What IS The Free Market

[kaz]

Capitalism is actually more than just private ownership. In fact, some types of capitalism don't even involve that. More details here:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wrong. Without private ownership you have socialism.

Wrong, you can have private ownership with socialism. Some terms like socialism are weightings, not absolutes.

You reversed what he said. Clearly to your point you can have a centrally planned economy (socialism) with private ownership of assets. That is what fascism actually is. But to his point, you cannot have capitalism without privately owned assets

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

 

[RKMBrown]

Capitalism is actually more than just private ownership. In fact, some types of capitalism don't even involve that. More details here:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wrong. Without private ownership you have socialism.

Wrong, you can have private ownership with socialism. Some terms like socialism are weightings, not absolutes.

You reversed what he said. Clearly to your point you can have a centrally planned economy (socialism) with private ownership of assets. That is what fascism actually is. But to his point, you cannot have capitalism without privately owned assets

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

 

[kaz]

Wrong. Without private ownership you have socialism.

Wrong, you can have private ownership with socialism. Some terms like socialism are weightings, not absolutes.

You reversed what he said. Clearly to your point you can have a centrally planned economy (socialism) with private ownership of assets. That is what fascism actually is. But to his point, you cannot have capitalism without privately owned assets

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong, you can have private ownership with socialism. Some terms like socialism are weightings, not absolutes.

You reversed what he said. Clearly to your point you can have a centrally planned economy (socialism) with private ownership of assets. That is what fascism actually is. But to his point, you cannot have capitalism without privately owned assets

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

 

[bripat9643]

You broke the law. Try selling your house. No bank will give a mortgage to anyone who wants to buy it.

ROFL... I built my house using funds that I acquired via a mortgage from a bank.
Face it .. you are clueless.

You might want to look up un-incorporated construction in Texas, before you continue to embarrass yourself.

You built a house that didn't get approved by the building dept and hasn't ever been inspected?

Sorry, I don't believe it. That could never happen in most cities I've lived in. Banks won't loan money to buy a house that isn't up to code.

You are not listening. I'm not in a city. THERE IS NO BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE HOMES BUILT IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN TEXAS.

As for inspections,... the bank sent an appraiser. I used people that were licensed to work in "incorporated" areas. I made sure they built my home to the codes required as if I were incorporated by the nearest city. I "over" built. I did my own inspections.

So you had to go out to the boonies to build the house you wanted. Furthermore, you still built it to code. In other words, you followed the government's orders.

That's what you call "freedom?"

No I did not have to go out to the boonies to build the house I wanted. I found the land I wanted and built on it. As for using codes to do framing, electrical, plumbing etc... I'm an Engineer, as with all Engineers we look to advice from other Engineers when doing a new project. It does not pay to try to reinvent the wheel on every project.

It isn't "advice." It's a legal mandate. We both know that. Who do you think you're fooling. Furthermore, you just admitted that you couldn't do what you did in the city. IN other words, you aren't free.

Using said advice from other professionals is not an order when you live in an unincorporated area, but it is the intelligent thing to do. Plus, it's a helluva lot easier to get the work done when you don't have to teach the people doing the work new tricks.

The bottom line is that you had to go to the boonies to escape from "the man" to do what you did. Someone who wants to live in the city couldn't do it. You aren't any freer than he is. Case closed.

 

[bripat9643]

You reversed what he said. Clearly to your point you can have a centrally planned economy (socialism) with private ownership of assets. That is what fascism actually is. But to his point, you cannot have capitalism without privately owned assets

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

You're babbling pablum. "Redistribution" is a characteristic of the welfare state. Under socialism everyone is an employee of the government.

 

[bripat9643]

You broke the law. Try selling your house. No bank will give a mortgage to anyone who wants to buy it.

ROFL... I built my house using funds that I acquired via a mortgage from a bank.
Face it .. you are clueless.

You might want to look up un-incorporated construction in Texas, before you continue to embarrass yourself.

You built a house that didn't get approved by the building dept and hasn't ever been inspected?

Sorry, I don't believe it. That could never happen in most cities I've lived in. Banks won't loan money to buy a house that isn't up to code.

You are not listening. I'm not in a city. THERE IS NO BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE HOMES BUILT IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN TEXAS.

As for inspections,... the bank sent an appraiser. I used people that were licensed to work in "incorporated" areas. I made sure they built my home to the codes required as if I were incorporated by the nearest city. I "over" built. I did my own inspections.

So you had to go out to the boonies to build the house you wanted. Furthermore, you still built it to code. In other words, you followed the government's orders.

That's what you call "freedom?"

I'm a little confused on this one. As long as it was his choice to follow government code, how is that not freedom? Lack of freedom is removal of choice, there is no reason if he thinks the government codes are the best way to build a house he can't make a choice to follow them. Actually, to not do it because it is government code would be letting government make your choices for you

That's like saying because some guy enjoys paying taxes, that he is "free" not to pay taxes. Of course, the guy who claims he enjoys paying taxes will pay less the following year if Obama gives him a tax cut. In other words, he isn't really doing it because he wants to do it. He's doing it only because it's the law.

 

[regent]

Without going through the eleven pages of posts, has the question of "what is the free market" been answered?

 

[kaz]

You reversed what he said. Clearly to your point you can have a centrally planned economy (socialism) with private ownership of assets. That is what fascism actually is. But to his point, you cannot have capitalism without privately owned assets

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

What you said was that government can own all property and the economy not be socialist, you have yet to back it up and this sure doesn't do it

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL... I built my house using funds that I acquired via a mortgage from a bank.
Face it .. you are clueless.

You might want to look up un-incorporated construction in Texas, before you continue to embarrass yourself.

You built a house that didn't get approved by the building dept and hasn't ever been inspected?

Sorry, I don't believe it. That could never happen in most cities I've lived in. Banks won't loan money to buy a house that isn't up to code.

You are not listening. I'm not in a city. THERE IS NO BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE HOMES BUILT IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS IN TEXAS.

As for inspections,... the bank sent an appraiser. I used people that were licensed to work in "incorporated" areas. I made sure they built my home to the codes required as if I were incorporated by the nearest city. I "over" built. I did my own inspections.

So you had to go out to the boonies to build the house you wanted. Furthermore, you still built it to code. In other words, you followed the government's orders.

That's what you call "freedom?"

No I did not have to go out to the boonies to build the house I wanted. I found the land I wanted and built on it. As for using codes to do framing, electrical, plumbing etc... I'm an Engineer, as with all Engineers we look to advice from other Engineers when doing a new project. It does not pay to try to reinvent the wheel on every project.

It isn't "advice." It's a legal mandate. We both know that. Who do you think you're fooling. Furthermore, you just admitted that you couldn't do what you did in the city. IN other words, you aren't free.

Using said advice from other professionals is not an order when you live in an unincorporated area, but it is the intelligent thing to do. Plus, it's a helluva lot easier to get the work done when you don't have to teach the people doing the work new tricks.

The bottom line is that you had to go to the boonies to escape from "the man" to do what you did. Someone who wants to live in the city couldn't do it. You aren't any freer than he is. Case closed.

Not sure why this is going over your head. I don't live in a city. City rules don't apply to me. There is no legal mandate for me to follow. Some cities use guidelines created by engineers to form rules that people have to follow. I used the same guidelines as guidelines.

I don't live in a city, so I'm free from city laws. Is that not clear to you? You couldn't close a case if you had to.

 

[kaz]

I'm a little confused on this one. As long as it was his choice to follow government code, how is that not freedom? Lack of freedom is removal of choice, there is no reason if he thinks the government codes are the best way to build a house he can't make a choice to follow them. Actually, to not do it because it is government code would be letting government make your choices for you

That's like saying because some guy enjoys paying taxes, that he is "free" not to pay taxes.

No it's not. No wonder you and Mr. Brown are not connecting you both suck at analogies. RKM said he wanted to follow government code, no one said that means he's free to not follow code. He's free to not follow code according to the post because he lives in an unincorporated area.

In other words, he isn't really doing it because he wants to do it. He's doing it only because it's the law.

Again, no, he doesn't have to do it because he's in an unincorporated area. He did it because he wants a safe home and he agrees with the codes

 

[RKMBrown]

Not true. He did not say without private ownership you can or might end up with socialism. He said "without private ownership you have socialism." That is not a true statement.

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

What you said was that government can own all property and the economy not be socialist, you have yet to back it up and this sure doesn't do it

Incorrect I gave an example. Do you need a link to command based economic system? Most economic systems are a mix.

 

[kaz]

Give me an example of a system without private ownership that is not socialist

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

What you said was that government can own all property and the economy not be socialist, you have yet to back it up and this sure doesn't do it

Incorrect I gave an example. Do you need a link to command based economic system? Most economic systems are a mix.

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

 

[Flopper]

I read thread after thread where evil corporations and the free market are castigated by liberals and progressives. So, when I ran across this item, I decided to share it. The video is six minutes long but has some pretty interesting content. It can be viewed @

A nice a little video showing how cooperation and coordination from producers and manufactures are needed to produce a pencil. However, the ideas it puts forth would be applicable to state run economy.

 

[bripat9643]

I read thread after thread where evil corporations and the free market are castigated by liberals and progressives. So, when I ran across this item, I decided to share it. The video is six minutes long but has some pretty interesting content. It can be viewed @

A nice a little video showing how cooperation and coordination from producers and manufactures are needed to produce a pencil. However, the ideas it puts forth would be applicable to state run economy.

Nope. The idea is that these people all cooperate without ever knowing each other or even speaking to each other through the price mechanism, which Is a feature of market economies. Government simply isn't able to perform similarly. That's why command economies always collapse or wallow in abject poverty.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I read thread after thread where evil corporations and the free market are castigated by liberals and progressives. So, when I ran across this item, I decided to share it. The video is six minutes long but has some pretty interesting content. It can be viewed @

A nice a little video showing how cooperation and coordination from producers and manufactures are needed to produce a pencil. However, the ideas it puts forth would be applicable to state run economy.

Nope. The idea is that these people all cooperate without ever knowing each other or even speaking to each other through the price mechanism, which Is a feature of market economies. Government simply isn't able to perform similarly. That's why command economies always collapse or wallow in abject poverty.

yes Adam Smith used the similar example of the simple pin in his 18th Century book Wealth of Nations. Govt could not possibly coordinate all the 1000/s of people and technologies needed to mine iron ore transport it, manufacture, and package, etc etc and get it in a store. Yet capitalism can coordinate all this activity precisely and tell the customer through the pricing mechanism which competitor was 1% more efficient with our scarce resources.

And, capitalism can do this for 100's of thousands of items all at the same time. Imagine a liberal bureaucracy trying to do all that from Washington. You would get a soviet result.

A liberal has no where near the IQ needed to understand the above.

 

[RKMBrown]

Command based economic system.

Um...that's socialism, it's central economic planning. You are very confused today, you should take a nap and start over

Not necessarily. Socialism can be a component of a command based economic system but that would require it to be a mix of market and command based systems. Otherwise there is nothing to socialize. If the government owns you and all land and all commodities, and you are just a slave to the government... Then there is no distribution from one group to another, there is only top down distribution.

What you said was that government can own all property and the economy not be socialist, you have yet to back it up and this sure doesn't do it

Incorrect I gave an example. Do you need a link to command based economic system? Most economic systems are a mix.

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

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

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

 

[RKMBrown]

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[7]

A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital.[8]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

they are essentially the same especially given that both terms have several and imprecise meanings!!
Google:
command economy

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a socialist economic system in which production anddistribution of goods and services are controlled by thegovernment and industry is mostly publicly owned.

 

[RKMBrown]

But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

they are essentially the same especially given that both terms have several and imprecise meanings!!
Google:
command economy

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a socialist economic system in which production anddistribution of goods and services are controlled by thegovernment and industry is mostly publicly owned.

I see that some people have produced explanations that make one a part of the other. I see them as being commonly used together but separate. For example, while Russia is clearly a command based economy, they have also embraced capitalism and now spit on the word socialism.