The free market at work in Houston

[bripat9643]

And honest free market system? Ok that's fine, but what about people and our world makes you think that honesty would exist in an unregulated system? It wouldn't... people with power can easily abuse and take advantage of the poor and desperate. Capitalism is driven on profits not morals.

When have I advocated an unregulated system? Look... Capitalism, in of itself, is not some righteous and glorious thing. It can be very cruel and uncaring, exploitive and ugly. It is often pitted against Socialism or Marxism but the fact is, any Communist country engages in capitalism. North Korea produces goods and sells them on the market... capitalism. Of course, the oligarchs who rule the nation take all the profits and the people forced to produce starve to death.

Again, what makes us unique is our SYSTEM. There are components built into the system which are intended to alleviate the exploitations and abuses. We have antitrust laws to protect against monopolies. Pure capitalism IS driven on profits and not morals, that's why a SYSTEM is needed.

Well said, I agree. I wasn't accusing you of saying anything that you didn't. I made a simple point that bad shit happens in a free market capitalist system with NO regulation. Smart regulation is useful and necessary in a country like ours. I've also said that abuses and over regulation can equally cause problems, so a smart balance needs to be reached.

Bad shit happens regardless of whether free markets exist or not. Government regulation exacerbates problems rather than solve them.

 

[Slade3200]

It's a capitalist nation with laws that protect consumers and programs funded by tax payers designed to help make our society better as a whole. All this was put in place over the course of years, elections, and laws written by our leaders under the constraints of our constitution. I'd try and come to grips with that if I were you.

Institutional economists would tell you that laws are simply devices to correct for market failure. In other words, interference with the free market.

Agreed, and this makes sense considering the fact that an unregulated free market can produce some pretty ugly things that end up countering a free and fair society

What things would that be? And what is free and fair about government regulation?

Come on, I really need to explain it to you? An unregulated free market leads to incredible wealth disparagies, ugly things like child labor and slavery have popped up in the past. Class warfare, increased poverty, ghettos, a society where the rich get richer by monopolizing the markets and squeezing out the "little guys" who try to compete.

Child labor isn't a phenomenon peculiar to capitalism. It's been around for tens of thousands of years. Capitalism is the institution that allowed it to finally disappear. Slavery is also no an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It's another evil that capitalism eliminated.

Are you trying to tell us that class warfare didn't exist before capitalism? Of course it did. income disparities were far worse in the pre-capitalist era. Capitalism reduced poverty. Capitalism drastically reduced the child morality rate, and the population increased by leaps the bounds. The reason it did was because people had enough to eat and decent cloths to wear. They were no longer dying in droves. Ghettos were also not peculiar to capitalism.

Every claim in your post is a leftwing myth.

Funny, you accidentally used the word Capitalism when you meant to say regulation.

Child labor was eliminated because it was against the law. Slavery gone by law. The civil rights act gave blacks a chance to treated fairly in our "free" market which was grossly abusing and discriminating against them. You talk about myth... reread your post but turn your brain on this time

 

[Slade3200]

And honest free market system? Ok that's fine, but what about people and our world makes you think that honesty would exist in an unregulated system? It wouldn't... people with power can easily abuse and take advantage of the poor and desperate. Capitalism is driven on profits not morals.

When have I advocated an unregulated system? Look... Capitalism, in of itself, is not some righteous and glorious thing. It can be very cruel and uncaring, exploitive and ugly. It is often pitted against Socialism or Marxism but the fact is, any Communist country engages in capitalism. North Korea produces goods and sells them on the market... capitalism. Of course, the oligarchs who rule the nation take all the profits and the people forced to produce starve to death.

Again, what makes us unique is our SYSTEM. There are components built into the system which are intended to alleviate the exploitations and abuses. We have antitrust laws to protect against monopolies. Pure capitalism IS driven on profits and not morals, that's why a SYSTEM is needed.

Well said, I agree. I wasn't accusing you of saying anything that you didn't. I made a simple point that bad shit happens in a free market capitalist system with NO regulation. Smart regulation is useful and necessary in a country like ours. I've also said that abuses and over regulation can equally cause problems, so a smart balance needs to be reached.

Bad shit happens regardless of whether free markets exist or not. Government regulation exacerbates problems rather than solve them.

Yes, bad shit happens. But less bad shit happens when there are rules and when there are consequences to abusers. With no regulation then there are no rules and no consequences. Your argument fails

 

[bripat9643]

Institutional economists would tell you that laws are simply devices to correct for market failure. In other words, interference with the free market.

Agreed, and this makes sense considering the fact that an unregulated free market can produce some pretty ugly things that end up countering a free and fair society

What things would that be? And what is free and fair about government regulation?

Come on, I really need to explain it to you? An unregulated free market leads to incredible wealth disparagies, ugly things like child labor and slavery have popped up in the past. Class warfare, increased poverty, ghettos, a society where the rich get richer by monopolizing the markets and squeezing out the "little guys" who try to compete.

Child labor isn't a phenomenon peculiar to capitalism. It's been around for tens of thousands of years. Capitalism is the institution that allowed it to finally disappear. Slavery is also no an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It's another evil that capitalism eliminated.

Are you trying to tell us that class warfare didn't exist before capitalism? Of course it did. income disparities were far worse in the pre-capitalist era. Capitalism reduced poverty. Capitalism drastically reduced the child morality rate, and the population increased by leaps the bounds. The reason it did was because people had enough to eat and decent cloths to wear. They were no longer dying in droves. Ghettos were also not peculiar to capitalism.

Every claim in your post is a leftwing myth.

Funny, you accidentally used the word Capitalism when you meant to say regulation.

No I didn't.

Child labor was eliminated because it was against the law. Slavery gone by law. The civil rights act gave blacks a chance to treated fairly in our "free" market which was grossly abusing and discriminating against them. You talk about myth... reread your post but turn your brain on this time

Wrong. The law wasn't passed until quite recently because children would have starved if they didn't work. The higher productivity of capitalism is what allowed children to remain out of the labor force. The child labor laws were consistently voted down until Americans could afford them.

Slavery disappeared in the capitalist countries first.WE had slavery for thousands of years until capitalism appeared on the scene. Slavery is inconsistent with a capitalist economy.

 

[Slade3200]

Agreed, and this makes sense considering the fact that an unregulated free market can produce some pretty ugly things that end up countering a free and fair society

What things would that be? And what is free and fair about government regulation?

Come on, I really need to explain it to you? An unregulated free market leads to incredible wealth disparagies, ugly things like child labor and slavery have popped up in the past. Class warfare, increased poverty, ghettos, a society where the rich get richer by monopolizing the markets and squeezing out the "little guys" who try to compete.

Child labor isn't a phenomenon peculiar to capitalism. It's been around for tens of thousands of years. Capitalism is the institution that allowed it to finally disappear. Slavery is also no an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It's another evil that capitalism eliminated.

Are you trying to tell us that class warfare didn't exist before capitalism? Of course it did. income disparities were far worse in the pre-capitalist era. Capitalism reduced poverty. Capitalism drastically reduced the child morality rate, and the population increased by leaps the bounds. The reason it did was because people had enough to eat and decent cloths to wear. They were no longer dying in droves. Ghettos were also not peculiar to capitalism.

Every claim in your post is a leftwing myth.

Funny, you accidentally used the word Capitalism when you meant to say regulation.

No I didn't.

Child labor was eliminated because it was against the law. Slavery gone by law. The civil rights act gave blacks a chance to treated fairly in our "free" market which was grossly abusing and discriminating against them. You talk about myth... reread your post but turn your brain on this time

Wrong. The law wasn't passed until quite recently because children would have starved if they didn't work. The higher productivity of capitalism is what allowed children to remain out of the labor force. The child labor laws were consistently voted down until Americans could afford them.

Slavery disappeared in the capitalist countries first.WE had slavery for thousands of years until capitalism appeared on the scene. Slavery is inconsistent with a capitalist economy.

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses. Those are government and laws. Not capitalism. I'm a fan of capitalism and think it does great things for a country but you are fooling yourself if you think it doesn't act in harmony with government

 

[Dim Bulb]

Inalienable rights do not appear in the constitution. It isn't there. Unless by black and white you mean your post. You might want to refer to the Declaration of Independence which if I am remembering correctly states that "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (not property) are inalienable rights. No real legal effect to that.

I agree that the question is one of personal ethics though. Essentially when you say "honest" and "fair" free market you are overlaying a value judgment on a true free market. And that has nothing to do with constitutional law.

Well I'm not going to get into a meaningless pissing contest with your over the constitution. I assure you, I know just as much as you know about it. For the record, the SCOTUS has upheld laws against price gouging, so it IS constitutional. The DoI isn't a legal and binding document but it IS the cornerstone and foundation for the Constitution. This makes it fundamentally important in determining the intent of the Constitution in every respect.

I agree that "honest and fair" are value judgements but so are ethics. The government plays a role in a free market system. That's not to say they have unfettered authority, that would negate a free market. However, they do have an obligation to protect the citizen against unfair and unethical practices. Yes, it is indeed a value judgement but it's established by free people in a representative republic.

I don't recall any disagreement over whether state price gouging statutes are constitutional. They are. I recall you saying that property is a constitutional inalienable right. It isn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Inalienable rights do not appear in the constitution. It isn't there. Unless by black and white you mean your post. You might want to refer to the Declaration of Independence which if I am remembering correctly states that "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (not property) are inalienable rights. No real legal effect to that.

I agree that the question is one of personal ethics though. Essentially when you say "honest" and "fair" free market you are overlaying a value judgment on a true free market. And that has nothing to do with constitutional law.

Well I'm not going to get into a meaningless pissing contest with your over the constitution. I assure you, I know just as much as you know about it. For the record, the SCOTUS has upheld laws against price gouging, so it IS constitutional. The DoI isn't a legal and binding document but it IS the cornerstone and foundation for the Constitution. This makes it fundamentally important in determining the intent of the Constitution in every respect.

I agree that "honest and fair" are value judgements but so are ethics. The government plays a role in a free market system. That's not to say they have unfettered authority, that would negate a free market. However, they do have an obligation to protect the citizen against unfair and unethical practices. Yes, it is indeed a value judgement but it's established by free people in a representative republic.

I don't recall any disagreement over whether state price gouging statutes are constitutional. They are. I recall you saying that property is a constitutional inalienable right. It isn't.

Wrong:

The Fifth Amendment:​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

 

[Boss]

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses.

Those are also not regulations.

 

[Boss]

Inalienable rights do not appear in the constitution. It isn't there. Unless by black and white you mean your post. You might want to refer to the Declaration of Independence which if I am remembering correctly states that "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (not property) are inalienable rights. No real legal effect to that.

I agree that the question is one of personal ethics though. Essentially when you say "honest" and "fair" free market you are overlaying a value judgment on a true free market. And that has nothing to do with constitutional law.

Well I'm not going to get into a meaningless pissing contest with your over the constitution. I assure you, I know just as much as you know about it. For the record, the SCOTUS has upheld laws against price gouging, so it IS constitutional. The DoI isn't a legal and binding document but it IS the cornerstone and foundation for the Constitution. This makes it fundamentally important in determining the intent of the Constitution in every respect.

I agree that "honest and fair" are value judgements but so are ethics. The government plays a role in a free market system. That's not to say they have unfettered authority, that would negate a free market. However, they do have an obligation to protect the citizen against unfair and unethical practices. Yes, it is indeed a value judgement but it's established by free people in a representative republic.

I don't recall any disagreement over whether state price gouging statutes are constitutional. They are. I recall you saying that property is a constitutional inalienable right. It isn't.

Except it is. Not only that, it's the fundamental cornerstone of Western civilization. What you are trying to do is argue that it's not absolutely inalienable. I have conceded that but no right is absolute, including the right to live. To say that a right is inalienable (or unalienable) is to say that we are endowed with it by virtue of being born human beings. It doesn't mean that it's absolute and can't be taken under any circumstance. Our property can be taken through due process according to the constitution. But price gouging is not a due process.

 

[Boss]

Well said, I agree. I wasn't accusing you of saying anything that you didn't. I made a simple point that bad shit happens in a free market capitalist system with NO regulation. Smart regulation is useful and necessary in a country like ours. I've also said that abuses and over regulation can equally cause problems, so a smart balance needs to be reached.

What I keep seeing you doing here is trying to make an argument against NO regulations of any kind. No one has suggested there be NO regulations. We have a problem right now with excessive regulations. Over the last 8 years (under Obama) the Congress along with the president's EOs enacted over 1,200 assorted regulations per session. Many of these are hampering free market capitalism.

I speak from a position of authority on this subject because I am a businessman and entrepreneur who deals with government regulations on a daily basis. It's impossible to start any kind of business in this country without having to deal with a bunch of ridiculous regulations.

I currently have a $25 million biofuel power plant in Maine, sitting idle because of a list of regulations it will cost me about $1 million to comply with. Most of them are just plain stupid. I won't bore you with details but there are certifications which have to be re-applied for because the plant was out of operation for 6 months and changed ownership. It's just frustrating to someone who is trying to turn a profit and everytime they turn around, here's some government pinhead telling you that you're not in compliance with some goofy regulation.

I advocate for LESS regulation and you twist and distort that into NO regulation and think you win the argument. I don't mind SOME regulation... SOME regulation is good... we have WAY too much!

 

[Slade3200]

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses.

Those are also not regulations.

True, they are law, which goes to my point. Government control over the free market. A necessary and useful element when applied correctly

 

[Slade3200]

Well said, I agree. I wasn't accusing you of saying anything that you didn't. I made a simple point that bad shit happens in a free market capitalist system with NO regulation. Smart regulation is useful and necessary in a country like ours. I've also said that abuses and over regulation can equally cause problems, so a smart balance needs to be reached.

What I keep seeing you doing here is trying to make an argument against NO regulations of any kind. No one has suggested there be NO regulations. We have a problem right now with excessive regulations. Over the last 8 years (under Obama) the Congress along with the president's EOs enacted over 1,200 assorted regulations per session. Many of these are hampering free market capitalism.

I speak from a position of authority on this subject because I am a businessman and entrepreneur who deals with government regulations on a daily basis. It's impossible to start any kind of business in this country without having to deal with a bunch of ridiculous regulations.

I currently have a $25 million biofuel power plant in Maine, sitting idle because of a list of regulations it will cost me about $1 million to comply with. Most of them are just plain stupid. I won't bore you with details but there are certifications which have to be re-applied for because the plant was out of operation for 6 months and changed ownership. It's just frustrating to someone who is trying to turn a profit and everytime they turn around, here's some government pinhead telling you that you're not in compliance with some goofy regulation.

I advocate for LESS regulation and you twist and distort that into NO regulation and think you win the argument. I don't mind SOME regulation... SOME regulation is good... we have WAY too much!

Yes, others have argued against any government interference in the free market. Bri and Morris where stating such in this thread.

 

[Slade3200]

Well said, I agree. I wasn't accusing you of saying anything that you didn't. I made a simple point that bad shit happens in a free market capitalist system with NO regulation. Smart regulation is useful and necessary in a country like ours. I've also said that abuses and over regulation can equally cause problems, so a smart balance needs to be reached.

What I keep seeing you doing here is trying to make an argument against NO regulations of any kind. No one has suggested there be NO regulations. We have a problem right now with excessive regulations. Over the last 8 years (under Obama) the Congress along with the president's EOs enacted over 1,200 assorted regulations per session. Many of these are hampering free market capitalism.

I speak from a position of authority on this subject because I am a businessman and entrepreneur who deals with government regulations on a daily basis. It's impossible to start any kind of business in this country without having to deal with a bunch of ridiculous regulations.

I currently have a $25 million biofuel power plant in Maine, sitting idle because of a list of regulations it will cost me about $1 million to comply with. Most of them are just plain stupid. I won't bore you with details but there are certifications which have to be re-applied for because the plant was out of operation for 6 months and changed ownership. It's just frustrating to someone who is trying to turn a profit and everytime they turn around, here's some government pinhead telling you that you're not in compliance with some goofy regulation.

I advocate for LESS regulation and you twist and distort that into NO regulation and think you win the argument. I don't mind SOME regulation... SOME regulation is good... we have WAY too much!

I advocate for less regulation as well, but I don't demonizes all regulation to get my point across like some on this board do.

 

[Boss]

Yes, others have argued against any government interference in the free market. Bri and Morris where stating such in this thread.

The founders envisioned very little government interference in the free market. That was their whole entire point of enumerated powers. Whenever the government interferes in the free market it's no longer a free market. To the extent the government should interfere, it should be to enhance or improve the free market or maintain it's integrity.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, others have argued against any government interference in the free market. Bri and Morris where stating such in this thread.

The founders envisioned very little government interference in the free market. That was their whole entire point of enumerated powers. Whenever the government interferes in the free market it's no longer a free market. To the extent the government should interfere, it should be to enhance or improve the free market or maintain it's integrity.

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

 

[Boss]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some fucker comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

 

[Rustic]

while I wholeheartedly support the free market to allocate resources, this might be an exception. From an economic standpoint the laws against price gouging are essentially the government stepping in to reallocate an advantage the wealthy have in times like this.

But even a free marketer like me doesn't mind government interference in this case. Who would?

$99 for a case of water: Texas officials report price gouging post-Harvey

No doubt that is wrong charging $99 for a case of water, but it should not be illegal. The federal government has much more important things to worry about…

 

[bripat9643]

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses.

Those are also not regulations.

True, they are law, which goes to my point. Government control over the free market. A necessary and useful element when applied correctly

There is no such thing as "necessary and useful" government regulations.

 

[bripat9643]

while I wholeheartedly support the free market to allocate resources, this might be an exception. From an economic standpoint the laws against price gouging are essentially the government stepping in to reallocate an advantage the wealthy have in times like this.

But even a free marketer like me doesn't mind government interference in this case. Who would?

$99 for a case of water: Texas officials report price gouging post-Harvey

No doubt that is wrong charging $99 for a case of water, but it should not be illegal. The federal government has much more important things to worry about…

Why is it wrong? If I own a case of water, why shouldn't I be able to sell it for whatever price I want to sell it for?

 

[bripat9643]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some fucker comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

That's government interference in the market. How is that relevant to someone having cases of water to sell and charging $99 for them during a hurricane? The entire transaction is totally voluntary.