The Free Market

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?

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.

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.

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?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would that have been any worse if it had been a private business?

Originally posted by TRH
It could have been.
And there are tons of different scenarios.

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.