What IS The Free Market

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the overly wealthy have control and want to keep that control because they think they know what is best

give us your best example or admit to being a simple minded liberal

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

dear people have more money than ever. That's why they can stand in line in the millions to buy the iphone technological marvel toys at $130/month

 

[rickm19]

the overly wealthy have control and want to keep that control because they think they know what is best

give us your best example or admit to being a simple minded liberal

Well I am an estimator and project manager in the construction industry and moving up... Now many owners reap all the profits that others make for them while driving around in fancy cars and spending their money foolishly instead of paying their employees a decent wage or investing their profits in their own company. Not only that but when all that money floats around, when getting paid from the building owners, they dump it into the stock market quick make 10% off of 3 million for simply withholding payments from subcontractors for a month. So the owners decide who gets paid what, when they move up, how much money people make.

Also think about schooling. We are controlled what we learn, when we learn and how we learn. If you don't have money to go to a good school no matter how smart you are you just cant do it. You can BORROW money and pay it back over time with interest. But most people spend their whole life in debt to some wealthy banker for some degree, that they paid for, that the big men up top knew would never take them to more than a 60k/year job. See our whole financial system controls us in way or another.

 

[rickm19]

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??

What does that have to do with anything?

. 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

Ahh but it makes perfect sense from a controlling standpoint. We can now never do again what our founding fathers did.

 

[rickm19]

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

dear people have more money than ever. That's why they can stand in line in the millions to buy the iphone technological marvel toys at $130/month

you choose what you want to see. don't forget though a lot of those phones are being paid for with our tax dollars or with a credit card that will charge high interest. Most people do not know how to live within their means anymore. It is really no ones fault but their own but we do live in a manipulative society that screams, GO spend the money you don't have. Minds are very easily and heavily persuaded so the extremely wealthy get wealthier. Instead of trying to instill conservation, society does the opposite.

 

[dblack]

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.

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

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??

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.

???

 

[regent]

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??

So why did the framers take that very very tiny government they had and make a government that could make laws in 17 of the most important areas of government, and more importantly could grow from 13 states to 50 states and from a population of 4 million to 320million. Tiny tiny government indeed.

 

[ralfy]

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.

State capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

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

State capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interesting. I don't generally see the word used that way. I suppose that's a good way to describe where China seems to be headed. Though I certainly wouldn't call that kind of economy a "free market".

 

[TC_Triple3]

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

dear people have more money than ever. That's why they can stand in line in the millions to buy the iphone technological marvel toys at $130/month

you choose what you want to see. don't forget though a lot of those phones are being paid for with our tax dollars or with a credit card that will charge high interest. Most people do not know how to live within their means anymore. It is really no ones fault but their own but we do live in a manipulative society that screams, GO spend the money you don't have. Minds are very easily and heavily persuaded so the extremely wealthy get wealthier. Instead of trying to instill conservation, society does the opposite.

This is true. People don't have more money than ever, they have more credit than ever. Credit changes value choices. Are you as concerned about price when the answer to 'credit or debit' is credit? No, probably not. Available credit has become the new saving account balance.

 

[kaz]

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.

Central planning can only be done by government because only government can use force to make you do things that are not in your interest. Central planning is only necessary to force individuals to do thing that are not in their personal interest for the good of the whole, the good of the whole of course meaning for the good of politicians and bureaucrats

 

[rickm19]

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.

Central planning can only be done by government because only government can use force to make you do things that are not in your interest. Central planning is only necessary to force individuals to do thing that are not in their personal interest for the good of the whole, the good of the whole of course meaning for the good of politicians and bureaucrats

Well that is the problem... People only do what interests them. It seems like their main interest is solely in making money. When people are so blinded by money and profits they tend to forget about relationships and the well being of others. Hence the reason our society has become so litigious. Now I will never claim to know the percentage of people who only care about money and profits but it seems to be high.

 

[kaz]

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.

Central planning can only be done by government because only government can use force to make you do things that are not in your interest. Central planning is only necessary to force individuals to do thing that are not in their personal interest for the good of the whole, the good of the whole of course meaning for the good of politicians and bureaucrats

Well that is the problem... People only do what interests them. It seems like their main interest is solely in making money. When people are so blinded by money and profits they tend to forget about relationships and the well being of others. Hence the reason our society has become so litigious. Now I will never claim to know the percentage of people who only care about money and profits but it seems to be high.

We want to earn money, you want to confiscate money with guns. Then you call us greedy, LOL

 

[rickm19]

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.

Central planning can only be done by government because only government can use force to make you do things that are not in your interest. Central planning is only necessary to force individuals to do thing that are not in their personal interest for the good of the whole, the good of the whole of course meaning for the good of politicians and bureaucrats

Well that is the problem... People only do what interests them. It seems like their main interest is solely in making money. When people are so blinded by money and profits they tend to forget about relationships and the well being of others. Hence the reason our society has become so litigious. Now I will never claim to know the percentage of people who only care about money and profits but it seems to be high.

We want to earn money, you want to confiscate money with guns. Then you call us greedy, LOL

HAHA not quite. I just wish people would be more generous, to the people that work so hard to allow the higher ups to make that profit, when they have more money than they would ever know what to do with. I see the struggles people go through and devastation it has on families. When you come from wealth it just seems like they are blinded to all of that or simply just don't care. It is not as simple as simply earning and confiscating.

 

[kaz]

We want to earn money, you want to confiscate money with guns. Then you call us greedy, LOL

HAHA not quite. I just wish people would be more generous, to the people that work so hard to allow the higher ups to make that profit, when they have more money than they would ever know what to do with. I see the struggles people go through and devastation it has on families. When you come from wealth it just seems like they are blinded to all of that or simply just don't care. It is not as simple as simply earning and confiscating.

Well, you don’t know what you are talking about. My career has been in management, management consulting and the last six plus years as a business owner. Basically people fall into three camps:

1) Exceptional employees – we care very much they are happy with their pay and we make sure they get it. It starts with communications

2) Decent/good employees – we make sure they are paid fairly by market rates

3) Average/below average employees – we pay them what the job is worth to us and don’t really give a shit if they quit because they are a dime a dozen to replace.

Generosity has nothing to do with it. We are employers, not parents. People get out of their job what they put into it. And if they don’t, there are plenty of other employers who will. But it’s on you to find them rather than staying with a bad one and running to government to make your shitty employer be “generous”

 

[rickm19]

We want to earn money, you want to confiscate money with guns. Then you call us greedy, LOL

HAHA not quite. I just wish people would be more generous, to the people that work so hard to allow the higher ups to make that profit, when they have more money than they would ever know what to do with. I see the struggles people go through and devastation it has on families. When you come from wealth it just seems like they are blinded to all of that or simply just don't care. It is not as simple as simply earning and confiscating.

Well, you don’t know what you are talking about. My career has been in management, management consulting and the last six plus years as a business owner. Basically people fall into three camps:

1) Exceptional employees – we care very much they are happy with their pay and we make sure they get it. It starts with communications

2) Decent/good employees – we make sure they are paid fairly by market rates

3) Average/below average employees – we pay them what the job is worth to us and don’t really give a shit if they quit because they are a dime a dozen to replace.

Generosity has nothing to do with it. We are employers, not parents. People get out of their job what they put into it. And if they don’t, there are plenty of other employers who will. But it’s on you to find them rather than staying with a bad one and running to government to make your shitty employer be “generous”

Well you cant say I don't know what I am talking about. I don't know everything, have a lot to learn and like to hear input from people such as yourself to help me grow as well. I might be able to offer input that is often overlooked.

I understand there are levels of employees but as an employer you almost have to be a parent at times because sometimes people grow up with wrong and inappropriate parenting. You cant just look at someone and see what is on the surface. There are many deeper issues in this day in age.

Question... why should a good/decent employee get paid "fairly" according to market rate. For one who determines those market rates? why is it ok for an employer to make 10 times that of a good employee regardless of "market rates"

Who taught you those management values? was it someone who really cared about people or someone who just looks at statistics and the bottom dollar?

I would never run to the government, it is up to the people to make the best decisions and the decent people to try to influence others so the government does not have to be forceful and seem like the bad guy.

 

[kaz]

We want to earn money, you want to confiscate money with guns. Then you call us greedy, LOL

HAHA not quite. I just wish people would be more generous, to the people that work so hard to allow the higher ups to make that profit, when they have more money than they would ever know what to do with. I see the struggles people go through and devastation it has on families. When you come from wealth it just seems like they are blinded to all of that or simply just don't care. It is not as simple as simply earning and confiscating.

Well, you don’t know what you are talking about. My career has been in management, management consulting and the last six plus years as a business owner. Basically people fall into three camps:

1) Exceptional employees – we care very much they are happy with their pay and we make sure they get it. It starts with communications

2) Decent/good employees – we make sure they are paid fairly by market rates

3) Average/below average employees – we pay them what the job is worth to us and don’t really give a shit if they quit because they are a dime a dozen to replace.

Generosity has nothing to do with it. We are employers, not parents. People get out of their job what they put into it. And if they don’t, there are plenty of other employers who will. But it’s on you to find them rather than staying with a bad one and running to government to make your shitty employer be “generous”

Well you cant say I don't know what I am talking about. I don't know everything, have a lot to learn and like to hear input from people such as yourself to help me grow as well. I might be able to offer input that is often overlooked.

I appreciate the courtesy, and fair enough.

I understand there are levels of employees but as an employer you almost have to be a parent at times because sometimes people grow up with wrong and inappropriate parenting. You cant just look at someone and see what is on the surface. There are many deeper issues in this day in age.

Well, we were talking about pay specifically before, you're broadening it. Yes, I give employees if anything too many chances. I have been asked by other employees what took me so long to fire someone, I've never been I did it too quick.

It is our job to train employees, provide them with adequate documentation and oversight. When an employee is screwing up, I go to training and documentation several times before going to criticism and accountability.

In the end though, everyone's career is their own. Overpaying bad employees is not in my interest or the interest of the company. It's not in the interest of other employees because they have to make up for the poor work (trust me, they know that). And it's not in the end in the interest of the bad employee unless I can overpay them the rest of their career because they are unlikely to find another employee who will pay them too much to suck.

Question... why should a good/decent employee get paid "fairly" according to market rate. For one who determines those market rates?

The market. Market rates means I would have to pay that to replace them and they can go out and get that rate

why is it ok for an employer to make 10 times that of a good employee regardless of "market rates"

I invest all the money, I take all the risk. I get paid shit for a bunch of years while I start the company then I only get paid more if and only if the company is successful. If I am paying employees for the value they provide, why should I then be held artificially low later?

Who taught you those management values? was it someone who really cared about people or someone who just looks at statistics and the bottom dollar?

My qualifications are MBA, Michigan 1995. I spent 11 years in GE Management, GE is considered a management factory. I spent another 8 years or so in management consulting, which means I'm recognized as a management expert since I am consulting to management on management. I owned my own businesses the last 6 plus.

Your question is bogus. Good management is about setting up a company to work for everyone who works for the company. You cannot successfully look at the bottom dollar without caring about people. Unfortunately, but necessarily, paying people appropriately and removing those who don't cut it is a job of management just like teaching is a job for a teacher.

I would never run to the government, it is up to the people to make the best decisions and the decent people to try to influence others so the government does not have to be forceful and seem like the bad guy.

I find the second half of your paragraph seemingling contradictory to the first half. I hope you mean the first half. One thing government will never do is make anything fair

 

[rickm19]

Not much to argue about any of that. You are obviously one who does really care and you sound much like my bosses/owners.

My last statement is somewhat contradictory. They have all the statistics about how much people make, pay their employees, and all the information they need about people so I understand why they need to step in and take control in areas. Not everyone is like you, that know how to make the good, honest, well informed decisions.

 

[kaz]

Not much to argue about any of that. You are obviously one who does really care and you sound much like my bosses/owners.

My last statement is somewhat contradictory. They have all the statistics about how much people make, pay their employees, and all the information they need about people so I understand why they need to step in and take control in areas. Not everyone is like you, that know how to make the good, honest, well informed decisions.

Better answer, the market keeps them in check. They fail. Government need do nothing

 

[rickm19]

Not much to argue about any of that. You are obviously one who does really care and you sound much like my bosses/owners.

My last statement is somewhat contradictory. They have all the statistics about how much people make, pay their employees, and all the information they need about people so I understand why they need to step in and take control in areas. Not everyone is like you, that know how to make the good, honest, well informed decisions.

Better answer, the market keeps them in check. They fail. Government need do nothing

Yes and no. I think there is a huge offset of wealth in this country due to outsourcing and greed. Then the government tries to step in but it affects everyone in the lower tiers more. Food is so damn expensive anymore and everything seems to keep going up while wage increases are not enough to cover inflation. Especially how gas prices fluctuate so much.