A Truly free Market

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
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.

Isn't the state required to forcibly remove the means of production from private hands? How exactly will it transition to statelessness?

Capitalism was a great solution. It ensures healthy competition, with max productivity and less waste. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before it destroys itself, because by itself, it is TO DESTROY competition, NOT ENSURE healthy competition.

A company can easily DESTROY competition in the economic battlefield through the use of their money. They can start on the lowest denominator of costs based upon quantity or slieght of hands quality to fool the masses, surving on their capital set aside for economic war, and once every competitor is down and out, they buy over their assets or into directorships within the companies just to show 'competitors', which are only themselves, and then call the shots over how they wish to fleece the masses dry.

As they gain even more money, they use such wealth to ascend upon power to dictate even world economies, such as free trade and globalization, enslaving more humans. That can of cocoa cola costs the same in US even though it had been manufactured with China labour, lied to the consumers that globalisation will make products cheapers. Indeed it had been cheaper to make, but the cost savings ended up with the corporatists and most certainly NOT with the masses. This is is only one product sample. There are many more.

The only ones who can ensure healthy competition are the masses and through their elected representatives using laws and guides so that MONOPOLIES are not created, NOT the greedy corporatists whom the largely Republicans had been protecting all along for decades.

Thus what other economic model would work? Certainly not Communism or its brand of Socialism.

The only kind of ecnomic model that would work is one whereby either a DEMOCRATIC State takes over companies as share holders, with profits returned to the treasury, seeking out the best means to achieve productivity and quality with equal wage opportunities at all levels for workers.

It would mean more of our youths will be trained on biz to be placed into those positions, to help support other entreprenuer youths to succeed in their endeavour within the market place as well as for humanity.

And the best part of this system is that if the State fails, they get booted out with one term, unlike the commie models where mistakes are swept under the rug, hidden from view, and allowed to be compounded causing more to suffer with its doomed powr lusting self serving slave ecnomoc model.

World communism is to be achieved by world revolution, according to a theory that was popular in the period 1917 to around 1933 (at least). World communism is incompatible with the existence of nation-states, so according to an older theory there will be an abolition of the state preceding world communism.

reply to post by 547000


en.wikipedia.org...

So the transition is through world revolution.

reply to post by SaturnFX


1. Name the fraud done by the Heritage Foundation.

2. Name a country with more free markets than Hong Kong and explain how they are more free.

The fact that Hong Kong tops the list only shows what everyone should already know without the list... that Hong Kong has a market that is about as free as you can find. As for Hong Kong having socialist policies, I don't know too much about that and will take your word for it for the sake of argument. While Hong Kong tops the list it only scored a B. Maybe that is because of the socialist policies you are talking about.

The facts are out there. All of the data is out there to PROVE what free markets do for us. What free markets do for us is the single biggest improvement you can ever wish for in an economy short of a silver bullet that makes everything perfect or utopia where there is no poverty (though for all we know that is exactly what happens in a completely free society).

Do you have any evidence social programs help the poor? US local governments give a child an education valued at $100,000 it does absolutely zero for them. Zero. Literacy rates in the USA have gone DOWN more and more with every dollar US localities spend on public schooling. Good god, you could feed someone for LIFE on $100,000.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Communism is not an economic practice. It is a pure democracy with no government. (We have a representative democracy)


Socialism is an economic practice.

Socialism requires full centralization by means of a government.


The Marxists were hypocrites because they essentially wanted a socialist economy without the government.


I'm just saying that Marx noted how Capitalism will lead to Socialism (I believe he used "Communism" when the economic concept was Socialism).





So we either stick with the way towards socialism, or start from the beginning again from a free market and end up with socialism.

reply to post by Celcius


free market is like a poker game..

one guy has 3 times the chips as everyone else, each time a hand is dealt, everyone ante's up, then no matter what hand each player is dealt, the rich guys goes all in, and since noone else can match his bet, must fold- even if they have a royal flush, they lose. the rich guys wins time after time after time.

or how about this, imagine Nascar, where the rich team has the cash to buy twice the horsepower, twice the pit crew members, new tires every lap, and better quality racing fuel..

do you better understand "free market" ---as it basically mean FREE LABOR. if left unchecked.. public school got us all friend...

I think the biggest idea here is that, for good or for worse, government will get bigger and bigger in the economy because centralization is natural and inevitable.

Originally posted by die_another_day
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.

I understand your sentiments, but here is another perspective that's supported by mainstream Economics:

1. Taxes are necessary. If you don't care about public goods like modern infrastructure, you hopefully agree with the sentiment that there are some people suffering from rare diseases that won't a get a chance at treatment without government funded grants for research because free market will only allocate its LIMITED recourses ( resourses are presumed to be in short supply- that's what the science of Economics revolves around) for providing what is in high demand, say, like Viagra. That's the beauty of free market- it's brutally efficient. Or another example: without government you'll find yourself in a sticky situation if another hostile country decides to attack you with sophisticated weaponry. Of course Free Market will be around offering you counter-attack solutions,but only the people who can afford them will be deemed the ones who value it the most because the product comes from limited sources. And I think it's fair. But there are situations when taxes are a necessary evil. Sure, governments are inefficient, but it's whole another topic.

2. Private contracts. Have you ever bought something off of Internet? Did the vendor deliver? If yes, then it's private contracts enforcement in work. Imagine you go to a supermarket and buy 1lb of apples. Are you sure it's one pound of the fruit or half the pound? If you are sure it's the real measure then gov. is doing another one of its vital functions right: enforcing that measurements are the same and accepted everywhere e. i. you won't a get a centimeter of something when you want a ton of it.

3. Ownership of Property. Property is anything that belongs to you. Have you discovered a new way to generate power that's more efficient that anything that has been invented before despite that fact that you are poor as a church mouse? Then you can patent it for n-years and reap all the benefits of your hard work without being scared that someone will steal your invention from you. In fact enforcing patents is one of the reasons why productivity and quality of life dramatically improved.

Originally posted by hardware
Taxes are necessary. If you don't care about public goods like modern infrastructure, you hopefully agree with the sentiment that there are some people suffering from rare diseases that won't a get a chance at treatment without government funded grants for research because free market will only allocate its LIMITED recourses ( resourses are presumed to be in short supply- that's what the science of Economics revolves around) for providing what is in high demand, say, like Viagra. That's the beauty of free market- it's brutally efficient. Or another example: without government you'll find yourself in a sticky situation if another hostile country decides to attack you with sophisticated weaponry. Of course Free Market will be around offering you counter-attack solutions,but only the people who can afford them will be deemed the ones who value it the most because the product comes from limited sources. And I think it's fair. But there are situations when taxes are a necessary evil. Sure, governments are inefficient, but it's whole another topic.

I disagree with your example for two reasons. Number one is insurance. The purpose of insurance is that when something extra-ordinarily expensive comes alone you won't go broke and will be able to afford the treatment. Number two is charity. While I've never known any hospital owners, I've known a vet clinic owner. They gave away treatments at no cost for the benefit of the animals. When the victim of a disease is a human, just as much or more charity can be expected from the hospital owners. And when the hospital can't afford it, then other charities may be able to step in. You're really using the exact opposite sort of example you should be looking for though, because your point was that taxes provides basic infrastructure. But obviously if you take away people's money by force and use it to treat someone with a disease, you are actually drawing resources away from basic infrastructure, not adding to them. Unfortunately government meddling in medicine is exactly what is getting in the way of hospitals and resulting in medicine that is unaffordable to the poor. They end up suffering. This is why the USA has a low ranking for infant mortality... the excessive government involvement.

2. Private contracts. Have you ever bought something off of Internet? Did the vendor deliver? If yes, then it's private contracts enforcement in work. Imagine you go to a supermarket and buy 1lb of apples. Are you sure it's one pound of the fruit or half the pound? If you are sure it's the real measure then gov. is doing another one of its vital functions right: enforcing that measurements are the same and accepted everywhere e. i. you won't a get a centimeter of something when you want a ton of it.

Private contracts are also able to be enforced by third party contract enforcement agencies who are not involved with the government if both parties agree to do it that way. Government is not needed to enforce private contracts in those cases, and I imagine does a much worse job enforcing the contract in addition to being inefficient. And of course all contracts could simply involve 3rd parties instead of relying on the US government.

3. Ownership of Property. Property is anything that belongs to you. Have you discovered a new way to generate power that's more efficient that anything that has been invented before despite that fact that you are poor as a church mouse? Then you can patent it for n-years and reap all the benefits of your hard work without being scared that someone will steal your invention from you. In fact enforcing patents is one of the reasons why productivity and quality of life dramatically improved.

Unfortunately intellectual property law is now used by large corporations to maintain a stranglehold on the market and keep out competition. I'm not sure if IP law ever worked as intended, but as it works now its a net negative. Factories merely use the patent office as a convenient way to rip off competitors ideas when they know their competitor cannot afford a lawsuit. Look at Dyson as a model example of how patents fail miserably! Dyson vacuums were blatantly ripped off, and only when Dyson became large enough to afford fancy lawyers (and therefore the inventor was already rich!) was Dyson able to block competition from "stealing" their idea.

Copyright laws in practical application seem to work, but they also end up getting a very large number of Youtube videos pulled which were placed online for purely education purposes and therefore were fair use. In other words, I believe the most frequent usage of copyright law is to financially bully people using a lawyer into pulling offline material which is supposed to be protected under fair use laws.

In other words, if IP laws disappeared overnight that would be a net positive for people in general. Maybe at one time they worked for the little guy, but they sure do nothing for us today.

Free market capitalism is a failure. We are breathing it's poison everyday...

There has to be regulation. Someone has to enforce laws to protect employees and consumers.

The end result of free for all, do as you wish economics is massive lay offs for the sake of shareholders wallets and CEO's. It is fraudulent mortgages and multi-billion dollar bail outs with taxes paid by the same family that just gave their house the criminals that recieve the bailout. It is 40 years of wages increasing below the rate of inflation. It is 500% pay increases for executives over 30 years. It is corprate lobbiests buying votes through bribes and threats...need I go on?

Originally posted by civilchallenger

I disagree with your example for two reasons. Number one is insurance. The purpose of insurance is that when something extra-ordinarily expensive comes alone you won't go broke and will be able to afford the treatment. Number two is charity. While I've never known any hospital owners, I've known a vet clinic owner. They gave away treatments at no cost for the benefit of the animals. When the victim of a disease is a human, just as much or more charity can be expected from the hospital owners. And when the hospital can't afford it, then other charities may be able to step in. You're really using the exact opposite sort of example you should be looking for though, because your point was that taxes provides basic infrastructure. But obviously if you take away people's money by force and use it to treat someone with a disease, you are actually drawing resources away from basic infrastructure, not adding to them. Unfortunately government meddling in medicine is exactly what is getting in the way of hospitals and resulting in medicine that is unaffordable to the poor. They end up suffering. This is why the USA has a low ranking for infant mortality... the excessive government involvement.

Insurance is useless for treatment of something that has no cure. Free Market won't develop drugs that won't sell.

Originally posted by civilchallengerPrivate contracts are also able to be enforced by third party contract enforcement agencies who are not involved with the government if both parties agree to do it that way. Government is not needed to enforce private contracts in those cases, and I imagine does a much worse job enforcing the contract in addition to being inefficient. And of course all contracts could simply involve 3rd parties instead of relying on the US government.

Fair enough. But i can't imagine a third party corporation doing this. Can you?

Originally posted by civilchallengerUnfortunately intellectual property law is now used by large corporations to maintain a stranglehold on the market and keep out competition. I'm not sure if IP law ever worked as intended, but as it works now its a net negative. Factories merely use the patent office as a convenient way to rip off competitors ideas when they know their competitor cannot afford a lawsuit. Look at Dyson as a model example of how patents fail miserably! Dyson vacuums were blatantly ripped off, and only when Dyson became large enough to afford fancy lawyers (and therefore the inventor was already rich!) was Dyson able to block competition from "stealing" their idea.

Right of the Might is not exclusive to patenting. It happens in life. Just because your older siblings bully you doesn't undo or cut your sibling ties.

Originally posted by civilchallengerCopyright laws in practical application seem to work, but they also end up getting a very large number of Youtube videos pulled which were placed online for purely education purposes and therefore were fair use. In other words, I believe the most frequent usage of copyright law is to financially bully people using a lawyer into pulling offline material which is supposed to be protected under fair use laws.

In other words, if IP laws disappeared overnight that would be a net positive for people in general. Maybe at one time they worked for the little guy, but they sure do nothing for us today.

You are the only person who decides how to use something that belongs to you. I can't use your computer without your permission. Any reason i can come up with in lieu of your permission is a stretch.

Good timing. I've just finished watching one of the best documentaries I've ever seen and the free market is centre stage. Anyone who has not seen this I highly recommend it because these guys make Michael Moore look timid.

The Yes Men Fix The World - This is how you expose the mega corps for what they really are. These guys set up fake websites posing as major corporations and then turn up to do TV interviews, speak at functions etc posing as the spokespeople for the likes of Haliburton and Dow/Union Carbide. You actually hear a rich investment banker laughing at how the risk of killing innocent people is worth it if there is a decent profit involved.

Enjoy your free market

The question is, why did they choose Property Rights, Taxes, and Contract Enforcement under the definition of a "Free Market?" Why not include anti-trust laws? Why not exclude taxes? Why choose these 3 points?


To enforce property rights, taxation, and contracts, you need a LARGE bureaucracy. You need courts, law enforcement, tax collectors, and other infrastructures.


What is so "Free" about that?


Under that "Free Market" I don't think there is perfect competition.

Under perfect competition without ANY government involvement, profits of all businesses will effectively be 0.

Only under government regulations can corporations get filthy rich and those 3 points ARE government regulations.

Originally posted by hardware
Insurance is useless for treatment of something that has no cure. Free Market won't develop drugs that won't sell.

Governments don't seem too keen on developing drugs that don't sell either. If they were, there would be a lot more treatments available. Charities have not particularly stepped up to the plate either and I imagine that is because of heavy-handed FDA regulations. Even things like basic vitamins and nutrition these days are something the FDA wants to regulate so heavily it stifles the industry. There were very safe steroid compounds coming into existence that could help people with muscle issues... ones that didn't throw hormones out of whack. But the FDA outright banned them because they were unfair to sportsmen... such absolute insanity exists in government that they don't help just about anybody with just about anything.

In response to:

Originally posted by civilchallengerPrivate contracts are also able to be enforced by third party contract enforcement agencies who are not involved with the government if both parties agree to do it that way. Government is not needed to enforce private contracts in those cases, and I imagine does a much worse job enforcing the contract in addition to being inefficient. And of course all contracts could simply involve 3rd parties instead of relying on the US government.

Fair enough. But i can't imagine a third party corporation doing this. Can you?

There is a thriving arbitration industry as it stands today. That industry could expand to fill in the gaps left by government if they were to disappear for some reason.

In regards to your comments about intellectual property, I essentially agree with pretty much everything you said but fundamentally disagree on the basic issue... but that really isn't the topic so I don't want to say more than that, especially since you were mostly talking about property in general rather than just IP.

Modern governments are a byproduct of feudalism. Barbaric government has been about half shed in that technically we are no longer owned by a king. However, we are still half owned to over half owned by corporations in many cases. We are progressing as a civilization but they are baby steps. In a few hundred years the barbaric elements of governments will hopefully have disappeared. Alternatively, we could go completely backwards and be ruled again by one world government... one megacorporation that controls everything about our lives. I believe it will polarize in one of those two directions for sure over the next few decades.

A truly free market is an idea and theory that only existed in peoples heads, they might want to try to set up something like a "balanced market" and a fair market that to does not exist, first and really I think that is pretty much as good as it gets, concerning that subject might want to strive for a balanced market. Free market does not exist, but the illusion of a free market does exist.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


Why then continue to live with the illusion of 'free market' when it does not even exists. A man cannot just live in dreams alone, he would have to confront realities eventually.

Better now today when the market masters are weak, improvised, abegging for societal funds to survive, than to later when the masters are well stocked up with legislatives, resources, power and finances to dictate the continual deception of mankind into slavery, including dictatorships such as those in China, Russia, latin states, and africa.

Enough is enough! The long bullied but now awakened masses will take it no more.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Why then continue to live with the illusion of 'free market' when it does not even exists. A man cannot just live in dreams alone, he would have to confront realities eventually.

Exactly all any system of governance will do is eventually lead the free market thing back to in the hands of a few things/products and people, it's inevitable, so why do they live in the illusion? Because they be want to, nothing less nothing more, oh sure they all have different opinions on why but ultimately on everything it comes down to that they want, or thats how they all wanted it, with every thought they had, and action they made.

So to reach for an illusion or say it should be so and so, is pointless, it is what it is. And the only thing you and anybody can do is support those things that are in your interests, and thats all the market is and thats what those who control the markets are doing right now. So deal with what it is right now, not what it was some time ago in the past, because it never was that only in your mind or some propaganda somebody created, and you can guess who created the propaganda and what for.

Better now today when the market masters are weak, improvised, abegging for societal funds to survive, than to later when the masters are well stocked up with legislatives, resources, power and finances to dictate the continual deception of mankind into slavery, including dictatorships such as those in China, Russia, latin states, and africa.

Lol the market is what it is, the only thing is that those market masters that you say, there whole job is not to create new or freer markets, there whole time and efforts are spent in keeping the pyramid power structure going, and in there favor, and controlling new markets that come up. Which is what anybody and everybody else would do, you take an average joe put him in there place and teach him how it works and the same thing will happen, to control the market you have to control the pyramid structure, same as all other things that are in pyramid structure. I mean e pluribus unum, it's not even a secreat at all as far as secrets on this world go, it's all right in your face, and it's command and structure is on paper in fiat decree.

Enough is enough! The long bullied but now awakened masses will take it no more.

Ya well whatever, because all the masses are dealing with is things that they brought into being by there actions and collective will's, either knowingly or unknowingly, lead or unlead. So before they do anything, they might want to first see what they created first and how it works before they, do anything. And like I said the game of society or markets is not even close to being a secret or withhold knowledge. They just have to all reap as they sow, and they like the reaping but not so much the sowing.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


Thanks for your reply. Despite your efforts with many words used, your post can be summarised as atributting faults to the masses, whom in your belief is that they created it and now are in disinfavour of it.

Nothing can be further from the truth than such beliefs.

The masses have no power to create anything without leadership, for each man has different concepts and perceptions, but through collective agreement based upon common grounds of aspirations made known to the elected legislatives, trust and confidence in their stewardship of ensuring everyone has a fair and level playing field.

Unfortunately, there is no transparency from the elected legislatives, whom had more often than not, supported the pyramid leaders to hold unconscionable wealth, more weatth than they and their entire families could spend in several lifetimes, at the expense of the masses.

Wealth such as Rothchilds is beyond human imaginations, amassed quietly over centuries and far richer than the GDP of any nation for several years. With such wealth, the temptation to control and direct humanity is great, not for progress and evolution, but only to serve and protect their wealth perpertually, as events had been proven by the financial crisis and bailouts for them.

These elites had no intention to share wealth, and would not even want to pay taxes, supported by their puppet Republicans in Congress. The lame excuse by them for such offers was that by placing wealth back to the wealthy, they would create more jobs, is nothing more than lies. Such wealth will only be hoarded up, or played in the casino called stock exchanges than for the hard work of creating and managing jobs.

The pyramid model is true for every market that had been devised and yet to be devised. It needs the supporting base. But it need not be one where only wealth is sent to the top to be hoarded up, as is the case now, thus the suffering and mass uprisings you see in the streets today.

If wealth can be fairly distributed up and down the pyramid, the pyramid will last forever, as each will have a chance to rise to the top, or be contended being where they are. Rewards are justifiable, but unconscionable when the amounts far outweights their long term contributions as well as stolen from the very people or nation that help that pyramid structure remain in society.

Thus, it is not the fault of the masses for creating the pyramid, anymore than the slave in China had to contend with $100 a month salary facing huge inflation today while their masters and corporations have their days in the sun. The masters and corporations are the ones whom are 'reaping' the benefits from the masses who had to do the sowing, just as we masses had to bailout failed companies and banks - privitising profits but socializing debts.

One way or another, the status quo cannot remain. Something will have to give, more so with an awakened humanity. If Might is right as the elites believed, such as the beast leaders in Tripoli and Syria believed, then the sheer SIZE of humanity is more powerful than any pathetic WMD weapons the elites can subscribed to......

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Thanks for your reply. Despite your efforts with many words used, your post can be summarised as atributting faults to the masses, whom in your belief is that they created it and now are in disinfavour of it.

Um ya, and trust me that was short and used little words, I'm all for using as little of words as possible. But ya things don't just show up one day, or are created out of thin air one day. And the masses are as responsible for the system we have today just as much as the elites. The only thing is only one of those groups are in disfavor of something they created, which is reasonable since they seem to get the short stick on that deal. And the elites would be in favor of it because, once again it is rational, they don't get the short stick on that deal.

As for the rest of your post, I really try to write as few words as possible so, I'll answer with this. If you believe so, then it will be so, because it does not matter how it actually came to be, only how people think that it came to be. And thats how it came to be the situation that it is today.