What IS The Free Market

[dblack]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

That's like asking if we've ever had freedom. I suppose the answer might be "yes, more or less. Depending on the given circumstances."

What's your point?

 

[regent]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

That's like asking if we've ever had freedom. I suppose the answer might be "yes, more or less. Depending on the given circumstances."

What's your point?

My point is America has never had a free market economy.

 

[dblack]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

That's like asking if we've ever had freedom. I suppose the answer might be "yes, more or less. Depending on the given circumstances."

What's your point?

My point is America has never had a free market economy.

Your question (and your point) is ridiculous. It assumes that freedom is an all or nothing concept.

 

[bripat9643]

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

There is no such thing as a "stable legal framework" so long as Congress is in session.

 

[bripat9643]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

That's like asking if we've ever had freedom. I suppose the answer might be "yes, more or less. Depending on the given circumstances."

What's your point?

My point is America has never had a free market economy.

Yeah, so what? You turds also keep saying socialism has never really been tried, but you keep trying to push us towards it.

 

[dblack]

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

There is no such thing as a "stable legal framework" so long as Congress is in session.

This is just as silly as claiming there's no such thing as a free market. It's more or less stable, more or less free. We have to work to assure any particular outcome.

 

[bripat9643]

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

There is no such thing as a "stable legal framework" so long as Congress is in session.

This is just as silly as claiming there's no such thing as a free market. It's more or less stable, more or less free. We have to work to assure any particular outcome.

No, it's not the same. Congress is constantly changing the laws to conform to some new fashionable political agenda. How many times in the last 30 years has Congress passed "financial reform?" That isn't "stability." It's chaos. The only way to stop this economic wrecking machine is to take away it's authority to regulate.

And our economy is far, far, far from "free." We live in a fascist state where government makes most of the decisions that businesses would normally make themselves.

 

[regent]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

That's like asking if we've ever had freedom. I suppose the answer might be "yes, more or less. Depending on the given circumstances."

What's your point?

My point is America has never had a free market economy.

Your question (and your point) is ridiculous. It assumes that freedom is an all or nothing concept.

So America has never had a free economy?

 

[bripat9643]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

That's like asking if we've ever had freedom. I suppose the answer might be "yes, more or less. Depending on the given circumstances."

What's your point?

My point is America has never had a free market economy.

Your question (and your point) is ridiculous. It assumes that freedom is an all or nothing concept.

So America has never had a free economy?

We had very close to a free market economy, and the closer we were the faster the economy grew. The empirical evidence shows that the more economic freedom an economy has the better economic growth and lower unemployment it enjoys.

 

[georgephillip]

So, yeah. I'd agree with your assessment that these "rights" are often, if not always, in conflict with property rights. That's part of why I reject them as viable political rights.

Capitalism has changed the meaning of political rights and their relation to economic and social rights by inflicting an economic system on society that created a separate economic sphere with its own rules and forms of power. Political rights have been emptied of their economic and social content.
Capitalism and Social Rights Solidarity

 

[bripat9643]

So, yeah. I'd agree with your assessment that these "rights" are often, if not always, in conflict with property rights. That's part of why I reject them as viable political rights.

Capitalism has changed the meaning of political rights and their relation to economic and social rights by inflicting an economic system on society that created a separate economic sphere with its own rules and forms of power. Political rights have been emptied of their economic and social content.
Capitalism and Social Rights Solidarity

Pure horseshit.

 

[georgephillip]

We had very close to a free market economy, and the closer we were the faster the economy grew. The empirical evidence shows that the more economic freedom an economy has the better economic growth and lower unemployment it enjoys.

Link to that empirical evidence right after you define the phrase "more economic freedom."

 

[bripat9643]

We had very close to a free market economy, and the closer we were the faster the economy grew. The empirical evidence shows that the more economic freedom an economy has the better economic growth and lower unemployment it enjoys.

Link to that empirical evidence right after you define the phrase "more economic freedom."

Economic freedom is where government does not tell business owners how to run their business:

Index of Economic Freedom Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

 

[georgephillip]

Pure horseshit.

Is capitalism the natural order of the universe?
Do you see how a system based on total market dependence can be exploited by a few to consolidate vast private fortunes by restricting social and economic rights of millions?

 

[bripat9643]

Pure horseshit.

Is capitalism the natural order of the universe?
Do you see how a system based on total market dependence can be exploited by a few to consolidate vast private fortunes by restricting social and economic rights of millions?

Nope. Under a free market people can only get rich by providing consumers with the products and services they want. The minute they stop doing that, their fortunes evaporate.

Capitalism is the order that results when people are free to pursue their self-interest. So in a sense it is the natural order of things.

 

[dblack]

Do you see how a system based on total market dependence can be exploited by a few to consolidate vast private fortunes by restricting social and economic rights of millions?

I do. But by definition such exploitation is a based on voluntary interaction.

Do you see how a state run economy can be exploited by a few to consolidate power by restricting the individual freedom of millions. And how, by definition, it would be based on involuntary, government mandated interaction?

 

[georgephillip]

Economic freedom is where government does not tell business owners how to run their business:

"Q.1. What is economic freedom?
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself."

Do you agree economic freedom is a fundamental right of every human being in the world?

What about corporations?
Are they entitled to the same economic rights as human beings?

2015 Index of Economic Freedom The Heritage Foundation

 

[bripat9643]

Do you see how a system based on total market dependence can be exploited by a few to consolidate vast private fortunes by restricting social and economic rights of millions?

I do. But by definition such exploitation is a based on voluntary interaction.

I have to disagree. I don't see how "exploitation" could be greater under free enterprise than under the current system. In fact, "exploitation" is far worse under the current system. Just consider how Detroit auto workers exploited stock holders, bond holders and the taxpayers.

Businesses don't restrict economic rights. Government does. Businesses also don't restrict so-called "social rights." Most "social rights" are just faux rights invented by liberals.

 

[georgephillip]

Nope. Under a free market people can only get rich by providing consumers with the products and services they want. The minute they stop doing that, their fortunes evaporate.

What you say may have been true at some earlier period of capitalism, but it's manifestly false today when you have a relatively small subset of capitalists in the finance industry whose "investments" exceed the total value added to global GDP in a single year. These capitalists get rich by providing goods and services to a fraction of 1% of the global population while entailing massive financial risks for the majority of humanity.

 

[georgephillip]

Just consider how Detroit auto workers exploited stock holders, bond holders and the taxpayers.

How did productive auto workers exploit bond holders?