The free market at work in Houston

[Rustic]

while I wholeheartedly support the free market to allocate resources, this might be an exception. From an economic standpoint the laws against price gouging are essentially the government stepping in to reallocate an advantage the wealthy have in times like this.

But even a free marketer like me doesn't mind government interference in this case. Who would?

$99 for a case of water: Texas officials report price gouging post-Harvey

No doubt that is wrong charging $99 for a case of water, but it should not be illegal. The federal government has much more important things to worry about…

Why is it wrong? If I own a case of water, why shouldn't I be able to sell it for whatever price I want to sell it for?

I agree, it should be up to the individual not the federal government. But at the same time ethically it is not the coolest thing to do that's for sure.
I sell firearms and ammo for a living, during the Obama years I could've jacked up the price but I did not. I have many more customers because of that. And much more consistent sales...

 

[Boss]

That's government interference in the market. How is that relevant to someone having cases of water to sell and charging $99 for them during a hurricane? The entire transaction is totally voluntary.

From a pure principle standpoint, I agree. As I explained earlier, my personal view is in consideration of ethics. Selling water for $99 during a hurricane is exploitative. You are taking advantage of a disaster to excessively profit on the misfortune of others through no fault of their own. (That's not the spirit of free market.)

There is a subtle nuance here and that is the disaster condition and water being a necessity of life. Let's go back to 1849 during the gold rush... There were people selling picks and shovels for $99... but there wasn't a disaster and a pick and shovel isn't a necessity of life. So this is legitimate free market capitalism at work.

There are only a few scenarios where I fall on the side of government intervention in the free market. Generally speaking, it is to protect the integrity of the free market and prevent exploitation.

 

[bripat9643]

while I wholeheartedly support the free market to allocate resources, this might be an exception. From an economic standpoint the laws against price gouging are essentially the government stepping in to reallocate an advantage the wealthy have in times like this.

But even a free marketer like me doesn't mind government interference in this case. Who would?

$99 for a case of water: Texas officials report price gouging post-Harvey

No doubt that is wrong charging $99 for a case of water, but it should not be illegal. The federal government has much more important things to worry about…

Why is it wrong? If I own a case of water, why shouldn't I be able to sell it for whatever price I want to sell it for?

I agree, it should be up to the individual not the federal government. But at the same time ethically it is not the coolest thing to do that's for sure.
I sell firearms and ammo for a living, during the Obama years I could've jacked up the price but I did not. I have many more customers because of that. And much more consistent sales...

I would have charged whatever the traffic will bear.

 

[Slade3200]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

 

[bripat9643]

That's government interference in the market. How is that relevant to someone having cases of water to sell and charging $99 for them during a hurricane? The entire transaction is totally voluntary.

From a pure principle standpoint, I agree. As I explained earlier, my personal view is in consideration of ethics. Selling water for $99 during a hurricane is exploitative. You are taking advantage of a disaster to excessively profit on the misfortune of others through no fault of their own. (That's not the spirit of free market.)

There is a subtle nuance here and that is the disaster condition and water being a necessity of life. Let's go back to 1849 during the gold rush... There were people selling picks and shovels for $99... but there wasn't a disaster and a pick and shovel isn't a necessity of life. So this is legitimate free market capitalism at work.

There are only a few scenarios where I fall on the side of government intervention in the free market. Generally speaking, it is to protect the integrity of the free market and prevent exploitation.

The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

 

[Slade3200]

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses.

Those are also not regulations.

True, they are law, which goes to my point. Government control over the free market. A necessary and useful element when applied correctly

There is no such thing as "necessary and useful" government regulations.

See boss, tools like this are whom I'm speaking to

 

[bripat9643]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

That's pure bullshit. The supporters for government intervention have been pushing this theory for decades, but every time it's attempted, it falls flat on it's face. That's why corporations always go running to government to protect them from competitors. That's the main purpose of government regulations, to keep the competitors of the government's favored corporations from competition. Most regulations are written by these corporations.

 

[Rustic]

while I wholeheartedly support the free market to allocate resources, this might be an exception. From an economic standpoint the laws against price gouging are essentially the government stepping in to reallocate an advantage the wealthy have in times like this.

But even a free marketer like me doesn't mind government interference in this case. Who would?

$99 for a case of water: Texas officials report price gouging post-Harvey

No doubt that is wrong charging $99 for a case of water, but it should not be illegal. The federal government has much more important things to worry about…

Why is it wrong? If I own a case of water, why shouldn't I be able to sell it for whatever price I want to sell it for?

I agree, it should be up to the individual not the federal government. But at the same time ethically it is not the coolest thing to do that's for sure.
I sell firearms and ammo for a living, during the Obama years I could've jacked up the price but I did not. I have many more customers because of that. And much more consistent sales...

I would have charged whatever the traffic will bear.

That's the way it should be in America, charge what the individual wants to charge. It's an individual thing socialists will never understand. Lol

 

[bripat9643]

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses.

Those are also not regulations.

True, they are law, which goes to my point. Government control over the free market. A necessary and useful element when applied correctly

There is no such thing as "necessary and useful" government regulations.

See boss, tools like this are whom I'm speaking to

You're the tool.

 

[Slade3200]

That's government interference in the market. How is that relevant to someone having cases of water to sell and charging $99 for them during a hurricane? The entire transaction is totally voluntary.

From a pure principle standpoint, I agree. As I explained earlier, my personal view is in consideration of ethics. Selling water for $99 during a hurricane is exploitative. You are taking advantage of a disaster to excessively profit on the misfortune of others through no fault of their own. (That's not the spirit of free market.)

There is a subtle nuance here and that is the disaster condition and water being a necessity of life. Let's go back to 1849 during the gold rush... There were people selling picks and shovels for $99... but there wasn't a disaster and a pick and shovel isn't a necessity of life. So this is legitimate free market capitalism at work.

There are only a few scenarios where I fall on the side of government intervention in the free market. Generally speaking, it is to protect the integrity of the free market and prevent exploitation.

The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Let's take an extreme example and see how you justify it. Your wife gets into a car accident. They rush her to the ER. The Doctor looks at her and then at you and says, I'm gonna need the deed to your house or she is going to die. She's got 5 minutes left and I'm the only doctor that can save her life... go ahead and defend the Doctor for exploiting his services to benefit himself based on demand.

 

[Rustic]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

The government has no credibility on the issue, They should be in no way involved in personal/financial affairs of the individual.

 

[Slade3200]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

That's pure bullshit. The supporters for government intervention have been pushing this theory for decades, but every time it's attempted, it falls flat on it's face. That's why corporations always go running to government to protect them from competitors. That's the main purpose of government regulations, to keep the competitors of the government's favored corporations from competition. Most regulations are written by these corporations.

Yeah, that happens, I'm not excusing that practice or supporting those kind of regulations.

 

[Slade3200]

Funny, last I check a constitutional amendment got rid of slavery. The civil rights act otherwise known as LAW is when get blacks opportunity and provided consequence for human rights abuses.

Those are also not regulations.

True, they are law, which goes to my point. Government control over the free market. A necessary and useful element when applied correctly

There is no such thing as "necessary and useful" government regulations.

See boss, tools like this are whom I'm speaking to

You're the tool.

Good one!

 

[Rustic]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

That's pure bullshit. The supporters for government intervention have been pushing this theory for decades, but every time it's attempted, it falls flat on it's face. That's why corporations always go running to government to protect them from competitors. That's the main purpose of government regulations, to keep the competitors of the government's favored corporations from competition. Most regulations are written by these corporations.

Yeah, that happens, I'm not excusing that practice or supporting those kind of regulations.

That's why the federal government has no credibility on the issue

 

[Slade3200]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

The government has no credibility on the issue, They should be in no way involved in personal/financial affairs of the individual.

So you as a firearms dealer... you think you should have the right to open a MS13 gun shop in Chicago and sell machine guns to MS13 members. Lord knows there is a huge market out there and you'd make a killing. Is that what you are advocating?

 

[Boss]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

But that's the point I am trying to get you to understand. It's not the free market you have a problem with. It is corruption, exploitation and outright illegal actions. I agree the power of government should fight those things because it actually protects the integrity of the honest free market. But there is a slippery slope argument as well. In your post you talk about the third generation guy and how he has the market cornered.... that's sometimes a consequence of a free market and there is no way to make that "fair" for everyone.

 

[Slade3200]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

But that's the point I am trying to get you to understand. It's not the free market you have a problem with. It is corruption, exploitation and outright illegal actions. I agree the power of government should fight those things because it actually protects the integrity of the honest free market. But there is a slippery slope argument as well. In your post you talk about the third generation guy and how he has the market cornered.... that's sometimes a consequence of a free market and there is no way to make that "fair" for everyone.

Agreed but play that out across multiple markets and over time. You end up with a few companies owning everything. Now everything is owned and controlled by a few corporations. That's the end of the road. Is that what you want?

 

[Boss]

The term "exploitation" is meaningless in terms of economics or even ethics. It's the way to make a voluntary transaction sound sinister. If I buy meat from a butcher, I am "exploiting" the butcher, and If I exchange my services for a paycheck, I am exploiting my employer, and he is exploiting me. Where's the evil in any of that? However, if I charge $5 rather than $2 for a bottle of water, now I'm doing something evil? I don't see how.

Like I said before, there is a nuance and not everyone agree with me on this. As I pointed out earlier, one could argue that ALL capitalism is "exploitation" of sorts. To an extent, that is true. However, there is a moral difference between fair and legitimate trade and exploiting an unfair advantage due to circumstances.

Imagine this scenario... The Titanic has sunk and I arrive on the scene with all these wealthy people in the water in my big boat.... I offer to rescue them in exchange for them signing over all their worldly assets. Indeed, there would be many who would voluntarily take me up on that offer but would that be moral and ethical on my part? Is that free market capitalism or exploitation?

I'm a big free market capitalist who strongly detests government regulations on the free market and I fight here for that all the time if you've ever read my posts. That said, I just sent $10,000 worth of bottled water and other supplies to Texas. I'm going to take a loss because I am donating this to the disaster relief effort. I'm not even going to recover the cost of transport. Of course, I'll write this off on my taxes but that's not why I did it. For me, it is a matter of morals and ethics which trump profits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No argument here. As long as you acknowledge the value in common sense government control through law and regulations that protect the people from the abuses that the free market can inflict.

The abuses of regulation that I see and strongly disagree with are the ones that clearly are out to raise money for the government or restrict opportunity for entrepreneurs to enter a market.

It's not the abuses of free market. It's abuses of those exploiting their fellow man through capitalism. I refuse to accept this is "free market" when it occurs. I think it is very important to draw the distinction.

Look... here's free market capitalism:

You want a burrito.
I have knowledge on how to make a burrito.
I invest in ingredients and produce a burrito.
You and I voluntarily exchange money for the burrito.
You get the burrito you wanted, I get the money I wanted.
Someone else comes along and says, I can make a better burrito cheaper!
Now we have competition and you have a choice.

Now... Let's say some ****** comes along who pays a politician to pass laws which prohibit burritos made by any other company besides his? Or... that people who make burritos have to be paid $15 hr. Or... that burritos can only be made on Tuesdays from beef that comes from Texas. Or maybe he buys up all the companies who make the ingredients for burritos? --THIS IS NOT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM!

I know you want to think that free market is pure and true but those exploitations you mention exist in capitalism and are enabled if there is a free market without regulation. If your burrito guy is a third generation burrito maker and over the decades his family has set up factories and distribution centers all over the nation to get his burritos in every supermarket and convenience store, then he has the power and ability to control the market. If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business. Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better, anti trust laws are another... there are plenty of fine examples of government regulation and control that keeps our system going in a more fair and functional way. This should be a knowledged. On the flip side there is corruption and abuses done by the government that should exposed and eliminated.

If a guy with a healthier and better tasting burrito comes along, all that our friend needs to do is squeeze, and that guy is out of business.

Explain how you squeeze the better burrito guy out of business.

Or steal his recipe. Intellectual property theft is another one of those laws that restricts the free market for the better

Theft is never part of a free market.

 

[Boss]

Agreed but play that out across multiple markets and over time. You end up with a few companies owning everything. Now everything is owned and controlled by a few corporations. That's the end of the road. Is that what you want?

The reason you end up with a few companies owning everything is largely due to the size and scope of government. As these companies grow and government gets bigger and more powerful, they buy favoritism and leverage further advantage for themselves. The collusion between big business and government is a problem but the solution is to downsize government so there is no power to collude with.