposedly free market is anything but, so how can we truly rely on it to regulate itself?

I think Ron Paul's point was, in fact, "Lets create a free market and let it take care of itself", that corporate socialism as it exists in the US doesn't regulate itself is probably clear to everyone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Ron Paul's point was, in fact, "Lets create a free market and let it take care of itself"

Thank god he can't get elected.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thank god he can't get elected.

Meh, I'd rather not thank God for Obama and McCain getting elected instead.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, I'd rather not thank God for Obama and McCain getting elected instead.

Let's cognitively dissonate. God prevented Paul from getting in, Satan will help the others. Heavenly politics is weird apparently.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
cognitively dissonate

stolen

I think the chief complaint from Doom and Gloom (whose name actually begs the question of intent) revolves around the false assumption that government plays no role in a free market. Free market isn't simply lack of gov't control. It's a diminished role of any centralized power, businesses included. The anti-trust laws he mentions as being needed to curb this, ironically, are at the cornerstone of nearly any free market advocate.

His other point seems to be that a free market could never happen (in the US) given its current state. That is actually quite true, as many steps would bee needed to make the transition, and it would take decades, at the least. But it isn't criticism of the philosophy itself.

The operative idea is still freedom. As much as possible while still retaining enough centralized power to ensure basic protections and rights. I often wonder at the vehement attacks against free markets from the same "good Americans" who love the idea of freedom like it's the soul-mate mistress of an entire nation. This isn't everyone, granted, but it seems the forest is lost for the trees occasionally when assessing it as a philosophy. And it makes me sad when people dismiss it casually without actually researching its effects and possible merits.