What IS The Free Market

[bripat9643]

The Fed is intimately connected to government. It's the perfect example of non-free market corporatism, and a direct result of indulging government interference in economic matters.

The Fed works independently of the government. It is the result of free market capitalism, as those in financial power eventually take over. Also, it doesn't work for the government but the other way round.

I actually agree with the characterization that the government works "for" the Federal Reserve. This has long been my point, that the regulatory regime we think of as keeping corporations "in line" actually serves their interests. But business employing government to force it's will on people is not a free market.

That's because of industrialization coupled with free market capitalism, both the result of a free market. In this case, we see robber barons exploiting natural resources, and with support from government, and later the rise of industrialists coupled with financiers, then the takeover of money supply, followed by consumer spending and then financial deregulation.

Again, in order to have anything to 'de-regulate', we first have to indulge their desire to regulate their markets in the first place, and that is our 'original sin'. It took thousands of years, and much unnecessary suffering, but we finally learned our lesson regarding the mixing of government and religion. The only way to keep religion out of government is to keep government out of religion. The same dynamic applies to economic power, and it looks like we're destined to learn the hard way yet again.

Again, modern capitalism coincides with regulation. How do you think property rights and the formation of corporations took place?

What an ignoramus. Do you actually believe that property rights didn't exist before government regulation? They had property rights in the fertile crescent 6000 years before the rise of the first civilization. Do you imagine that crops were grown communally in those days?

 

[bripat9643]

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 need to conflate what is actually the same. Also, not just property rights but even the formation of corporations involved such frameworks.

There's a distinct difference between laws that protect the rights of the people, and those that mandate conformity in the name of state "interests". The difference between "regulation" and "legislation" should probably be another thread, but it is very relevant to the idea of a free market. Free markets require laws proscribing theft, fraud and coercion. But they also require freedom from arbitrary rules that dictate our economic decisions in the name of social manipulation.

For this issue, they are the same, as the same people want the right to own property and form businesses.

No, they aren't the same. Common law existed for a thousand years before the notion of government regulation came into being. Law was formerly had nothing to do with the monarchy. It was created and administered by the local community.

 

[dblack]

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 need to conflate what is actually the same. Also, not just property rights but even the formation of corporations involved such frameworks.

There's a distinct difference between laws that protect the rights of the people, and those that mandate conformity in the name of state "interests". The difference between "regulation" and "legislation" should probably be another thread, but it is very relevant to the idea of a free market. Free markets require laws proscribing theft, fraud and coercion. But they also require freedom from arbitrary rules that dictate our economic decisions in the name of social manipulation.

For this issue, they are the same, as the same people want the right to own property and form businesses.

No. For this issue, they're decidedly different. There's clear difference, in intent and form, between laws, created by legislatures, that prohibit actions which violate universal rights (laws against theft, murder, assault, etc...) and regulations, created by secondary agencies, that dictate arbitrary norms of behavior in the name of convenience (rules stipulating licensure requirements, documentation procedures, or otherwise mandating standards of conduct in the name of public welfare).

 

[dblack]

The Fed is intimately connected to government. It's the perfect example of non-free market corporatism, and a direct result of indulging government interference in economic matters.

The Fed works independently of the government. It is the result of free market capitalism, as those in financial power eventually take over. Also, it doesn't work for the government but the other way round.

I actually agree with the characterization that the government works "for" the Federal Reserve. This has long been my point, that the regulatory regime we think of as keeping corporations "in line" actually serves their interests. But business employing government to force it's will on people is not a free market.

That's because of industrialization coupled with free market capitalism, both the result of a free market. In this case, we see robber barons exploiting natural resources, and with support from government, and later the rise of industrialists coupled with financiers, then the takeover of money supply, followed by consumer spending and then financial deregulation.

Again, in order to have anything to 'de-regulate', we first have to indulge their desire to regulate their markets in the first place, and that is our 'original sin'. It took thousands of years, and much unnecessary suffering, but we finally learned our lesson regarding the mixing of government and religion. The only way to keep religion out of government is to keep government out of religion. The same dynamic applies to economic power, and it looks like we're destined to learn the hard way yet again.

Again, modern capitalism coincides with regulation. How do you think property rights and the formation of corporations took place?

I do understand what you're talking about there. But beyond the basic concept of private property, a free market doesn't require such regulation. In particular, the special provisions set up for corporations have been deeply corrosive to free markets.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What an ignoramus. Do you actually believe that property rights didn't exist before government regulation? They had property rights in the fertile crescent 6000 years before the rise of the first civilization. Do you imagine that crops were grown communally in those days?

this is true. Aristotle started with animals and observed that when they hunted the food they caught became private property and when they slept the ground underneath them became private property. He followed this behavor in its more detailed forms through human behavior and concluded from his extensive observations that there was a natual law in place that must be respected to maintain order or civilization.

He further concluded that govt should be designed to protect this natural order, and not to interfere with it out of a meglomanical sense that a man could best nature.