Free market failed, no rules and regulations failed, now stop the wimping and crying.. Come up with something new.

This is bullsh!t! Stop repeating this media crap. Name a free market that failed? All the markets are heavily regulated, there are no free markets! Free markets are proven successful through out history. WE DON'T HAVE FREE MARKETS TODAY!!! This is the kind of thing I am talking about people just repeat BS they hear or read somewhere without any knowledge of what they are talking about... Sigh!

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by hawkiye

---

lol

Free market doesn't mean free, just like freedom doesn't mean freedom, just like freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of speech..

There is no such thing as literally free market, ofcurs it is regulated, but not as much as other markets..

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
Sometimes the intervening of the government is necessary. The very thing your saying is awful is the very thing that gave me the right as a women to vote. It made illegal for you to treat another person different based on the color of their skin.

Markets regulate themselves by the quality and service they provide.

The reason all this regulation talk is going on right now is because the services Goldman Sachs were selling were lies to people. They were betting on investments to fail.

In every business you have to have over site because if you don't this crap happens.

Free market doesn't mean free, just like freedom doesn't mean freedom, just like freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of speech..

Free speech..... we have free speech to a point. I can say I hate babies and I wish they would all be sent to be eaten by snakes but, I can't run into a theater and yell 'fire'.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by VintageEnvy

---

Free speech..... we have free speech to a point. I can say I hate babies and I wish they would all be sent to be eaten by snakes but, I can't run into a theater and yell 'fire'.

Yes, you can run into a theater and yell fire, and if it is a crowded theater and you incite a panic that causes others harm, you can be expected to be held responsible for this. Your freedom of speech was never halted, but your abrogation and derogation of other peoples rights did not give you the right to create such panic, and harm. If you were to walk into a burning theater and calmly explain the situation, to one row at a time, and because of this saved people, you would be hailed a hero, and rightfully so. Which would you, given the choice, choose?

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Large inequalities of income in a society have often been regarded as divisive and corrosive, and it is common knowledge that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. This groundbreaking book, based on thirty years' research, demonstrates that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them - the well-off as well as the poor. The remarkable data the book lays out and the measures it uses are like a spirit level which we can hold up to compare the conditions of different societies. The differences revealed, even between rich market democracies, are striking.Almost every modern social and environmental problem - ill-health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations - is more likely to occur in a less equal society. The book goes to the heart of the apparent contrast between the material success and social failings of many modern societies. "The Spirit Level" does not simply provide a key to diagnosing our ills. It tells us how to shift the balance from self-interested 'consumerism' to a friendlier and more collaborative society. It shows a way out of the social and environmental problems which beset us and opens up a major new approach to improving the real quality of life, not just for the poor but for everyone. It is, in its conclusion, an optimistic book, which should revitalise politics and provide a new way of thinking about how we organise human communities.

If there was indeed a real fire like your scenario eludes to, then I could go in and yell fire. So, I choose yell fire to be more efficient in getting people out of there. I have no idea what your talking about at this point.