CDZ What are you worth?

[dblack]

Corporatists are capitalists who exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over their competition. You're describing the government "Cronies" they collude with by purchasing influence through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. They are partners in crime.

The word should probably be retired. I'm trying to use it less. It's overload with five or six different definitions - to the point of being nearly useless in conversation. I was actually referring to the mode of government that functions as a broker of privilege. It's based on the idea that society is composed of corporate groups (not corporate as in business, but as in organized interest group) and assumes that the role of government is to balance the desires of the competing groups.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I'm retired, in poor to fair health.

I'd have to get by on my good looks

So the same amount that I am worth and no one can live on a penny a day!

( If only sarcasm could make me money! )

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

Our soldiers are worth more to me than some politician or paid athlete but as for my worth, I have lived long enough and am worth nothing to today society!

 

[Boss]

Corporatists are capitalists who exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over their competition. You're describing the government "Cronies" they collude with by purchasing influence through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. They are partners in crime.

The word should probably be retired. I'm trying to use it less. It's overload with five or six different definitions - to the point of being nearly useless in conversation. I was actually referring to the mode of government that functions as a broker of privilege. It's based on the idea that society is composed of corporate groups (not corporate as in business, but as in organized interest group) and assumes that the role of government is to balance the desires of the competing groups.

Well, I don't think it's even in the AP Stylebook, so I don't know that it can be "retired." The only place I am familiar with it's usage is through Mark Levin's books and that is the definition I posted. I think it is very useful in distinguishing true free market capitalists from non-free market capitalists. One of the problems we get into with the discussions on economics and capitalism is this total misunderstanding of what makes a free market capitalist different. The Marxist left simply want to group all capitalists together and condemn them all.

As I see it... the only problem with a free market capitalist system is that it produces so many millionaires and billionaires... this leads to envy which fuels the socialist "class warfare" argument. While that may be a helluva problem to have, it has proven very successful at lifting individuals out of poverty everywhere it is tried. So I think we can live with that.

 

[dblack]

Corporatists are capitalists who exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over their competition. You're describing the government "Cronies" they collude with by purchasing influence through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. They are partners in crime.

The word should probably be retired. I'm trying to use it less. It's overload with five or six different definitions - to the point of being nearly useless in conversation. I was actually referring to the mode of government that functions as a broker of privilege. It's based on the idea that society is composed of corporate groups (not corporate as in business, but as in organized interest group) and assumes that the role of government is to balance the desires of the competing groups.

Well, I don't think it's even in the AP Stylebook, so I don't know that it can be "retired." The only place I am familiar with it's usage is through Mark Levin's books and that is the definition I posted. I think it is very useful in distinguishing true free market capitalists from non-free market capitalists. One of the problems we get into with the discussions on economics and capitalism is this total misunderstanding of what makes a free market capitalist different. The Marxist left simply want to group all capitalists together and condemn them all.

As I see it... the only problem with a free market capitalist system is that it produces so many millionaires and billionaires... this leads to envy which fuels the socialist "class warfare" argument. While that may be a helluva problem to have, it has proven very successful at lifting individuals out of poverty everywhere it is tried. So I think we can live with that.

Most discussion of income inequality comes from the perspective of personal comfort and privilege. But that's really not the most significant aspect of wealth. The real issue is economic power - the power to decide how we invest our labor and resources. The free market allows us to grant this power to the people and businesses we value.

But some people aren't satisfied with the level of control their income affords them. They want more. And the only way to do that is to resort to violence. Either as a criminal, or via government.

 

[Boss]

Our soldiers are worth more to me than some politician or paid athlete but as for my worth, I have lived long enough and am worth nothing to today society!

As we kind of discovered back on Page 1, it is very hard for individuals to define their own worth. It's probably human nature but most people tend to think they are worth more than they really are or their skills, talents, experience, is worth more than the market thinks they are. The bottom line is, you are only worth what someone else is willing to pay you. You cannot determine your own worth because you're not an objective source, you have a bias toward yourself.

In a free market, your worth is determined by the value you bring to someone else.

 

[sparky]

So by what i'm reading 'free market capitalism' flourishes when no government guidlines and/or interference creates corporatist cronies .....

In fact, the trickle down effect will produce a thriving economy for all level of players.

Or, as JFK said>>>A rising tide lifts all boats

am i close fellas?

This brings the 'Laffer curve' to mind>

Iirc, it originated on a bar napkin....

~S~

 

[sparky]

I'd be interested in this groups take on This article

~S~

 

[sealybobo]

I'm retired, in poor to fair health.

I'd have to get by on my good looks

Id be a male prostitute and for $100 ID let one guy a day bang me. If things got bad ID give $20 blowjobs. I guess it's not up to me. The market will decide what I'm worth. I might have competition. I would have to differentiate myself from the competition so maybe a wet cloth clean up after.

 

[Boss]

So by what i'm reading 'free market capitalism' flourishes when no government guidlines and/or interference creates corporatist cronies .....

In fact, the trickle down effect will produce a thriving economy for all level of players.

Or, as JFK said>>>A rising tide lifts all boats

am i close fellas?

This brings the 'Laffer curve' to mind>

Iirc, it originated on a bar napkin....

~S~

Well, the Laffer Curve has more to do with taxation and revenues and "Trickle Down" is about supply-side economics. I'm not really sure of the correlation with free market principles but taxation does affect them. I've often argued that every free market system is "trickle down" or supply-side economics.

Again... Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with minimal government interference. It relies on the laws of supply and demand along with free enterprise competition to determine a price equilibrium. Not only does it work, it's fair to all parties.

 

[Auld Phart]

I'm retired, in poor to fair health.

I'd have to get by on my good looks

So the same amount that I am worth and no one can live on a penny a day!

( If only sarcasm could make me money! )

Worked for Don Rickles, but I'm too old to go that route

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I'm retired, in poor to fair health.

I'd have to get by on my good looks

So the same amount that I am worth and no one can live on a penny a day!

( If only sarcasm could make me money! )

Worked for Don Rickles, but I'm too old to go that route

Loved him!

He could make me laugh just from that evil smirk on his face because you knew he was going to say something insulting but hilarious as can be!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Our soldiers are worth more to me than some politician or paid athlete but as for my worth, I have lived long enough and am worth nothing to today society!

As we kind of discovered back on Page 1, it is very hard for individuals to define their own worth. It's probably human nature but most people tend to think they are worth more than they really are or their skills, talents, experience, is worth more than the market thinks they are. The bottom line is, you are only worth what someone else is willing to pay you. You cannot determine your own worth because you're not an objective source, you have a bias toward yourself.

In a free market, your worth is determined by the value you bring to someone else.

Maybe, but the reality is I view myself in realistic terms. If I were to gain employment with some agency then I know my value will be less because I am starting at the bottom.

Sure I might be able to get a little more than some newbie because of experience but I never expect to be paid top value even after working so much time with someone.

The owner pays me what they believe I am worth ( which we agree ) and it is my choice to accept their dollar value of me or not.

Too many people believe they're worth more than the next person when in reality the good majority of the World ( Just not Americans ) are not worth half of what they are being paid!

As being in the position to employ people I have taken the approach that after 90 days I will raise the employee pay to what I believe they are worth and it is their choice to stay or go.

I had very little turnover with employees because of benefits along with pay.

Too me benefits mean more than sometimes the top dollar...

 

[sparky]

Again... Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with minimal government interference. It relies on the laws of supply and demand along with free enterprise competition to determine a price equilibrium. Not only does it work, it's fair to all parties.

I agree on your definition Boss , i'll even agree it CAN work , but the devil is in the details

The 'seven deadlies' manifest as little itty bitty pieces of legislation in .0000 font somewhere on page 64239430 , and said competition is no longer on a level playing field

~S~

 

[dblack]

I'd be interested in this groups take on This article

~S~

That was frustrating to read - because I agree with the the appraisal of the problem: government manipulating the economy in ways that cater to special interests. But they seem to advocate more of the same. They just have different special interests in mind. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think it's a safe bet they want more government intervention in economic matters, not less. Which will only make the problem worse.

 

[320 Years of History]

Again... Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with minimal government interference.

I trust you realize that is your definition of that phrase.

Why have I said that? Well, because:

• Capitalism is a system where the factors of production -- land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital -- are privately rather than governmentally owned. Obviously, capitalism exists on a spectrum having zero governmental ownership at one end and <100% governmental ownership at the other. 100% government ownership of the factors of production is not capitalism.
• "Free market" is system that, like capitalism, is defined on a spectrum where one has varying degrees of intervention (regulation) on the exchange of goods and services between buyers and sellers. When most people discuss the “free market,” they mean an economy with unobstructed competition and only private transactions between buyers and sellers. However, a more inclusive definition should include any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities.
• Free trade is the economic policy of not discriminating against imports from and exports to foreign jurisdictions. Buyers and sellers from separate economies may voluntarily trade without the domestic government applying tariffs, quotas, subsidies or prohibitions on their goods and services. Free trade is the opposite of trade protectionism or economic isolationism.

Because the two systems noted above (the last element is a policy not a system) are not mutually exclusive, and in light of what a comprehensive definition of "free market" necessarily entails, one observes that laissez-faire capitalism and voluntary socialism are each examples of a free market, even though the latter includes common (governmental/societal) ownership of the factors of production. The critical feature is the absence of coercive impositions or restrictions regarding economic activity. Coercion may take place in a free market if mutually agreed to in a voluntary contract, such as remedies enforced by tort law.

All constraints on the free market use implicit or explicit threats of force. Common examples include: prohibition of specific exchanges, taxation, regulations, mandates on specific terms within an exchange, licensing requirements, fixed exchange rates, competition from publicly provided services, price controls and quotas on production, purchases of goods or employee hiring practices.

Even when free market behavior is regulated, voluntary exchanges may still take place in spite of government prohibitions. Such exchanges take place in the so-called “black market,” which may be considered an underground version of the free market. Competition is difficult and the price system is much less effective in a black market, so monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior is likely.


The above understandings are why my discussions thus far have focused on using terms like laissez faire capitalism and free trade. They are well recognized (and not "fancy" or arcane) terms that are well understood and studied. The conflation in this thread of the concepts of free trade, free markets and capitalism (laissez faire or otherwise) makes this discussion rather tedious. I can tell that you favor capitalism. I think you favor free trade. I don't know what to make of your position on free markets other than by inference. That it is only by inference that I (others?) can tell what you mean by the "free market" aspect of the term "free market capitalism" is what confounds clarity in this discussion and makes what otherwise would be a very simple and relatively interesting discussion to have somewhat tedious. The consequence is that the discussion has focused mostly on agreeing terminology rather than discussing proposed strategies/tactics and their causes and effects.

 

[Boss]

Again... Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with minimal government interference.

I trust you realize that is your definition of that phrase.

Why have I said that? Well, because:

• Capitalism is a system where the factors of production -- land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital -- are privately rather than governmentally owned. Obviously, capitalism exists on a spectrum having zero governmental ownership at one end and <100% governmental ownership at the other. 100% government ownership of the factors of production is not capitalism.
• "Free market" is system that, like capitalism, is defined on a spectrum where one has varying degrees of intervention (regulation) on the exchange of goods and services between buyers and sellers. When most people discuss the “free market,” they mean an economy with unobstructed competition and only private transactions between buyers and sellers. However, a more inclusive definition should include any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities.
• Free trade is the economic policy of not discriminating against imports from and exports to foreign jurisdictions. Buyers and sellers from separate economies may voluntarily trade without the domestic government applying tariffs, quotas, subsidies or prohibitions on their goods and services. Free trade is the opposite of trade protectionism or economic isolationism.

Because the two systems noted above (the last element is a policy not a system) are not mutually exclusive, and in light of what a comprehensive definition of "free market" necessarily entails, one observes that laissez-faire capitalism and voluntary socialism are each examples of a free market, even though the latter includes common (governmental/societal) ownership of the factors of production. The critical feature is the absence of coercive impositions or restrictions regarding economic activity. Coercion may take place in a free market if mutually agreed to in a voluntary contract, such as remedies enforced by tort law.

All constraints on the free market use implicit or explicit threats of force. Common examples include: prohibition of specific exchanges, taxation, regulations, mandates on specific terms within an exchange, licensing requirements, fixed exchange rates, competition from publicly provided services, price controls and quotas on production, purchases of goods or employee hiring practices.

Even when free market behavior is regulated, voluntary exchanges may still take place in spite of government prohibitions. Such exchanges take place in the so-called “black market,” which may be considered an underground version of the free market. Competition is difficult and the price system is much less effective in a black market, so monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior is likely.

The above understandings are why my discussions thus far have focused on using terms like laissez faire capitalism and free trade. They are well recognized (and not "fancy" or arcane) terms that are well understood and studied. The conflation in this thread of the concepts of free trade, free markets and capitalism (laissez faire or otherwise) makes this discussion rather tedious. I can tell that you favor capitalism. I think you favor free trade. I don't know what to make of your position on free markets other than by inference. That it is only by inference that I (others?) can tell what you mean by the "free market" aspect of the term "free market capitalism" is what confounds clarity in this discussion and makes what otherwise would be a very simple and relatively interesting discussion to have somewhat tedious. The consequence is that the discussion has focused mostly on agreeing terminology rather than discussing proposed strategies/tactics and their causes and effects.

*smh* ....It's like, you almost comprehend what free market capitalism is and how great our system is.... BUT.... you are drawn like a moth to a flame to government regulation. You continue to wave laissez faire around with trepidation and fear as an excuse for more and more government interference of free market capitalism.

Our system is designed to have minimal government interference of free market capitalism. That is why powers of government are enumerated. The more government influence you have over free market capitalism, the less it is true free market capitalism. You begin to erode the mechanisms of supply and demand. You destroy the aspects of competition in favor of the corporatists who've purchased favors. Free market capitalism can no longer perform as it's intended and problems begin to abound... our solution to these problems is MORE government interference.

I have attempted to take the concept of free market capitalism in it's most true form and challenge you to tell me what is wrong with it. All of the examples I get are examples where free market principles have been ignored, eroded or usurped by government interference. Fundamentally, you cannot tell me how a system that allows us to transact freely and voluntarily based on supply and demand with competition, is a bad thing. I surmise this is because it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. In fact, it's a great thing.

 

[320 Years of History]

Again... Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with minimal government interference.

I trust you realize that is your definition of that phrase.

Why have I said that? Well, because:

• Capitalism is a system where the factors of production -- land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital -- are privately rather than governmentally owned. Obviously, capitalism exists on a spectrum having zero governmental ownership at one end and <100% governmental ownership at the other. 100% government ownership of the factors of production is not capitalism.
• "Free market" is system that, like capitalism, is defined on a spectrum where one has varying degrees of intervention (regulation) on the exchange of goods and services between buyers and sellers. When most people discuss the “free market,” they mean an economy with unobstructed competition and only private transactions between buyers and sellers. However, a more inclusive definition should include any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities.
• Free trade is the economic policy of not discriminating against imports from and exports to foreign jurisdictions. Buyers and sellers from separate economies may voluntarily trade without the domestic government applying tariffs, quotas, subsidies or prohibitions on their goods and services. Free trade is the opposite of trade protectionism or economic isolationism.

Because the two systems noted above (the last element is a policy not a system) are not mutually exclusive, and in light of what a comprehensive definition of "free market" necessarily entails, one observes that laissez-faire capitalism and voluntary socialism are each examples of a free market, even though the latter includes common (governmental/societal) ownership of the factors of production. The critical feature is the absence of coercive impositions or restrictions regarding economic activity. Coercion may take place in a free market if mutually agreed to in a voluntary contract, such as remedies enforced by tort law.

All constraints on the free market use implicit or explicit threats of force. Common examples include: prohibition of specific exchanges, taxation, regulations, mandates on specific terms within an exchange, licensing requirements, fixed exchange rates, competition from publicly provided services, price controls and quotas on production, purchases of goods or employee hiring practices.

Even when free market behavior is regulated, voluntary exchanges may still take place in spite of government prohibitions. Such exchanges take place in the so-called “black market,” which may be considered an underground version of the free market. Competition is difficult and the price system is much less effective in a black market, so monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior is likely.

The above understandings are why my discussions thus far have focused on using terms like laissez faire capitalism and free trade. They are well recognized (and not "fancy" or arcane) terms that are well understood and studied. The conflation in this thread of the concepts of free trade, free markets and capitalism (laissez faire or otherwise) makes this discussion rather tedious. I can tell that you favor capitalism. I think you favor free trade. I don't know what to make of your position on free markets other than by inference. That it is only by inference that I (others?) can tell what you mean by the "free market" aspect of the term "free market capitalism" is what confounds clarity in this discussion and makes what otherwise would be a very simple and relatively interesting discussion to have somewhat tedious. The consequence is that the discussion has focused mostly on agreeing terminology rather than discussing proposed strategies/tactics and their causes and effects.

*smh* ....It's like, you almost comprehend what free market capitalism is and how great our system is.... BUT.... you are drawn like a moth to a flame to government regulation. You continue to wave laissez faire around with trepidation and fear as an excuse for more and more government interference of free market capitalism.

Our system is designed to have minimal government interference of free market capitalism. That is why powers of government are enumerated. The more government influence you have over free market capitalism, the less it is true free market capitalism. You begin to erode the mechanisms of supply and demand. You destroy the aspects of competition in favor of the corporatists who've purchased favors. Free market capitalism can no longer perform as it's intended and problems begin to abound... our solution to these problems is MORE government interference.

I have attempted to take the concept of free market capitalism in it's most true form and challenge you to tell me what is wrong with it. All of the examples I get are examples where free market principles have been ignored, eroded or usurped by government interference. Fundamentally, you cannot tell me how a system that allows us to transact freely and voluntarily based on supply and demand with competition, is a bad thing. I surmise this is because it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. In fact, it's a great thing.

Really? After what I wrote that remains your response? I explain to you the ambiguity associated with your term "free market capitalism." I do so in good detail. And that -- a reply that makes no effort to clarify the elements of uncertainty attendant to your term "free market capitalism" -- is how you respond. Fine. I not going to keep trying to have a discussion about this with you.

Red:
And furthermore....you have some nerve talking about what I have not addressed. Way back at post 242 I tacitly bid you to address the downsides of so-called "free market capitalism": by what means you would mitigate their effects. You have not once done so. You haven't even indicated that you recognize they exist.

Still, you have yet to address how to mitigate the downsides of laissez faire capitalism without a government's involvement.

You ask me for a qualitative argument about what is bad about what you call "free market capitalism," yet you have yet to address the one thing I asked for prior to having done so, now you toss that back at me as though you haven't completely ignored my request, not for a judgement call type of exposition, but for simple and clear identification of the tactics you'd used to address the effects that are very clear and well understood by everyone who's ever studied economics, except apparently you, who seeming knows something nobody else on the whole planet does, and you won't share that information either.

You want know what the downsides of capitalism are? You want to know what is bad about free trade? Click on the link to exactly that which you'll find in post 242. I linked that content there for a reason and I made the reason very clear in that post.

you have broached the topic of the ills of unvarnished capitalism and free trade, yet you've not even offered ideas of how to resolve the ills of either.

...and if you don't like those, there are other discussions of it and you'll find several of them at the linked content of the OP and second post here: Free Trade vs. Protectionism.

The immediately preceding quote from post 242 is the second time I tacitly asked you address how, by what means, you'd mitigate the downsides of capitalism and those of free trade in that post. How dare you chidingly toss that "red" statement at me as though I've ignored your inquiry. I addressed it before you even presented it, and I did so using the content others have written because the question you asked is so damned basic to the understanding of free trade, capitalism, and economics that there's no need for me to write my own response.

 

[sparky]

I'd be interested in this groups take on This article

~S~

That was frustrating to read - because I agree with the the appraisal of the problem: government manipulating the economy in ways that cater to special interests. But they seem to advocate more of the same. They just have different special interests in mind. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think it's a safe bet they want more government intervention in economic matters, not less. Which will only make the problem worse.

Cognitive dissonance is pandemic here dblack....

~S~

 

[sparky]

Again... Free market capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services for remuneration with minimal government interference.

I trust you realize that is your definition of that phrase.

Why have I said that? Well, because:

• Capitalism is a system where the factors of production -- land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital -- are privately rather than governmentally owned. Obviously, capitalism exists on a spectrum having zero governmental ownership at one end and <100% governmental ownership at the other. 100% government ownership of the factors of production is not capitalism.
• "Free market" is system that, like capitalism, is defined on a spectrum where one has varying degrees of intervention (regulation) on the exchange of goods and services between buyers and sellers. When most people discuss the “free market,” they mean an economy with unobstructed competition and only private transactions between buyers and sellers. However, a more inclusive definition should include any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities.
• Free trade is the economic policy of not discriminating against imports from and exports to foreign jurisdictions. Buyers and sellers from separate economies may voluntarily trade without the domestic government applying tariffs, quotas, subsidies or prohibitions on their goods and services. Free trade is the opposite of trade protectionism or economic isolationism.

Because the two systems noted above (the last element is a policy not a system) are not mutually exclusive, and in light of what a comprehensive definition of "free market" necessarily entails, one observes that laissez-faire capitalism and voluntary socialism are each examples of a free market, even though the latter includes common (governmental/societal) ownership of the factors of production. The critical feature is the absence of coercive impositions or restrictions regarding economic activity. Coercion may take place in a free market if mutually agreed to in a voluntary contract, such as remedies enforced by tort law.

All constraints on the free market use implicit or explicit threats of force. Common examples include: prohibition of specific exchanges, taxation, regulations, mandates on specific terms within an exchange, licensing requirements, fixed exchange rates, competition from publicly provided services, price controls and quotas on production, purchases of goods or employee hiring practices.

Even when free market behavior is regulated, voluntary exchanges may still take place in spite of government prohibitions. Such exchanges take place in the so-called “black market,” which may be considered an underground version of the free market. Competition is difficult and the price system is much less effective in a black market, so monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior is likely.

The above understandings are why my discussions thus far have focused on using terms like laissez faire capitalism and free trade. They are well recognized (and not "fancy" or arcane) terms that are well understood and studied. The conflation in this thread of the concepts of free trade, free markets and capitalism (laissez faire or otherwise) makes this discussion rather tedious. I can tell that you favor capitalism. I think you favor free trade. I don't know what to make of your position on free markets other than by inference. That it is only by inference that I (others?) can tell what you mean by the "free market" aspect of the term "free market capitalism" is what confounds clarity in this discussion and makes what otherwise would be a very simple and relatively interesting discussion to have somewhat tedious. The consequence is that the discussion has focused mostly on agreeing terminology rather than discussing proposed strategies/tactics and their causes and effects.

*smh* ....It's like, you almost comprehend what free market capitalism is and how great our system is.... BUT.... you are drawn like a moth to a flame to government regulation. You continue to wave laissez faire around with trepidation and fear as an excuse for more and more government interference of free market capitalism.

Our system is designed to have minimal government interference of free market capitalism. That is why powers of government are enumerated. The more government influence you have over free market capitalism, the less it is true free market capitalism. You begin to erode the mechanisms of supply and demand. You destroy the aspects of competition in favor of the corporatists who've purchased favors. Free market capitalism can no longer perform as it's intended and problems begin to abound... our solution to these problems is MORE government interference.

I have attempted to take the concept of free market capitalism in it's most true form and challenge you to tell me what is wrong with it. All of the examples I get are examples where free market principles have been ignored, eroded or usurped by government interference. Fundamentally, you cannot tell me how a system that allows us to transact freely and voluntarily based on supply and demand with competition, is a bad thing. I surmise this is because it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. In fact, it's a great thing.

Really? After what I wrote that remains your response? I explain to you the ambiguity associated with your term "free market capitalism." I do so in good detail. And that -- a reply that makes no effort to clarify the elements of uncertainty attendant to your term "free market capitalism" -- is how you respond. Fine. I not going to keep trying to have a discussion about this with you.

None are so blind as those that refuse to see 320

~S~