What IS The Free Market

[EdwardBaiamonte]

" BOTH ARE BAD ..

why bad. why not help failed business people trying to contribute to society rather than failed individuals.

Why piss good money after bad investments?

it would help them try again which is the nature of capitalism. HJ Heinz and many others failed 10 times or more before something clicked. It makes a lot more sense to help them than personal welfare which everyone takes for granted when it is just waste.

No it does not make sense to piss money away on bad investments.

why bad Hj Heinz hit right on the 10th try!! I'd rather help him than failed individuals trying nothing. Where is money pissed away??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what????

What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?

so, we all know we have big liberal govt here, and????

This is a discussion about the free market, or lack therein. Try to keep up.

if I denied it was about free market I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??

What part about my statement confused you?

dear you said it was about free markets as if I denied that???
if I denied it was about free market I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??

Do you understand now??

 

[RKMBrown]

" BOTH ARE BAD ..

why bad. why not help failed business people trying to contribute to society rather than failed individuals.

Why piss good money after bad investments?

it would help them try again which is the nature of capitalism. HJ Heinz and many others failed 10 times or more before something clicked. It makes a lot more sense to help them than personal welfare which everyone takes for granted when it is just waste.

No it does not make sense to piss money away on bad investments.

why bad Hj Heinz hit right on the 10th try!! I'd rather help him than failed individuals trying nothing. Where is money pissed away??

So you and me go to vegas and you'll cover my losses till I start winning, that about cover your investment strat?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why bad. why not help failed business people trying to contribute to society rather than failed individuals.

Why piss good money after bad investments?

it would help them try again which is the nature of capitalism. HJ Heinz and many others failed 10 times or more before something clicked. It makes a lot more sense to help them than personal welfare which everyone takes for granted when it is just waste.

No it does not make sense to piss money away on bad investments.

why bad Hj Heinz hit right on the 10th try!! I'd rather help him than failed individuals trying nothing. Where is money pissed away??

So you and me go to vegas and you'll cover my losses till I start winning, that about cover your investment strat?

always BS from you just wasting time. Question was, business welfare or personal welfare.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why piss good money after bad investments?

it would help them try again which is the nature of capitalism. HJ Heinz and many others failed 10 times or more before something clicked. It makes a lot more sense to help them than personal welfare which everyone takes for granted when it is just waste.

No it does not make sense to piss money away on bad investments.

why bad Hj Heinz hit right on the 10th try!! I'd rather help him than failed individuals trying nothing. Where is money pissed away??

So you and me go to vegas and you'll cover my losses till I start winning, that about cover your investment strat?

always BS from you just wasting time. Question was, business welfare or personal welfare.

Yeah and my business is pissing your money away. Send more.

 

[regent]

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

 

[RKMBrown]

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

 

[TC_Triple3]

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

The dictionary is no more useful in defining a 'free market' than it is for defining inflation or economic growth. Again, a free market is the private ownership of the means of production and the absence of government intervention. Government intervention includes regulation, prohibition, taxation, a monopoly of the money supply, or anything else the government does that alters the value choices of anyone that participates in the market.

 

[regent]

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

The dictionary is no more useful in defining a 'free market' than it is for defining inflation or economic growth. Again, a free market is the private ownership of the means of production and the absence of government intervention. Government intervention includes regulation, prohibition, taxation, a monopoly of the money supply, or anything else the government does that alters the value choices of anyone that participates in the market.

So have we ever had a free market, not with England and not with the Constitution. Does any nation have a free market? When did the last free market even exist in a nation?

 

[TC_Triple3]

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

The dictionary is no more useful in defining a 'free market' than it is for defining inflation or economic growth. Again, a free market is the private ownership of the means of production and the absence of government intervention. Government intervention includes regulation, prohibition, taxation, a monopoly of the money supply, or anything else the government does that alters the value choices of anyone that participates in the market.

So have we ever had a free market, not with England and not with the Constitution. Does any nation have a free market? When did the last free market even exist in a nation?

No, the closest examples were brief periods (various colonies) in Colonial America , and again after the revolution and prior to the Constitution. A modern day example briefly existed in Somalia after the government collapsed. Somalia was in complete disarray after years of strife, but a free market was beginning to emerge until foreign intervention resumed.

 

[bripat9643]

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

The dictionary is no more useful in defining a 'free market' than it is for defining inflation or economic growth. Again, a free market is the private ownership of the means of production and the absence of government intervention. Government intervention includes regulation, prohibition, taxation, a monopoly of the money supply, or anything else the government does that alters the value choices of anyone that participates in the market.

So have we ever had a free market, not with England and not with the Constitution. Does any nation have a free market? When did the last free market even exist in a nation?

What difference does it make? Has there ever been a dog without fleas?

 

[ralfy]

I already replied to that. A command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, it is directly socialism. The question is to name a system where government owns all property and the economy is NOT socialist, not one that is socialist

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

Well asshole, there are a lot of forms of socialism. Socialism isn't a monkey, it's a mammal. Command based is a monkey. Your argument boils down to no it's not a mammal, it's a monkey.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy, There are communist socialists, democracy based socialists, Kibitzes, command based economies, fascists, but they are all socialists, they all centrally planned economies.

We do have the answer to bripat's question though, you didn't know what socialism means, you thought there was only one form of it. There isn't even only one form of it in modern governments so I don't know how you thought that. Personally I think you're smarter than that and you're being obstinate because of the stick up your butt. Maybe you should focus on pulling it out instead off digging deeper into stupid

Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.

Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.

NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.

Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.

A command economy can consists of private enterprises or can take place in mixed economy:

Planned economy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It can be seen as a variant of socialism or of capitalism:

State capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ralfy]

Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.

Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.

NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.

Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

Yes.

Well, there you go, that's your delusion

Huh?

Let's put it this way... If some lib comes on and says there's no difference between socialism and capitalism, would you agree?

Socialism is the opposite of capitalism, a command economy is one form of socialism. How does that question make sense?

Some forms of socialism may involve state capitalism, and mixed economies can involve some aspects of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

Well asshole, there are a lot of forms of socialism. Socialism isn't a monkey, it's a mammal. Command based is a monkey. Your argument boils down to no it's not a mammal, it's a monkey.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy, There are communist socialists, democracy based socialists, Kibitzes, command based economies, fascists, but they are all socialists, they all centrally planned economies.

We do have the answer to bripat's question though, you didn't know what socialism means, you thought there was only one form of it. There isn't even only one form of it in modern governments so I don't know how you thought that. Personally I think you're smarter than that and you're being obstinate because of the stick up your butt. Maybe you should focus on pulling it out instead off digging deeper into stupid

Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.

Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.

NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.

Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.

A command economy can consists of private enterprises or can take place in mixed economy:

Planned economy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It can be seen as a variant of socialism or of capitalism:

State capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Actually not. private property means the so-called "owners" of the property make the decisions about how it is used. In a command economy the government decides how private property is used. It becomes the true owner. The title to the property becomes a meaningless fiction.

 

[RKMBrown]

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

The dictionary is no more useful in defining a 'free market' than it is for defining inflation or economic growth. Again, a free market is the private ownership of the means of production and the absence of government intervention. Government intervention includes regulation, prohibition, taxation, a monopoly of the money supply, or anything else the government does that alters the value choices of anyone that participates in the market.

Your definition is rife with emotion. The dictionary definition is better.

 

[TC_Triple3]

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So why do no nations practice laissez faire capitalism?

in the case of China, so liberalism won't slowly starve another 60 million human beings to death but rather will make them rich. Rich is far better than starving to death.

So is China practicing laissez faire capitalism?

they have a mixed economy moving rapidly toward more and more capitalism and more and more wealth for their citizens

So has anyone come up with a definition for a free market as yet?

It's in the dictionary.
free market: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government

The dictionary is no more useful in defining a 'free market' than it is for defining inflation or economic growth. Again, a free market is the private ownership of the means of production and the absence of government intervention. Government intervention includes regulation, prohibition, taxation, a monopoly of the money supply, or anything else the government does that alters the value choices of anyone that participates in the market.

Your definition is rife with emotion. The dictionary definition is better.

There is no emotion in my definition.

Does the government 'set' prices in the auto industry? No.
Does government regulation in the auto industry affect price? Yes.
Does government regulation in the health care industry affect price? Yes.
Does government regulation in the education sector affect price? Yes.
Does an increase in the volume of money affect price? Yes
Does taxation affect price? Yes,
Does prohibition affect price? Yes.

Look at any industry sector where prices continually rise and I will show you abundant government intervention. Why do prices in the consumer electronics sector drop over time?

 

[kaz]

Nonsense.

No, that's reality. Socialism, as implemented, has always meant a command economy. There has never been any other real tangible form of socialism in recorded history. A command economy fits the definition of socialism, so it's socialism by definition. How can a command economy be anything other than socialism?

well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.

Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.

Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.

You mean like health care?

If you're referring to Obamacare then yes, that's pure socialism now since government says what plan is acceptable and what isn't.

You say that like there's a point for you in that

 

[kaz]

t it's not truly capitalism

its never truly capitalism its always mixed but the more markets decide things, the more capitalism, the more wealth created, and the more distribution of that wealth.

I"m not sure what that quote was referring to since you cut it all out but that one blurb, but no, there is no pure capitalist country in the world. There are many socialist countries with many forms from Democratic Sweden to totalitarian North Korea and the US becomes more and more so

 

[kaz]

Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.

You mean like health care?

what????

What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?

so, we all know we have big liberal govt here, and????

This is a discussion about the free market, or lack therein. Try to keep up.

I think you're the one not keeping up, who said the US is pure capitalist? I certainly didn't. We are slipping towards euro socialism more every day

 

[kaz]

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

Well asshole, there are a lot of forms of socialism. Socialism isn't a monkey, it's a mammal. Command based is a monkey. Your argument boils down to no it's not a mammal, it's a monkey.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy, There are communist socialists, democracy based socialists, Kibitzes, command based economies, fascists, but they are all socialists, they all centrally planned economies.

We do have the answer to bripat's question though, you didn't know what socialism means, you thought there was only one form of it. There isn't even only one form of it in modern governments so I don't know how you thought that. Personally I think you're smarter than that and you're being obstinate because of the stick up your butt. Maybe you should focus on pulling it out instead off digging deeper into stupid

Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.

Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.

NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.

Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.

A command economy can consists of private enterprises or can take place in mixed economy:

Planned economy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It can be seen as a variant of socialism or of capitalism:

State capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The economy is centrally planned, in that case private ownership is irrelevant since you have to use your assets according to the State policies. What is the point of having a car deed in your name if you don't get to control when or where you drive the car? There is none, it's not actual ownership