The Free Market

[manifold]

In an absolute sense, there is no such thing.

But beyond that, what do you think you know about free market principles and the pros and cons of putting these principles into practice?

Discuss

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The free market is the answer to our problems.

 

[Old Rocks]

The 'Free Market' as envisioned by so many ideologues is just as likely to work as the acts of the 'flower children' are to bring an end to war. Neither idea takes into account human nature. And both founder on the omission.

 

[manifold]

The free market is the answer to our problems.

How free?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The 'Free Market' as envisioned by so many ideologues is just as likely to work as the acts of the 'flower children' are to bring an end to war. Neither idea takes into account human nature. And both founder on the omission.

The same could be said about Keynesian ideologues.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The free market is the answer to our problems.

How free?

Completely free.

 

[manifold]

The free market is the answer to our problems.

How free?

Completely free.

You think no laws and no enforcement of contracts would be an improvement?


Interesting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How free?

Completely free.

You think no laws and no enforcement of contracts would be an improvement?


Interesting.

The free market doesn't mean lawlessness. Contracts would be enforced and fraud prosecuted.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

From encarta

Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an “invisible hand.” In a free-market economy the government's function is limited to providing what are known as “public goods” and performing a regulatory role in certain situations.

This pretty much sums it up. The only time government should step in is when a problem arises and regulation needs to be implemented or enforced. Other than that the government should mind it's own business.

 

[manifold]

Completely free.

You think no laws and no enforcement of contracts would be an improvement?


Interesting.

The free market doesn't mean lawlessness. Contracts would be enforced and fraud prosecuted.

What you describe may be a mostly free market, but it is most definitely not completely free. Which is why I asked, how free.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The government should definately NOT be telling us how much we can earn, where we should work and deciding who gets what in healthcare coverage.

 

[manifold]

From encarta

Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an “invisible hand.” In a free-market economy the government's function is limited to providing what are known as “public goods” and performing a regulatory role in certain situations.

This pretty much sums it up. The only time government should step in is when a problem arises and regulation needs to be implemented or enforced. Other than that the government should mind it's own business.

Bravo! Another wiki-champion.



Now try to get two people to agree on which problems are big enough to require regulation, what that regulation should be, and how it should be enforced.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You think no laws and no enforcement of contracts would be an improvement?


Interesting.

The free market doesn't mean lawlessness. Contracts would be enforced and fraud prosecuted.

What you describe may be a mostly free market, but it is most definitely not completely free. Which is why I asked, how free.

Your definition of what a free market is or is not is obviously incorrect. As I said, a free market does not mean lawlessness.

 

[manifold]

The free market doesn't mean lawlessness. Contracts would be enforced and fraud prosecuted.

What you describe may be a mostly free market, but it is most definitely not completely free. Which is why I asked, how free.

Your definition of what a free market is or is not is obviously incorrect. As I said, a free market does not mean lawlessness.

Yes, actually it does.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What you describe may be a mostly free market, but it is most definitely not completely free. Which is why I asked, how free.

Your definition of what a free market is or is not is obviously incorrect. As I said, a free market does not mean lawlessness.

Yes, actually it does.

No, actually it doesn't.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

From encarta

Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an “invisible hand.” In a free-market economy the government's function is limited to providing what are known as “public goods” and performing a regulatory role in certain situations.

This pretty much sums it up. The only time government should step in is when a problem arises and regulation needs to be implemented or enforced. Other than that the government should mind it's own business.

Bravo! Another wiki-champion.



Now try to get two people to agree on which problems are big enough to require regulation, what that regulation should be, and how it should be enforced.

Apparently it's worked thus far in our country....this whole democracy we have is still an experiment....no one said it was all perfect and wrapped up in a nice little package. Law makers intentionally or ignorantly leave loopholes in every statute. The astute, be they good or bad, will take advantage of it to make money.

and that source was ENCARTA. You may want to increase the font size on your monitor if your having trouble seeing my source. I never claimed to be an expert on free market principles so you now have a problem with me educating myself?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Your definition of what a free market is or is not is obviously incorrect. As I said, a free market does not mean lawlessness.

Yes, actually it does.

No, actually it doesn't.

Correct. It is inherently understood that some government regulation is required. Free market doesn't mean Barter Town.

 

[manifold]

Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.

Let me help you out with a very simple truism.

Laws = Restrictions on freedom

There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Apparently some of you are so caught up in the trees you've long lost sight of the forest.

Let me clear help you out with a very simple truism.

Laws = Restrictions on freedom

There's no getting around it. As soon as you pass one single law governing one single aspect of the marketplace, it's not longer a completely free market. That doesn't invalidate anything about free market ideology as I understand it, but denying the obvious is not a solid foundation upon which to build one's case.

Laws are not always restrictions on freedom. One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom. The same goes for fraud.

 

[manifold]

Laws are not always restrictions on freedom.

If the law is enforced it is... always.

One can't be free to commit murder so prosecuting murder is not a restriction on any freedom.

Murder is a legal term. Without laws, why wouldn't one be free to kill?

The same goes for fraud.

Completely false. Ever hear of caveat emptor (buyer beware)? That was the free market common law principle at work for quite some time before the government got involved "regulating."

In a completely free market, would drug companies need to get FDA approval to sell new drugs?

In a completely free market, would doctors be required to get a license to practice medicine?

In a completely free market, would I be allowed to build a nuclear power plant in my back yard?