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 Bardock42I agree, I'm sure you're familiar with my strong disliking of government.
Arguable. And even then it does by no means mean that they need a safety net provided by the government.
Originally posted by Bardock42I'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?
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?
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 DigiMark007Okay, I doubt Britain will go away from the free market, thanks to Blair and Thatcher.
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.
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.
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.
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.