It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Free Market Regulation Question

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
[...]and more quickly without some form of government.

Laws and order can be present without a government on a small scale. This is how most communities operate[...]

Then, concluding, government isn't necessary because micro-economics is what builds economies, not macro-economics, which is nothing more than a government-of-the-gaps argument for lack of knowledge on the physics of markets.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by mastahunta

The other truth is, private forces eventually become the governing force, they end up making laws
and rules which essentially cuts out the population, again, much like monarchy.

Exactly, well put. It winds up being just like communism, which is government by an economic system which assumes everyone will participate fairly in the system, so there is no need for a governing authority to deal with cheats. The Free Market concept claims that the law of supply and demand will keep everyone in check, which is ridiculous, just like the communist belief that communal pressure will force everyone to conform to continue to be a part of the system.

Free Market ideology and communism both arrive at the same end, and both make the same excuses everytime an effort to put such a system in place fails. Both based on ignorance of human nature.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by mastahunta
Politicians try to apply free market principles to regulated industry, free market is not and all
or nothing practice in our society.

The bail out occurred because people applied/engineered poorly designed free market principles
to sectors that were previously barred from the practices they employed to tank the economy
with derivative products.

My angle here is that the banks should have been allowed to fail, because in a free market, nobody would have been there to save them. Free market also means people would need to pay a bit more attention to those they are handing their money over to. (A good rule of thumb regardless, no?) And to be fair, nobody is forced into dealing with investment banks. When you can't follow what exactly it is that you're investing in because it is so complex or obfuscated, maybe that's a good indication that you should take your money elsewhere.

So if a free market doesn't exist, why do people try to apply parts of free market ideas in what
you are calling and NON free market?

Clearly many free market proponents think that free market can be applied in many different doses.

I see socialist ideas being implemented in our current system, but I don't say we live in a socialist state. I don't call it a free market for the same reason.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by poet1b

I understand human nature, but to that point, the same logic applies to the regulators as well. They are just as susceptible to power grabs and corruption as anyone else. This type of end is exactly why our forefathers advocated revolution every now and then.

I can agree to disagree on what each thinks the best ideology is, because it'll likely always be some mashup of different ideas anyway.

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in