What IS The Free Market

[RKMBrown]

A free market is the foundation of a free society.

There I was thinking a free people is the foundation of a free society.

That's a tautology. You just said a free society is the foundation of a free society. "A people" is the same thing as "a society."

No, nimrod. I said free people. Not people. FYI a group a people does not a society make. But yes they can form one.

So a "free people" is not a people? You're just digging yourself in deeper. Just admit you said something stupid while you're behind. And you didn't say "a group of people." You said a people, as in the people of the United States.

People - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as "the Jewish people", European Gypsies comprise the bulk of "the Romani people", and Palestinians are called "the Palestinian people".​

A free people is not necessarily the same thing as a people. For example, the people may be slaves, indentured servants, conscripts, or other types of groups of people. One reason we have adjectives is to distinguish. There is a reason we have different words. You authoritarians believe you can wipe all these different words out by demanding that they all mean the same thing. Who said the people of the united states were a free people? Not I. We have not been a free people since the constitution was amended to add the clause that gives the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process (even if you are not guilty of any crime.)

 

[bripat9643]

A free market is the foundation of a free society.

There I was thinking a free people is the foundation of a free society.

That's a tautology. You just said a free society is the foundation of a free society. "A people" is the same thing as "a society."

No, nimrod. I said free people. Not people. FYI a group a people does not a society make. But yes they can form one.

So a "free people" is not a people? You're just digging yourself in deeper. Just admit you said something stupid while you're behind. And you didn't say "a group of people." You said a people, as in the people of the United States.

People - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as "the Jewish people", European Gypsies comprise the bulk of "the Romani people", and Palestinians are called "the Palestinian people".​

A free people is not necessarily the same thing as a people. One reason we have adjectives is to distinguish. There is a reason we have different words. You authoritarians believe you can wipe all these different words out by demanding that they all mean the same thing.

Yeah, and a black person isn't the same as a white person, but they are both persons. Give up while you're behind.

 

[rickm19]

Dude are you serious?! where in that statement did I single out IBM saying they had no competition.

RickM19: "There is really no competition for the select few oil companies and computer companies.".
"But just off the top of my head yes I know there are a more than since few only refers to 3. hmm lets see. you got IBM".

now do you beleive as a liberal you necessarily have a low IQ?

Again cut out the rest of the statement just so you could make it look like someone said something they didn't and classify them as "liberal". Hmm and you say they are the ones with the low IQ. At least liberals tell it how it is and not try to manipulate and control people. Me I and an Independent and fit into no political classification. The only way you compare IQ's is by twisting crap so you feel like you have a higher IQ. BRILLIANT!

 

[bripat9643]

Dude are you serious?! where in that statement did I single out IBM saying they had no competition.

RickM19: "There is really no competition for the select few oil companies and computer companies.".
"But just off the top of my head yes I know there are a more than since few only refers to 3. hmm lets see. you got IBM".

now do you beleive as a liberal you necessarily have a low IQ?

Again cut out the rest of the statement just so you could make it look like someone said something they didn't and classify them as "liberal". Hmm and you say they are the ones with the low IQ. At least liberals tell it how it is and not try to manipulate and control people. Me I and an Independent and fit into no political classification. The only way you compare IQ's is by twisting crap so you feel like you have a higher IQ. BRILLIANT!

Nothing is more common than liberals who claim they are "independents" and don't fit into any political classification. However, when you get down to brass tacks, they take the same side on every issue as Barrack Obama.

 

[RKMBrown]

There I was thinking a free people is the foundation of a free society.

That's a tautology. You just said a free society is the foundation of a free society. "A people" is the same thing as "a society."

No, nimrod. I said free people. Not people. FYI a group a people does not a society make. But yes they can form one.

So a "free people" is not a people? You're just digging yourself in deeper. Just admit you said something stupid while you're behind. And you didn't say "a group of people." You said a people, as in the people of the United States.

People - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as "the Jewish people", European Gypsies comprise the bulk of "the Romani people", and Palestinians are called "the Palestinian people".​

A free people is not necessarily the same thing as a people. One reason we have adjectives is to distinguish. There is a reason we have different words. You authoritarians believe you can wipe all these different words out by demanding that they all mean the same thing.

Yeah, and a black person isn't the same as a white person, but they are both persons. Give up while you're behind.

And socialism is not a sub class of command economy.... rather socialism is one possible way in which a portion of a command economy can be organized.

Said another way you folks don't seem to understand the difference between a way in which things are done and the result of doing it. Which is not surprising given that you are an authoritarian who justifies the means with the ends.

 

[kaz]

Again faulty analogy. Socialism is like mammal, it's any centrally planned economy. A command economy one type of socialism. It a centrally planned economy, so by definition as bripat said it's socialism

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

 

[RKMBrown]

Again faulty analogy. Socialism is like mammal, it's any centrally planned economy. A command economy one type of socialism. It a centrally planned economy, so by definition as bripat said it's socialism

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

 

[rickm19]

Dude are you serious?! where in that statement did I single out IBM saying they had no competition.

RickM19: "There is really no competition for the select few oil companies and computer companies.".
"But just off the top of my head yes I know there are a more than since few only refers to 3. hmm lets see. you got IBM".

now do you beleive as a liberal you necessarily have a low IQ?

Again cut out the rest of the statement just so you could make it look like someone said something they didn't and classify them as "liberal". Hmm and you say they are the ones with the low IQ. At least liberals tell it how it is and not try to manipulate and control people. Me I and an Independent and fit into no political classification. The only way you compare IQ's is by twisting crap so you feel like you have a higher IQ. BRILLIANT!

Nothing is more common than liberals who claim they are "independents" and don't fit into any political classification. However, when you get down to brass tacks, they take the same side on every issue as Barrack Obama.

No they take time to research any given topic and give a decision based on their morals and beliefs. When something is not working we use creative thinking to come up with a possible solution and use all input to figure out the best solution. Just because someone decides to have a answer that just so happens to side with a liberal does not make them liberal. If you constantly side with an authoritarian that simply makes you a follower who cannot make your own decisions or take all opinions and views into account. That is called being called brainwashed...

 

[bripat9643]

That's a tautology. You just said a free society is the foundation of a free society. "A people" is the same thing as "a society."

No, nimrod. I said free people. Not people. FYI a group a people does not a society make. But yes they can form one.

So a "free people" is not a people? You're just digging yourself in deeper. Just admit you said something stupid while you're behind. And you didn't say "a group of people." You said a people, as in the people of the United States.

People - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as "the Jewish people", European Gypsies comprise the bulk of "the Romani people", and Palestinians are called "the Palestinian people".​

A free people is not necessarily the same thing as a people. One reason we have adjectives is to distinguish. There is a reason we have different words. You authoritarians believe you can wipe all these different words out by demanding that they all mean the same thing.

Yeah, and a black person isn't the same as a white person, but they are both persons. Give up while you're behind.

And socialism is not a sub class of command economy.... rather socialism is one possible way in which a portion of a command economy can be organized.

Said another way you folks don't seem to understand the difference between a way in which things are done and the result of doing it. Which is not surprising given that you are an authoritarian who justifies the means with the ends.

So provide an example of a command economy that isn't socialism. We'd all like to know how this mirical works.

 

[bripat9643]

Again faulty analogy. Socialism is like mammal, it's any centrally planned economy. A command economy one type of socialism. It a centrally planned economy, so by definition as bripat said it's socialism

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

 

[rickm19]

Again faulty analogy. Socialism is like mammal, it's any centrally planned economy. A command economy one type of socialism. It a centrally planned economy, so by definition as bripat said it's socialism

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

 

[dblack]

Again faulty analogy. Socialism is like mammal, it's any centrally planned economy. A command economy one type of socialism. It a centrally planned economy, so by definition as bripat said it's socialism

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

If 'central planning' means planning done by government - it's not capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

Again faulty analogy. Socialism is like mammal, it's any centrally planned economy. A command economy one type of socialism. It a centrally planned economy, so by definition as bripat said it's socialism

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

The term "central planning" means planning by the government, not by individual firms. Firms are always planning, so if it was the later, why even make a distinction? The "central" part of "central planning" means the government. Whatever makes them the most money over the long term is planning wisely.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I read thread after thread where evil corporations and the free market are castigated by liberals and progressives]

castigated on what basis? perhaps they way they just eliminated 40% of the world's poverty in China??

 

[rickm19]

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

If 'central planning' means planning done by government - it's not capitalism.

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

The term "central planning" means planning by the government, not by individual firms. Firms are always planning, so if it was the later, why even make a distinction? The "central" part of "central planning" means the government. Whatever makes them the most money over the long term is planning wisely.

I read thread after thread where evil corporations and the free market are castigated by liberals and progressives]

castigated on what basis? p

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

The term "central planning" means planning by the government, not by individual firms. Firms are always planning, so if it was the later, why even make a distinction? The "central" part of "central planning" means the government. Whatever makes them the most money over the long term is planning wisely.

erhaps they way they just eliminated 40% of the world's poverty in China??

You are making a circular argument that could be used to prove all words and all people are the exact same thing via kevin bacon's seven degrees.

Hmm...so what I said is the extremes in economic systems are central planning and distributed planning. The term for central planning is socialism, the term for distributed planning is capitalism. Then there forms of both, there are hybrids of them.

What logical structure when referring to economic planning could there logically be other than central, distributed or a combination of those?

I said there are many forms of both, I keep saying they are different forms of it. Facism is not Communism, but both are socialism, what confuses you about that? You keep not being able to read that correctly and when I say a monkey is a mammal, you think I am saying a monkey is a horse because they are both mammals. Um...no...

Since I am actually saying there are two economic planning paradigms and you are hearing that means "all people are the exact same thing," do people who think living things can be divided into plants and animals think "all people are the exact same thing?"

No the term for central planning is "central planning" the term for distributed planning is "distributed planning." Why do you continue to insist on equating different terms as meaning the same damn thing?

Again you are not "dividing' you are "combining" different terms and saying they are the same thing. You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. Similarly, you can implement distributed planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination.

By saying "paradigm" you are getting closer to understanding what I mean. You are demanding a particular mix of central planning implemented by socialism to describe a particular type of central planning paradigm that relies heavily on socialism and which is often used by certain types of nations.

"You can implement central planning with capitalism, or socialism, facism, communism, or any other ism or combination. "

Wrong. Central planning and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

Not if capitalist plan and allocate materials wisely, instead of just doing whatever makes them the most money.

The term "central planning" means planning by the government, not by individual firms. Firms are always planning, so if it was the later, why even make a distinction? The "central" part of "central planning" means the government. Whatever makes them the most money over the long term is planning wisely.

"An economy primarily based on central planning is referred to as a planned economy. In a centrally planned economy the allocation of resources is determined by a comprehensive plan of production which specifies output requirements".
Economic planning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic planning is a mechanism for economic coordination contrasted with the market mechanism. There are various types of planning procedures and ways of conducting economic planning. As a coordinating mechanism for socialism and an alternative to the market, planning is defined as a direct allocation of resources and is contrasted with the indirect allocation of the market.[1]

The level of centralization in decision-making in planning depends on the specific type of planning mechanism employed. As such, one can distinguish between centralized planning and decentralized planning.[2] An economy primarily based on central planning is referred to as a planned economy. In a centrally planned economy the allocation of resources is determined by a comprehensive plan of production which specifies output requirements.[3] Planning may also take the form of directive planning or indicative planning.

Now I don't know about you but I don't see any reference to the government. We are all responsible for our economy. The only reason the government steps in is because people don't do their part to sustain it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only reason the government steps in is because people don't do their part to sustain it.

govt is a monopoly at best so when they step in it will only makes things worse. THe liberal assumes the govt is magical when our Founders built the greatest country in human history on the assumption that govt was the source of evil on earth.

 

[rickm19]

The only reason the government steps in is because people don't do their part to sustain it.

govt is a monopoly at best so when they step in it will only makes things worse. THe liberal assumes the govt is magical when our Founders built the greatest country in human history on the assumption that govt was the source of evil on earth.

I have to agree the government could be considered a monopoly.

Yeah they did build our government with God in mind to get away from the tyranny and corruption of European government. They wanted to be free. Now since there is no more land left to discover governments can capitalize on their power. At the same time we have an obligation to get our government back to how our founders had envisioned it. I still don't think government is necessarily bad but it is not what the people need it to be and is no longer really a democracy but that dose not mean we don't need it. Same as capitalism. We need that to give drive and a sense of self worth to people but the overly wealthy have control and want to keep that control because they think they know what is best. The problem is that without money to do things we like to do which is where most people are at they loose drive to create and be able to create as well. We need to maintain proper balance and that balance is just way off right now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Now since there is no more land left to discover governments can capitalize on their power

total gibberish and makes no sense typical of liberalism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At the same time we have an obligation to get our government back to how our founders had envisioned it

dear, they envisioned it as very very tiny. Do you understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

is no longer really a democracy but that dose not mean we don't need it.

dear, it used to be that only white property owning males could vote so it is more of democracy or mob rule now that ever.