The Free Market - Social Anxiety Forum
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-21-2019, 05:17 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302

The Free Market


What makes classical liberals so loyal to the idea of the invisible hand of the free market working everything out?

Even if large corporations didn't buy all our politicians to make sure they have every possible advantage in the market (effectively killing any hope of a 'free market') we still have tons of evidence on a daily basis that unregulated corporations will enrich themselves at our expense.

Government intervention has been demonized for decades (not that I think Government intervention is always the solution) but how much evidence of corporations screwing us over w/ impunity does it take for people to stop trying to apply the theory of a free market on an already existing economy that has no chance of becoming a free market largely because executives of large corporations don't actually want a free market and will buy your government to ensure it doesn't happen.
crimeclub is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 01:29 AM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 482
The reason those corporations can buy politicians is exactly because the government plays such a major role in the economy. If the government could not interfere with the work of a free market, then buying politicians would be pointless, as it wouldn't give anyone any advantage, and everyone would have to play by the same rules.
Government intervention is precisely what leads to the issues you are worried about. Only you want to solve them by even more government intervention... The flaw in this reasoning is obvious to anyone looking at it objectively.

On a free market, nobody can enrich themselves at your expense, as every exchange is consensual and nobody has to enter an exchange they do not think will benefit them. There are no monopolies on a free market, no worker abuse, no lazy executives. Everyone has to work hard to remain competitive, and that is why free markets have always led to tremendous economical growth. The most prosperous nations currently are arguably Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong, and all of them have economical freedoms unparallelled by the rest of the world.

Milton Friedman explains all this pretty well, and there is plenty of his lectures on Youtube if you are interested in learning more about free markets. There is also a lot of popular arguments from students featured, and Milton addresses all of them very well, so it is not an echo-chamber, but an active discussion.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #3 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 03:35 AM
Tired
 
SplendidBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Language: English
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,136
Externalities

Dimethylamidophenyldimethylpyrazolone
SplendidBob is offline  
 
post #4 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 12:33 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
The reason those corporations can buy politicians is exactly because the government plays such a major role in the economy. If the government could not interfere with the work of a free market, then buying politicians would be pointless, as it wouldn't give anyone any advantage, and everyone would have to play by the same rules.
Government intervention is precisely what leads to the issues you are worried about. Only you want to solve them by even more government intervention... The flaw in this reasoning is obvious to anyone looking at it objectively.

On a free market, nobody can enrich themselves at your expense, as every exchange is consensual and nobody has to enter an exchange they do not think will benefit them. There are no monopolies on a free market, no worker abuse, no lazy executives. Everyone has to work hard to remain competitive, and that is why free markets have always led to tremendous economical growth. The most prosperous nations currently are arguably Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong, and all of them have economical freedoms unparallelled by the rest of the world.

Milton Friedman explains all this pretty well, and there is plenty of his lectures on Youtube if you are interested in learning more about free markets. There is also a lot of popular arguments from students featured, and Milton addresses all of them very well, so it is not an echo-chamber, but an active discussion.
I obviously find a lot of the theory you stated extremely debatable, but maybe for another time. Also I don't see government intervention as any kind of solution, I think it usually ends up being a temporary bandaid, but I still think it's necessary.

Our politicians have little control of economic outcomes because corporations bought them. Our government is basically corporate-captured, a lot of departments right now are run by people who were nominated by Trump to basically gut the departments. A decent amount of legislation that gets passed is written by industry lobbyist, think-tanks funded by special interests, former Wall Street execs, from the 70s on up to Mitch McConnell the courts have been packed w/ pro-corporate (non consumer-friendly) "conservative" judges, etc etc.

The president's powers are limited, his cabinet noms have to be elected by a bunch of useless shill Senators, he has the military basically calling the shots on foreign policy which has a big effect on the economy, etc.

But my main problem w/ all this is the fact that our democracy is non-existent, if I'm not mistaken there's a faction of classical liberals who aren't interested in democracy which is their prerogative but the majority of the country is pro-democracy. If our lack of democracy isn't abundantly clear just by simply living in this country, then there are international groups that keep track of things like this and the US isn't classified as a functioning democracy.

Democracy can't survive in a system that creates large wealth disparities.
crimeclub is offline  
post #5 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 04:46 PM
SAS Member
 
Micronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Gender: Male
Age: 39
Posts: 3,634
it pretty much boils down to two unchangeable (or seemingly unchangeable at this point in time) human qualities: inequality and greed.

with inequality, the free market will always choose for the best minds and the best output from these minds...but there will always be few of these. if you add competition, then all the small shops, small communities, people of lesser education, those who have mental illness or physical disabilities, etc. could never come close to competing with the best minds in any productive industry. free market competition will doom these people to failure. why else would they be called "marginalized" if not used within a paradigm of competitive industrial production?

About greed: I once saw a video on you tube about the great depression. it was produced in the mid-80s, so the key players were still alive to recount it. one person, a business owner, said that even with all the wealth he had, he still wanted more. He said that it went to a point where all he cared about was his bottom line increasing, no matter what the ethics or the common sense; he became addicted to increasing wealth. I kind of think these people and these tendencies are around in every era, whether it's in e-commerce, or the slave trade, or the industrial revolution, chinese revolution, or even in ancient egypt. There is no self-control with greed.

I think a lot of these corporations become institutions that completely detach its executives from reality and pushes greed. None of them do anything particularly bad, because the bureaucratic nature of the corporation splits up the professional duty to such an extent that nobody ever has the complete picture of what the corporation is actually doing to the rest of society.

"I might be great tomorrow, but hopeless yesterday"
Micronian is offline  
post #6 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 05:20 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micronian View Post
it pretty much boils down to two unchangeable (or seemingly unchangeable at this point in time) human qualities: inequality and greed.

with inequality, the free market will always choose for the best minds and the best output from these minds...but there will always be few of these. if you add competition, then all the small shops, small communities, people of lesser education, those who have mental illness or physical disabilities, etc. could never come close to competing with the best minds in any productive industry. free market competition will doom these people to failure. why else would they be called "marginalized" if not used within a paradigm of competitive industrial production?

About greed: I once saw a video on you tube about the great depression. it was produced in the mid-80s, so the key players were still alive to recount it. one person, a business owner, said that even with all the wealth he had, he still wanted more. He said that it went to a point where all he cared about was his bottom line increasing, no matter what the ethics or the common sense; he became addicted to increasing wealth. I kind of think these people and these tendencies are around in every era, whether it's in e-commerce, or the slave trade, or the industrial revolution, chinese revolution, or even in ancient egypt. There is no self-control with greed.

I think a lot of these corporations become institutions that completely detach its executives from reality and pushes greed. None of them do anything particularly bad, because the bureaucratic nature of the corporation splits up the professional duty to such an extent that nobody ever has the complete picture of what the corporation is actually doing to the rest of society.
I can't argue much w/ that analysis.
crimeclub is offline  
post #7 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 07:22 PM
SAS Member
 
Whatswhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: USA
Gender: Female
Posts: 83
They aren’t exactly loyal to it, they just don’t critique it because that would be taking a stand. Classical liberals don’t really stand for much except for individualism. No wonder they get flattened by fascists and communists.
Whatswhat is offline  
post #8 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 07:56 PM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
I obviously find a lot of the theory you stated extremely debatable, but maybe for another time. Also I don't see government intervention as any kind of solution, I think it usually ends up being a temporary bandaid, but I still think it's necessary.

Our politicians have little control of economic outcomes because corporations bought them. Our government is basically corporate-captured, a lot of departments right now are run by people who were nominated by Trump to basically gut the departments. A decent amount of legislation that gets passed is written by industry lobbyist, think-tanks funded by special interests, former Wall Street execs, from the 70s on up to Mitch McConnell the courts have been packed w/ pro-corporate (non consumer-friendly) "conservative" judges, etc etc.

The president's powers are limited, his cabinet noms have to be elected by a bunch of useless shill Senators, he has the military basically calling the shots on foreign policy which has a big effect on the economy, etc.

But my main problem w/ all this is the fact that our democracy is non-existent, if I'm not mistaken there's a faction of classical liberals who aren't interested in democracy which is their prerogative but the majority of the country is pro-democracy. If our lack of democracy isn't abundantly clear just by simply living in this country, then there are international groups that keep track of things like this and the US isn't classified as a functioning democracy.

Democracy can't survive in a system that creates large wealth disparities.
It is debatable, but it is the only viable economical theory we have as of now. In economical sciences the debate does not even go along the lines of whether the government should intervene in the economy with any purposes other than maintain the free market, as every attempt to build a model in which this is the case so far has failed to describe the practical observations with any degree of precision.
Keynesian model does something of the sort, but it has a fundamental flaw in which it derives cause from effect, which violates basic principles of logic.
A lot of arguments in favor of interventionism are made based on misinterpreting already suspect Keynesian model, and extending it to the circumstances it is not intended to apply to.

Well, you have to ask first how the government came to be corporate-captured, because it is not a default state. Milton Friedman explains very well how regulations allegedly supported to encourage fair competition were slowly hijacked by the conglomerate of the government and corporations - and that happens in every statist economy.
The fundamental flaw of statist theories is their assumption that laws work as intended, and hence it is possible to directly control people's behavior by punishing them for undesirable and rewarding them for desirable behavior. This assumption is unfounded and does not take into account unintended consequences, which often override any positive effect. Another problem with these theories is their assumption of existence of the benevolent government, which is not supported by evidence: the government, just as any other economical entity, is fundamentally self-serving.

Well, our country is not supposed to be a democracy; it is a republic, and for a good reason. How well the republic functions does not depend on the degree of inequality, but it can depend on people's attitude towards inequality. If the society as a whole believes that it is wrong that some people are rich while other people are poor, then the free market is already challenged, because it is based on the principle of equality of opportunity, rather than outcome. Equality of outcome is a death for the free market and, I would argue, for the economy as a whole.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #9 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-22-2019, 08:32 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
It is debatable, but it is the only viable economical theory we have as of now. In economical sciences the debate does not even go along the lines of whether the government should intervene in the economy with any purposes other than maintain the free market, as every attempt to build a model in which this is the case so far has failed to describe the practical observations with any degree of precision.
Keynesian model does something of the sort, but it has a fundamental flaw in which it derives cause from effect, which violates basic principles of logic.
A lot of arguments in favor of interventionism are made based on misinterpreting already suspect Keynesian model, and extending it to the circumstances it is not intended to apply to.

Well, you have to ask first how the government came to be corporate-captured, because it is not a default state. Milton Friedman explains very well how regulations allegedly supported to encourage fair competition were slowly hijacked by the conglomerate of the government and corporations - and that happens in every statist economy.
The fundamental flaw of statist theories is their assumption that laws work as intended, and hence it is possible to directly control people's behavior by punishing them for undesirable and rewarding them for desirable behavior. This assumption is unfounded and does not take into account unintended consequences, which often override any positive effect. Another problem with these theories is their assumption of existence of the benevolent government, which is not supported by evidence: the government, just as any other economical entity, is fundamentally self-serving.

Well, our country is not supposed to be a democracy; it is a republic, and for a good reason. How well the republic functions does not depend on the degree of inequality, but it can depend on people's attitude towards inequality. If the society as a whole believes that it is wrong that some people are rich while other people are poor, then the free market is already challenged, because it is based on the principle of equality of opportunity, rather than outcome. Equality of outcome is a death for the free market and, I would argue, for the economy as a whole.
I don't think many people are arguing for an equality of outcome, that crowd is pretty low in numbers in this country.

I don't consider 'laissez-faire capitalism' and 'government intervention' the only two factors that can be applied to shape an economy. Neo classical economics gets all the focus in our schools and w/ very little criticism, it's almost as if that was...by design(!!!). Marx had some good ideas, if you're interested in economics it would be a shame to choose to completely ignore the criticisms (and proposed solutions) to an economic system that has plenty of flaws but they rarely get addressed.
crimeclub is offline  
post #10 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 02:28 AM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
I don't think many people are arguing for an equality of outcome, that crowd is pretty low in numbers in this country.

I don't consider 'laissez-faire capitalism' and 'government intervention' the only two factors that can be applied to shape an economy. Neo classical economics gets all the focus in our schools and w/ very little criticism, it's almost as if that was...by design(!!!). Marx had some good ideas, if you're interested in economics it would be a shame to choose to completely ignore the criticisms (and proposed solutions) to an economic system that has plenty of flaws but they rarely get addressed.
One way or the other, interventionism always seeks to even out the outcome to some extent. I find this goal dubious, because I believe in creation of opportunities for people to realise their potential, and this principle dismisses the outcome and focuses on the process.

The reason the free market ideas get little criticism in science is because they are based on common sense and there isn't much to be said that would suggest reconsidering them. The arguments are nowadays not about whether the separation of the market from the government should exist or not; this matter has been settled a long time ago. The arguments are on much finer topics concerning the ability of the free market to sustain itself and whether, and to what degree, should the government be involved in the process of achieving this goal.

Marx didn't really criticise these ideas in themselves. He criticised the human nature that makes these ideas functional. His solution was to change humans into beings with a different psychology through a long totalitarian process of infusing people with new ways of looking at the world, which would organically lead to socialism. But that solution a) assumes that it is possible to change humans like that, b) that the totalitarian system will actually pursue this goal as opposed to its self-interest, and c) that there is something wrong with how humans are at present. I see it as Marx trying to solve a problem he himself created in his mind, by means that are unlikely to ever work in the real world.

A lot of economical ideas outside economical sciences are based on the desire to build some sort of utopia that will solve all the problems in humanity by either redesigning humanity, or by redesigning the system, or both. Instead, people would do well to focus on building something that works and that goes along with human nature, because, realistically, this is the best we can do.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #11 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 10:20 AM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
One way or the other, interventionism always seeks to even out the outcome to some extent. I find this goal dubious, because I believe in creation of opportunities for people to realise their potential, and this principle dismisses the outcome and focuses on the process.

The reason the free market ideas get little criticism in science is because they are based on common sense and there isn't much to be said that would suggest reconsidering them. The arguments are nowadays not about whether the separation of the market from the government should exist or not; this matter has been settled a long time ago. The arguments are on much finer topics concerning the ability of the free market to sustain itself and whether, and to what degree, should the government be involved in the process of achieving this goal.

Marx didn't really criticise these ideas in themselves. He criticised the human nature that makes these ideas functional. His solution was to change humans into beings with a different psychology through a long totalitarian process of infusing people with new ways of looking at the world, which would organically lead to socialism. But that solution a) assumes that it is possible to change humans like that, b) that the totalitarian system will actually pursue this goal as opposed to its self-interest, and c) that there is something wrong with how humans are at present. I see it as Marx trying to solve a problem he himself created in his mind, by means that are unlikely to ever work in the real world.

A lot of economical ideas outside economical sciences are based on the desire to build some sort of utopia that will solve all the problems in humanity by either redesigning humanity, or by redesigning the system, or both. Instead, people would do well to focus on building something that works and that goes along with human nature, because, realistically, this is the best we can do.
Marx wasn't at all about changing people's worldview or trying to change people's motivations/self-interests, he also doesn't talk about government influence. His ideas are currently working throughout the world and are successfully competing w/ both the private sector and government sector, we just don't hear about them at all in the US mainstream media for the same reason we don't learn about Marx in our schools.
crimeclub is offline  
post #12 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 11:57 AM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
Marx wasn't at all about changing people's worldview or trying to change people's motivations/self-interests, he also doesn't talk about government influence. His ideas are currently working throughout the world and are successfully competing w/ both the private sector and government sector, we just don't hear about them at all in the US mainstream media for the same reason we don't learn about Marx in our schools.
I think, rather, that it is because they are non-existent, contradict all evidence and economical sciences, and there just isnít much to talk about. Marx was an abstract philosopher that didnít know much about the real world, and that he is still taken seriously, after a century of miserable failures of his ideas put into practice, confirms once again the old good adage: ďHistory teaches that it doesnít teach anythingĒ.

I am curious as to how many of those allegedly supporting his ideas actually read his writings. I did; I was not impressed. I also read Fascism by Mussolini and found a lot of similarities between the two ideologues. Both arenít much to write home about. Both happened to be at the right place at the right time and become popular, while objectively their ideas are lazy and donít deserve much attention.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #13 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 01:19 PM
SAS Member
 
Micronian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Gender: Male
Age: 39
Posts: 3,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
Marx wasn't at all about changing people's worldview or trying to change people's motivations/self-interests, he also doesn't talk about government influence. His ideas are currently working throughout the world and are successfully competing w/ both the private sector and government sector, we just don't hear about them at all in the US mainstream media for the same reason we don't learn about Marx in our schools.
the process (I can't quite say the reason) how Marx isn't learned at school is because his analyses were moved out of economics and into "liberal arts" departments. I quote a book called "Death of the Liberal Class" by Chris Hedges where he said that so-called liberal intellectuals, in order to retain their intellectual authority (i.e. their jobs), gradually let slip Marxist thought away from a notion of protest.
Quote:
[By the 1980s] They shifted Marxist analysis away from economic departments, most of which had been taken over by free market ideologues anyway, to disciplines within the humanities, where Marxist critique would not threaten systems of power
Since school boards--actually the small group of people who tell the government where to place public funds--tend to push S.T.E.M. courses above every other subject, courses with marxist critique are nowhere to be found. As this is the stream that "smart kids" have to take in order to access higher learning and high paid jobs, they will likely never come across Marxist thought in their academic lives....apart from some type of mandatory "feminist studies", or "cultural studies" class that they are forced to take, and already have minimized in their minds.

"I might be great tomorrow, but hopeless yesterday"
Micronian is offline  
post #14 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 01:26 PM
experimental sincerity
 
rabidfoxes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 825
Golds! And sometimes ignorance.

Government has to be accountable to the electorate, companies are accountable to shareholders. It would make sense that a rich, white, Western man's right to get richer should be of a lower priority than everyone's right to decent healthcare, education, and quality of life.

However to the said man it makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to his poor and uneducated countrymen, who have been told how they can "work hard and make it big". Being accountable, the government is also under flak from all of these people (unlike the corporations, which can throw lots of money at cleaning up their image, can afford hard lobbying and are only targeted by a small educated minority).


Edited to add: and, of course, the simple concept of "more freedom and less government interference" sounds very nice to people who are unable to interrogate it to understand what it truly means. It's an easy sell for the general populace.

Leonard Cohen (Bird on a Wire): I have tried in my own way to be free
Mrs Hudson (BBC Sherlock): Sherlock! The mess you've made!
rabidfoxes is offline  
post #15 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 02:24 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
I think, rather, that it is because they are non-existent, contradict all evidence and economical sciences, and there just isnít much to talk about. Marx was an abstract philosopher that didnít know much about the real world, and that he is still taken seriously, after a century of miserable failures of his ideas put into practice, confirms once again the old good adage: ďHistory teaches that it doesnít teach anythingĒ.

I am curious as to how many of those allegedly supporting his ideas actually read his writings. I did; I was not impressed. I also read Fascism by Mussolini and found a lot of similarities between the two ideologues. Both arenít much to write home about. Both happened to be at the right place at the right time and become popular, while objectively their ideas are lazy and donít deserve much attention.
worker co-ops don't exist?
crimeclub is offline  
post #16 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 09:05 PM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
worker co-ops don't exist?
They do, but worker co-ops are not a Marx' idea and have existed since, at least, Ancient Greece. They are also voluntary assemblies of people and don't depend on the existence or lack of the free market.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #17 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-23-2019, 09:47 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
They do, but worker co-ops are not a Marx' idea and have existed since, at least, Ancient Greece. They are also voluntary assemblies of people and don't depend on the existence or lack of the free market.
Worker co-ops get pretty close to Marx's theory, and they are pretty affective at avoiding a number of capitalism's biggest problems.
crimeclub is offline  
post #18 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 09:11 PM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
It is debatable, but it is the only viable economical theory we have as of now.
alright, I don't even know where to start. Any economic system will have flaws because people have flaws, therefore capitalism will be very flawed, here are a few examples, and whether these were consensual agreements with both parties knowing the risks or not isnít the point, the point here is to bring up 3 or 4 examples out of millions of why a number of Americans are getting fed up w/ our current economic system, and there are already existing ways to organize enterprises that help you avoid these problems while still producing a high quality product/outcome.

Healthcare: For-profit healthcare is a terrible and deadly idea, there's a yearly body-count with private healthcare and the more you let the 'free market' handle the healthcare the higher the body-count. Pre-ACA around 50million people didn't have health insurance so a large number of people would die per year due to lack of private insurance. With the ACA the number of uninsured was brought down to 30million, so the number of deaths per year went down to around 40,000. That doesn't include all the people who die despite HAVING health insurance but their claim still gets denied (gotta make a profit somehow). Faithfully paying your health insurance every month, every co-pay, but you end up w/ a life-threatening disease thru no fault of your own and then your expensive claim gets denied (by some doctor that never even met w/ you)....that's called "people enriching themselves at your expense". I have data for days that show all the ways privatizing healthcare is a terrible idea but I'll spare you.

Big Pharma: Price gouging meds that ppl need to stay alive, this is a regular business practice in the industry and it's getting more & more predatory, people resorting to taking half the prescribed dose bc they can't afford the whole dose then end up dying as a result. All kinds of meds that literally keep people alive, for years they struggle to keep their prescriptions filled, having to decide each month between rent or food or their meds, then literally over night those meds that were $300 a month shoot up to $15,000 a month, you know what happens to most of those people? They ration the remainder of their last prescription then they die once they run out.

Automobile industry: Every car manufacturer tries in different ways to cut corners to save money, sometimes cutting corners leads to a number of deaths, customer deaths due to the a manufacturer's cars being flawed is acceptable in regards to the law up until it reaches a certain number of deaths and then they have to finally recall the cars. VW is infamous for cutting corners to save money, each time they get caught they get fined like $50million dollars and after that slap on the wrist they inevitably go back to trying to cut corners except in a ways that won't get them caught in that same way again.

Big Oil: So this is a good example of how supply-side economics is a bad idea. We're basically forced into 'demanding' more oil because we've got the supply of fossil fuels forced on us and we basically have to accept it because how else are we going to live, work, and contribute in a society without cars. Biking is rarely an option since as cities get bigger and more gentrified people are having to live further away from the city therefore they have a long commute to work. Getting a job closer isnít always the best option since if they quit their job they lose their health insurance and they have a family that relies on that health insurance, maybe the closer jobs don't pay enough, they're overqualified, etc etc.

There are a never ending supply of examples of how flawed and predatory our economic system is.
crimeclub is offline  
post #19 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-26-2019, 09:36 PM
Great White Shark
 
Shadowweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mars
Language: Galactic Basic, machine language
Gender: Male
Age: 28
Posts: 482
@crimeclub

These are all the same old arguments that are easily answered. I suggested above that you listen to Friedman addressing exactly these concerns. All of these problems are handled perfectly by the free market; the only reasons they aren't under the current system is because our market is not free.

Of course everyone is going to try to cut corners and to get as much out of every economical exchange as possible. That is what makes the system so incredibly effective: everyone tries their best to get on top, and as a result everyone works to their full capacity. Enterpreneurs employ innovative business model allowing their business stay competitive on the product market, workers work as hard as possible to remain competitive on the job market, and customers buy the most cost-effective goods they can find. Everybody wins.

There is nothing predatory about this; it is how free humans naturally act. There is something predatory about taking away people's hard-earned resources, however, in the name of the alleged "greater good". There is no "greater good" to be had from coercion and violence.

Nobody forces the car maker to make safe cars. However, if one maker makes safe cars and another doesn't, then the latter will have to sell their cars for much lower prices than the former to stay competitive. People get a choice: either they buy unsafe, but cheap cars, or they buy safe, but expensive cars.
You want to force this choice on the buyers, so they can only buy safe cars, because you believe that you know better than them. But you really don't; you have no business in how they live their lives, and they have no business in how you live yours.

All these arguments come down to, one way or the other, justifying authoritarian society. "Take away people's freedoms to save them from themselves". Does it work? Sometimes maybe it does, but the sacrifice is too great, not to mention that we don't have a choice in the matter.

---

Nobody says that the free market doesn't have flaws. The essence of the argument, however, is that those flaws are human flaws, not systematic flaws. While any alternative will feature both human flaws and systematic flaws. Free market is not really a system; it is a lack of system, hence the latter are not present in it.

Free market strongly limits the degree to which human flaws can manifest economically, as the demands of the competition favor smart and effective solutions, not emotional and short-sighted ones. But when this competition is not present - this is when human flaws truly get a free ride.
Shadowweaver is offline  
post #20 of 33 (permalink) Old 05-27-2019, 06:05 AM Thread Starter
Revolution > Resistance
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowweaver View Post
@crimeclub

These are all the same old arguments that are easily answered. I suggested above that you listen to Friedman addressing exactly these concerns. All of these problems are handled perfectly by the free market; the only reasons they aren't under the current system is because our market is not free.

Of course everyone is going to try to cut corners and to get as much out of every economical exchange as possible. That is what makes the system so incredibly effective: everyone tries their best to get on top, and as a result everyone works to their full capacity. Enterpreneurs employ innovative business model allowing their business stay competitive on the product market, workers work as hard as possible to remain competitive on the job market, and customers buy the most cost-effective goods they can find. Everybody wins.

There is nothing predatory about this; it is how free humans naturally act. There is something predatory about taking away people's hard-earned resources, however, in the name of the alleged "greater good". There is no "greater good" to be had from coercion and violence.

Nobody forces the car maker to make safe cars. However, if one maker makes safe cars and another doesn't, then the latter will have to sell their cars for much lower prices than the former to stay competitive. People get a choice: either they buy unsafe, but cheap cars, or they buy safe, but expensive cars.
You want to force this choice on the buyers, so they can only buy safe cars, because you believe that you know better than them. But you really don't; you have no business in how they live their lives, and they have no business in how you live yours.

All these arguments come down to, one way or the other, justifying authoritarian society. "Take away people's freedoms to save them from themselves". Does it work? Sometimes maybe it does, but the sacrifice is too great, not to mention that we don't have a choice in the matter.

---

Nobody says that the free market doesn't have flaws. The essence of the argument, however, is that those flaws are human flaws, not systematic flaws. While any alternative will feature both human flaws and systematic flaws. Free market is not really a system; it is a lack of system, hence the latter are not present in it.

Free market strongly limits the degree to which human flaws can manifest economically, as the demands of the competition favor smart and effective solutions, not emotional and short-sighted ones. But when this competition is not present - this is when human flaws truly get a free ride.
There's little evidence that a truly free market would produce an economy that runs efficiently and non-predatory, there is however a lot of evidence that it produces poverty, avoidable death/suicide, stress/anxiety/depression, massive disparity of wealth and power, zero worker protection, etc. We have regulations and laws because things get out of hand. Competitive workers...back in the day men, women, and children would have to work 16+ hours a day for minimal wages just to survive because there were always hundreds of other people that also had to try to outwork them, it's a race to the bottom, squeezing every ounce of the workers productivity to enrich the employee.

Democratizing the workplace (ie. worker co-ops) prove to be a way to avoid the majority of capitalism's flaws while still producing the same quality of product/outcome, and it does it in a way that doesn't regulate the employer because there is no employer to regulate.

To say that a free market is the best we've got right now is to be ignorant of worker co-ops around the world that handle the production and/or distribution in a way that works for the workers, consumers, and surrounding residents, some of these enterprises out-compete capitalist companies, Japan has a consumer cooperative that is larger than Amazon and it has zero worry of Amazon trying to compete because it can't.

Capitalism is failing us in the West, its failing in American, the UK and France, and now it's moving eastward to China.
crimeclub is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bands, songs, lyrics, etc. Caedmon Spiritual Support 478 06-12-2019 11:54 AM
software veganism nosystemd Geek Central 21 01-03-2019 10:34 PM
What's bothering you right now? Orb Frustration 51480 08-07-2017 06:32 PM
How government policies made the housing crisis possible UltraShy Society & Culture 29 05-23-2009 03:05 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome