What IS The Free Market

[rickm19]

Whoa, so you don't turn down any money for doing your job? According to most of the world, you have way, way more money than you need. You clearly greedy by your own argument. So if you are admittedly greedy, you have and spend more than you need, shouldn't you deal with that before you point fingers and criticize other people for having more than you think they need?

HAHA why would I turn down money for doing more and getting paid les than most people in my position?

Um...why are you advocating other people do that?

I agree and have seen poverty at its core. I have been in 3rd world countries. To me there should be no reason those areas are not brought up to a certain standard of living. If I didn't live here and needed what I need to get by and be happy living amongst the greed it would be different. I have what I need to get by living in this economy and a bit more with making 50k/per. If I had much more it would be going to the poverty stricken nations to improve their quality of living. Trust me I know I am greedy in that aspect and small, self-sustainable houses, that can be shipped anywhere and setup easily has been on my mind for long time I just don't have the resources to do anything about it at this time. So I will gladly point the fingers when I have had that figured out for a long time . That is the only reason I am starting to stand up and voice my opinion.

OK, but you aren't doing anything about it. You are advocating other people not earn more than they need and they be stopped by government if they do. Yet you admittedly earn more than you need according to the majority of the world, and you forgo nothing. Sure you give a few dollars to charity, the rich give a lot more, so you aren't ahead there.

Why is it up to you that other people should be stopped from earning more than you think they need when you don't do anything about you earning more than you need?

Im not advocating anything. Just want people to use their money for better things.
I am trying to do something about it. Right now all I can do is study to get the knowledge I need. I would love to pickup where Tesla left off. But since his free energy was deemed non profitable all his findings and records were destroyed or at least kept under wraps. Problem is everything cost money and supplies for experiments are expensive. Plus I need help from great minds but they are hard to come by. I know a self sustaining generator is possible. Government stops too much and holds me back as well.

Why is it up to me? Its not. It is up to them to do the right things with their money. But without good hearted guidance it will never happen. We can start with our crappy entertainment industry. Put stuff on TV that we can learn from and not rot out the brains of children and anyone else watching for that matter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Competition is what prevents greed not capitalism.

Dear, competition is a critical part of capitalism and not socialism so it is 100% accurate and descriptive to say Republican capitalism prevents greed. How to you bring about competition after you have decided it is a good thing? You bring it about through the imposition of capitalism.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Really though nothing prevents greed other than moral obligations to do what is true and honest.

thats very stupid and liberal since no one really knows what is true and honest. Under capitalism you have to have the highest quality and lowest price in the entire world to survive. That's what is true and honest. It is as if God and Love and Capitalism are all combined.

Don't ever forget China just eliminated 40% of the world's poverty with capitalism after liberalism has slowly starved 60 million to death.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But for the ones who own 20 million dollar houses and waste valuable commodities, suck up and waste energy and fuel. When that is being done it drives up the price for all.. That is when it is bad.

so what home value would the liberal Nazi allow if he had his Nazi way?Had you been alive 150 years ago when average home was perhaps 500 square feet would you have capped it there as a libcommie nazi share the wealth scheme??

 

[rickm19]

Really though nothing prevents greed other than moral obligations to do what is true and honest.

thats very stupid and liberal since no one really knows what is true and honest. Under capitalism you have to have the highest quality and lowest price in the entire world to survive. That's what is true and honest. It is as if God and Love and Capitalism are all combined.

Don't ever forget China just eliminated 40% of the world's poverty with capitalism after liberalism has slowly starved 60 million to death.

Don't know how you call that stupid and liberal when you go on to describe what is best... Agreed. God, love, and capitalism are combined. but that does not seem to be case for a lot of entrepreneurs and business owners. If that were the case our economy would not be in shambles and most of the world would not hate us.

And I highly doubt liberalism killed off 60 million.. More like our capitalism with making them work for scraps to produce our goods.... if that is even a true statistic...

 

[rickm19]

. But for the ones who own 20 million dollar houses and waste valuable commodities, suck up and waste energy and fuel. When that is being done it drives up the price for all.. That is when it is bad.

so what home value would the liberal Nazi allow if he had his Nazi way?Had you been alive 150 years ago when average home was perhaps 500 square feet would you have capped it there as a libcommie nazi share the wealth scheme??

LOL you really have no idea who you are talking huh? I would not put a cap on anything. Lead by example. My house is not much bigger and it is more than I need alone and would be just fine to house a family of 3. Why not share the wealth? Are you rich? Are you really truly happy with all the money and worldly possessions you have? Does it make you a better person? Why don't you share something for once instead of just trying to criticize me and pick apart certain sentences??

 

[kaz]

LOL you really have no idea who you are talking huh? I would not put a cap on anything

You keep saying contradictory things on that. You say things like that they should limit themselves so it doesn't get limited for them. That isn't a quote, don't remember your exact phrasing, but what does that mean? So what if they don't limit it themselves?

And what is your answer on my thread you inspired?

What should I do to not be greedy US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[rickm19]

Yeah basically what I meant was that I think the government feels they need to step in because things are so out of balance and out of control. I know that will just make things worse and make the government seem like the bad guys.

I will check it out. Glad I can inspire .

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

 

[regent]

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.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

 

[regent]

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.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Please provide a link ANYWHERE, that states "Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy." I'll wait.

Hint... through mixing you can have dictatorial and non-dictatorial forms of socialism. You still don't seem to understand the difference between the term "is" and the phrase "may include."

 

[regent]

Ok. For example, a command economy that isn't socialism would be one in which the social and economic system is characterized by dictatorial / czar ownership (not social) of the means of production, and dictatorial management of the
of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at establishment of such a system.

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

many roads have been privatized here and in Europe. That way you have competition to hold prices down and to hold quality up. A soviet liberal monopoly features no competition.

 

[bripat9643]

In economic terms, there's no distinction between "dictatorial / czar ownership" ownership and "social" ownership. Socialism is dictatorial management of the economy. Either the government makes all the major business decisions for firms, or individual owners do it. It doesn't matter whether the government is a democracy or not because when it comes to day-to-day running of an enterprise, the voters have no input. Bureaucrats make all the decisions in either case.

Just consider regulation of business in the United States. Did the voters decide what was the maximum allowable amount of Mercury that coal fired power plants are allowed to emit? Nope, some bureaucrats at the EPA made that decision. The voters had no say in it. How is that any different from "dictatorial" ownership?

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

Of course he could. He wouldn't be the owner otherwise, would he? Is this where you start hyperventilating about how private roads are going to persecute black people and not allow them to use private roads?

 

[regent]

Sounds like the American voter is entitled to have a say in our economic system?
How much of say should the American voter have?

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

Of course he could. He wouldn't be the owner otherwise, would he? Is this where you start hyperventilating about how private roads are going to persecute black people and not allow them to use private roads?

Prohibiting blacks on the roads was not my goal, not much money there. Money is with corporations. My goal would be to see what deal I could make with corporations prohibiting other corporations trucks from using my roads. Roads could be the key to making monopolies. The roads would probably be regulated by state and federal governments.

 

[bripat9643]

The voter is not entitled to have a say in how I run my business. That's Marxist hooey.

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

Of course he could. He wouldn't be the owner otherwise, would he? Is this where you start hyperventilating about how private roads are going to persecute black people and not allow them to use private roads?

Prohibiting blacks on the roads was not my goal, not much money there. Money is with corporations. My goal would be to see what deal I could make with corporations prohibiting other corporations trucks from using my roads. Roads could be the key to making monopolies. The roads would probably be regulated by state and federal governments.

Why would the owner of any road make such a deal? This sounds like the same "logic" used to justify net neutrality.