A Truly free Market

For the past year I have taken multiple economics courses and I have always wondered exactly what a "free" market should be.

People (mostly democrats) argue that a Free market will allow businesses run rampant, while I argue that they can only run rampant when they have a powerful government in their pocket.

People like Ron Paul (whom I respect the most out of any politician) and other Free market economists say that a free market will allow maximum efficiency and low prices, but I argue that it is not that simple.

Wikipedia:

A Free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce taxes, private contracts, and the ownership of property.

The "except" makes the "Free" a rather confusing term.

To me, this "Free market" is no where near free because the government is still taxing, enforcing contracts, and "protecting" ownership of property.

The "Free market" under this definition would, in my view, protect the rich who has everything.

The poor has nothing to be taxed, enforced, or protected. And as a result of economic struggle, most of the poor will be trapped by a lack of education and supportive environment.

It seems that rich people would want this because they have a dispensable security force that the middle class pays to provide. China and India (both of which are places that I have lived in and have very "Free" markets) have filthy rich elites while the other 90% of the population won't surpass current Western standards of living until ~2050 (my guess).


Thus I propose the definition of the truly "free" market. (Does not mean that I support it)

A market where property is protected by yourself. Contracts are enforced by yourself. And you don't pay taxes to anyone. I'm sure Americans know how to protect themselves.

At least, in this society, you won't have to sit around not being able to do anything while the rich screws you over.

People will think twice before ripping off or pissing off another individual... Survival of the fittest, anyone?



This seems analogous to an economic system under anarchy. But this is how it's been before cooperation took over and people started choosing leaders. I'm implying that the end result of a "free market" is centralization and control.



So, this is what the above culminates to:

If we switch to the "Free market" under current political definitions, the economy can only benefit the rich. The middle class will still pay taxes in whatever form the government wants to call it.

Think about it, do you really think that anyone can beat Walmart in the Free market? I think Walmart will make any challengers' lives unprofitable and very, very hard.

We will never have a "free market" because everyone will be toting guns which will result in centralization and we start at square one.


In the end, We have to accept socialism, whether you like it or not.


I think I'm beginning to understand why Lenin and Marx believed that socialism is the farthest that human civilization can get.

Agreed why? Because Free Market basically means laissez faire where the government cannot intervene in business

This is nonsense. You need to study more. Socialism is the best people can do? I guess that depends entirely on your own definitions of success and what is good.

Viva la free market!

A free market is where business is free to charge anything they want for their product or service and i'm free to say , stick it where the sun doesn't shine because there is healthy competition and i can buy it cheaper elsewhere . No subsidies , grants , bailouts , cartels or protectionism as the free market will dictate the businesses who survive and those that don't because they can or can't compete .

Originally posted by bandito
... and i'm free to say , stick it where the sun doesn't shine because there is healthy competition... .

And thats where your argument falls to the ground.
It tends to be that where an unhealthy advantage exists, "buying power" of the largest competitor can drive prices down below that of other competitors, forcing unhealthy competition in their favour. Walmart was given as an example.

Here in Australia, we have two large supermarket chains with massive buying power. Coles, and Woolworths. Similar with the exceedingly small number of Newspapers. Several other examples exist, which is why we have an entity called the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission... to intervene where it looks like competitors will be driven out of a market, leaving a monopoly.

ACCC

IMHO the best idea is to *mostly* have government leave business alone, except in rare cases where the consumer is at risk of little to no choice.

I don't want to live in a society where the only store around is walmart.

giant corps would consolidate every single market around until you have the idocracy version of the future, just a giant megastore stretching on for a couple miles with every single thing under the one roof and only one organization, one small set of shareholders attaining -all- the wealth of the nation.

Don't think it wouldn't happen? Why, because giant corporate masters would feel bad for making too much money so decide to get some competition to hurt their business?

stop thinking about tomorrow, think about 200 years from now. I don't want this generation to be the cursed ones that destroyed western civilization because of ego.

Ya, walmart...I went to college there, got my house from there, get my clothes from there, shop for food from there...etc...why? because there is only walmart.

It is wise for other nations to stop looking at the west for inspiration on how to develop their economy.
Capitalism has a major flaw...that is corporatism, and that is an economy destroyer.

If you can unleash capitalism without it mutating into western corporatism, then more power to you...but do keep in mind, when the small birds are chirping here about how we must push forward more capitalism, what they are actually saying is we must accept corportism and the demise of any middle class, go back to the elite few and the pleb society for the rest.

And actually a similar thing happens in sport.

The team that wins gets more prize money and more sponsorship dollars.
That way, they can afford the better players, coaches, equipment, etc...

Unless the sporting regulator steps in with some kind of salary cap or spending budget or other limiting rule, there will only ever be one winner for evermore.

Like many drinking games. If you start to lose... you cant expect to be able to ever fight back.

reply to post by bandito


a free market was around during slavery.. If there are 10 million people and 2 million jobs then what would happen in a "free" market?

free labor!!! no taxes for welffare, not enough jobs to go around and 5 workers per job would guarntee desperate workers underbidding each other until people gladly accept slave wages as that would be better then none.

Free market should work like this (just my thoughts):

1. A man opens up a shop. He puts certain prices on his products. All is fine and well unless he starts gouging the people.

2. Another man opens up a shop across from said first man. He sells similar products or services. He knows that by charging higher prices than the first man, he will not get any business. He then, logically, has to cut prices to stay competetive.

What this means is that both man 1 and 2 will continue reducing prices and competing with each other. Obviously they can only go so low because at some point they will not be making a profit and the shop will be pointless. This would require them to find better and more efficient ways to reduce costs by either 1. buying in bulk 2. buying power (by combining their efforts) or 3. find other ways to stream line their business and make it run as efficiently as possible.

Does this make sense? Is this delusion? Would it/Could it work this way? Shouldn't it? Isn't it REALLY THAT simple?

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by bandito

 

a free market was around during slavery.. If there are 10 million people and 2 million jobs then what would happen in a "free" market?

free labor!!! no taxes for welffare, not enough jobs to go around and 5 workers per job would guarntee desperate workers underbidding each other until people gladly accept slave wages as that would be better then none.

Welcome to many 3rd world tribal nations with no functional government...poverty and crime is the only norm.

Move over Somolia, there be new nations of pirates in these waters, yarrr

-starts a peg leg and parrot company for upcoming boom-

reply to post by die_another_day


Fortunately, such economic issues have decisive answers. The Heritage Foundation releases an annual study quantifying the freedom of level of each economy around the world. You can then cross-reference that against measures of poverty to find your answer. According to the Heritage Foundation, only Singapore and Hong Kong are free-market economies. But, I'd encourage you not to find out that way. The best way of doing this is to going down to Hong Kong and Singapore, and see for yourself how the poorest of the poor are faring. Then you can visit the least free economies which would include countries like North Korea for comparison. It seems a true miracle that anyone can be in alive in Hong Kong considering their population density, but I bet their poor are faring okay none the less because of their economy.

You can also do a state-by-state comparison within countries. In the US, you'll find New Hampshire is one of the most free states. You'll find New Hampshire has one of the best if not the best job market in the nation. Coincidence? Not even a little bit! I don't expect the markets to get any more restricted now either in NH, because the Free State Project is pushing free market economics in the state.

I don't know what ever makes you think that a corrupt political system would free up any marketplace. Corporations don't even exist in a free economy. The very concept of a corporation is when you buy rights that nobody else has for a price. Corporations use political leverage to sway the laws in their favor... destroying the free market. Governments use political leverage to sway the laws in their favor... putting monopolies in their own hands and destroying the free marketplace. So I disagree with you that corporations or "chrony capitalism" (actually Fascism) in any way shape or form provide for a more free marketplace.

So once again I'd strongly suggest you look into how Singapore and Hong Kong are doing in relationship to the economies with a less free marketplace. I'd suggest you look into how New Hampshire is doing in relation to other US states. Then decide what free markets affect those in a state of poverty.

The free market is what makes an economy work. And, the more free it is, the better it works. The less free, the worse it works. A free economy does not mean if a company destroys the environment they get off scott free. Companies are still subject to lawsuits for all the damage they do, and in any case consumer groups are the only effective way to stop such things, not political groups. We are missing out on what is actually effective because we focus our efforts on what is ineffective... government solutions.

While there is no magic bullet to solve the world's problems, I believe free market economics sure comes close to it. Whether proper studies have been done to fully prove this I'm not sure, but I know much of the data is available if you look for it. A free marketplace would almost entirely solve the problem of starvation, which governments will never solve.

I'd go as far as to say the way people draw up silly imaginary lines and destroy your life if you try to cross them is the reason there are starving people in Africa. If you replace the attitude of nationalistic sheep with that of free market proponents, what you'd get is nothing short of a miracle cure for the condition Africa is in because then we could care for an Africans as fellow humans rather than only caring for example about how people inside the US are doing and only caring if people inside the USA have a job.

That kind of in-the-box thinking is isolationist thinking. Ron Paul is always called an isolationist... no you are an isolationist. Strong handed economic policies are the foundation for economy-killing isolationism.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by bandito

 

a free market was around during slavery.. If there are 10 million people and 2 million jobs then what would happen in a "free" market?

free labor!!! no taxes for welffare, not enough jobs to go around and 5 workers per job would guarntee desperate workers underbidding each other until people gladly accept slave wages as that would be better then none.

Welcome to many 3rd world tribal nations with no functional government...poverty and crime is the only norm.

Move over Somolia, there be new nations of pirates in these waters, yarrr

-starts a peg leg and parrot company for upcoming boom-

I have heard that the whole idea of carving Africa up along imaginary lines was done by western forces as a means to control the markets in a way that benefits their countries. Sounds like their economy was free and then became less free over time in Africa. So you could do a study and find out how well off the people were before the westerners forced them into political factions who's primary purpose was economic controls to ensure oil, diamonds, and other natural resources were properly plundered. Then see how well off they were afterward. Then we can know with a good degree of certainty how command and control economics (in contrast with free markets) worked for Africa.

Originally posted by darius2025
1. A man opens up a shop.
2. Another man opens up a shop

3. Walmart opens up just down the road, undercutting them both, and both men go bust.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
It is wise for other nations to stop looking at the west for inspiration on how to develop their economy.
Capitalism has a major flaw...that is corporatism, and that is an economy destroyer.

If you can unleash capitalism without it mutating into western corporatism, then more power to you...but do keep in mind, when the small birds are chirping here about how we must push forward more capitalism, what they are actually saying is we must accept corportism and the demise of any middle class, go back to the elite few and the pleb society for the rest.

Did you know the biggest corporation is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Just something for you to think about when you consider what a free economy would look like. A fully free economy does not have corporations, though it could have public owned companies.

reply to post by civilchallenger


Heritage foundation is a disinformation koch brothers crap corp bent on the destruction of capitalism in favor of corporatism

I will only give one example as to what you said is totally bullocks.

Hong kong = free market.
Sure, low taxes, great social servies provided by the government...magical land...and it is a damn good model (even though since 2006, there is a marked increase on wealth disparity due to capitalism slowly edging towards corporatism..they will correct that however)

This policy has often been cited by economists such as Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism. However others have argued that the economic strategy was inadequately characterised by the term laissez-faire.[17] They point out that there are still many ways in which the government is involved in the economy. The government has intervened to create economic institutions such as the Hong Kong Stock Market and has been involved in public works projects and social welfare spending. All land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and leased to private users. By restricting the sale of land leases, the Hong Kong government keeps the price of land at what some would say are artificially high prices and this allows the government to support public spending with a low tax rate

They are most certainly not a free market society only...they have a very strong socialist foundation that allows capitalism to thrive on top of it

which seems to work well for everyone, except corporatists (guess who complains the loudest about such setups...yep)

Ignore everything the koch bro's put out...they are snakes that distort any and all facts...or in this case as you posted, flat out lie to achieve gullible lawmakers to follow their whims.


Incidently, north korean economy is a pseudo-communist style setup with a touch of socialism mixed with sanctions, military funding, and guy at edge of town selling rats type economy...basically, its a broken system that can really only be described as baby on a pike economy, or hell on earth structure.

Its an amusing read (the wiki) on how they try to explain it...basically, nobody from top to bottom knows wtf is going on there...the fall of the USSR really hurt them and their model...they are slowly adapting to a socialism, but shrugging off the old communistic aspects is difficult.

HOWEVER
there is almost -no- small businesses in north korea...beyond some guy selling the rats, everything is corporation
you could actually make the argument that they are a nearly pure corporatist country considering almost everything except for the fringe is purchased by a merger of corporate and government entitys...

So ya...you can point to north korea as an example of anything you want, be it the final result of corporatist economy, or controlled, etc...basically north korea referencing is a red flag to make people feel negative about something without having to provide substance

the heritage foundation is a corporate fraud.

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by SaturnFX
It is wise for other nations to stop looking at the west for inspiration on how to develop their economy.
Capitalism has a major flaw...that is corporatism, and that is an economy destroyer.

If you can unleash capitalism without it mutating into western corporatism, then more power to you...but do keep in mind, when the small birds are chirping here about how we must push forward more capitalism, what they are actually saying is we must accept corportism and the demise of any middle class, go back to the elite few and the pleb society for the rest.

Did you know the biggest corporation is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Just something for you to think about when you consider what a free economy would look like. A fully free economy does not have corporations, though it could have public owned companies.

Agreed, the usa is quickly becoming just a corporatist ruled nation...that makes me sad overall to see it unfold, especially since its unfolding right in front of my eyes and little I can do about it except watch the swan dive off of the building.

I won't get into it, it is frustrating, and the biggest hammer to make sure the nail is set is the fact that they took simple facts and philosophy and turned it into partisan blinding speech verses rational economic modelling by non-partisan forces.

I am not sure there is any possible way to reverse it...or even slow it down either. we are done here...another 50 years maybe and thats about it.
But, hopefully it will serve as a bit of data for future economies to study and consider...a good run and the final conclusion...when planning a economic model for a nation, stop thinking 10 years from now and think 250 years from now...and human flaws (greed) and what the outcome of that will be.

NEWSFLASH....every known economic system that has ever been practiced is either purposefully created to protect the wealthy and powerful or has been manipulated to do so. Economy in itself has nothing to do with ethics or law or right and wrong, that is why men created laws. Ultimately, if money can be used to subvert the law, then the very existence of that money creates seperate classes. Those who can afford to break the law, and those who cannot. This inequality leads to the wonderful world we have today where you can go to jail for speeding or are subject to enormous fines for not "volunteering" enough of your personal property to the IRS, yet those in power can kill and loot on an almost unimaginable scale without fear of any consequence...oh yeah and they don't pay any income tax.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

I don't like the idea of socialism.


It's in the Communist handbook that Capitalism leads to Socialism.

And I think the US is in that transition.

Once we go into that direction, we cannot go back.

Even if we do go back, things will once again centralize.



So maybe the current system in the US is as free as it gets from now on?

reply to post by die_another_day


But, the Communism that comes after Capitalism is based on a stateless society where there is no longer any private ownership of the means of production. The state is seen as a tool of capitalism and will be done away with and replaced by communal ownership of the means of production. Stateless Communism is the goal of most Marxists.