CDZ What are you worth?

[NCC1701]

Nonsense. You are making an excuse for government control over free markets. No one is being forced to participate in a free market capitalist exchange. It is a perfectly natural and self-sufficient condition... I have something you need-- you have something I need... we trade voluntarily.

To bad there is no free trade in common sense. You could get some. But crony capitalists have taken all the available common sense from your market and left you living in la la land.

You ever figure out the difference between "how" and "what"?

Remember this is the CDZ forum. No ad homs here.

I answered your question here: CDZ - What are you worth?

I am retired, so 0 minutes a week. this is not a useful flight of fancy here, please get back to real work and pay your taxes

 

[320 Years of History]

Here again, though you've taken on an economic/business topic, I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you do have a decent sense of some narrowly focused aspects of it, but the full picture seems to have escaped you.

When you introduce government telling me what I can trade or how much I can charge or what you can buy or how much you can pay... that is interference with free market capitalism which destroys it.

what I can trade

There is one general category of goods/services where there is a need for an organization, in the U.S. that organization is the government, to control in what goods and services interested parties may trade. It does so, and should, as part of its duty to promote the general well being and tranquility of the citizenry.

Should one be permitted to trade freely in hazardous goods? Let's say one is a producer of viri/bacteria which one makes available to organizations that study them, develop cures/vaccines for them, and so on.

• Should there be no organization that, for the rest of our sakes, makes sure one doesn't sell/barter virus/bacterial cultures to unsavory groups or individuals and that such individuals/groups aren't permitted to buy them, or that makes it very, very difficult for them to do so?

Aside from hazardous materials and activities, in what does the government stipulate what one may trade?

how much I can charge

There are situations where it is essential for some disinterested organization to define what one can charge for a given good or service.

Scenario 1:
Let's say that one is in the business of providing potable water. To do so one must install the infrastructure to obtain the water and distribute it to customers. The economics of doing so make it unprofitable for multiple providers to do so within the same geographic area. As a result the provider is a monopolist (not a monopolistic competitor).

• Insofar as water is essential, should no organization place reasonable limits on how much the water monopoly may charge for water? Of course, were the provider to charge $10/gallon for water, a lot fewer folks would buy it, but then there are a lot of things those non-buyers would also simply not do because the cost of the water needed to do it is too high.

Scenario 2:
Let's say what you have to sell is your own physical and/or mental labor. Minimum wage laws define a minimum price at which one can sell one's labor. They do not define a maximum selling price. Do you take exception with there being a minimum amount for which a person may sell their efforts?

I know some folks have a problem with that for they are roiled over the fact that some people outside the U.S., for example, are willing to sell their efforts for less than are U.S. workers. Of course, many of those very same people are unwilling to accept work that pays only the minimum sum at which they are allowed to sell their efforts.

Scenario 3:
Let's say what one sells is the medium of exchange. There are some state laws that define a maximum price such sellers can charge. Outside of that, I'm not aware of any laws that define a maximum or minimum selling price for money.

what you can buy or how much [a buyer] can pay

There is one regulation on how much a consumer can offer to pay for any good or service. That one regulation is the minimum wage.​

There is literally no need for the government to "organize" anything.

As the examples above show, you are just wrong, wrong in terms of the economics and/or ethics of competitive business situations as well as non-competitive ones. I'm sure you have some specific circumstance in mind, and you likely understand that one situation well, but the bigger picture, you don't, yet the "big picture" is what this discussion with me is about. That is why I wrote at the beginning of this post that it seems you really don't know fully what you are talking about as goes this line of discussion. Indeed, you have broached the topic of the ills of unvarnished capitalism and free trade, yet you've not even offered ideas of how to resolve the ills of either. Heck, it's not even clear that you recognize there being downsides to either.

• Negative Effects of Free Trade
  
• Pros and cons of capitalism | Economics Help

 

[Boss]

Should one be permitted to trade freely in hazardous goods?

Okay, so here is what you're doing... I say that government interfering with what free market capitalists can trade destroys free market capitalism and you run to an "extreme" example and scream "hazardous goods!" You see, you're taking me completely out of context to try and make your point. Certainly, there are times when we rely on government to ensure the public safety as that is government's first and foremost duty. That is NOT what I meant.... Should the government mandate that you cannot produce or purchase incandescent light bulbs? Should they limit your options on toilets to the "low flow" style? Some would argue they should because it falls under "general welfare" but it really doesn't because we've gotten the wrong interpretation of "general welfare"... it simply means the assorted list of enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, according to the man who wrote it. There is nothing in the constitution about "ensuring tranquility" of the people. That's pablum.

Here again, though you've taken on an economic/business topic, I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you do have a decent sense of some narrowly focused aspects of it, but the full picture seems to have escaped you.

That's really amusing since I have a degree in business and have been a practicing businessman for 40 years. I certainly DO understand the full picture, you're simply misconstruing what we are arguing here. Free market capitalism is not free market if the government is controlling it. Does that mean we should never have any government control over free markets? NO! And that's never been what I said. We certainly need various government constraints on free market capitalists but you can't turn around and say those constraints are fundamental to free market capitalism. It's like claiming the seat belts are vital to the performance of your sports car. That's not claiming your sports car doesn't need seat belts to make that point. And because it may be pragmatic to mandate your sports car has seat belts it doesn't follow that we should mandate lead anchors be tied to your bumper as well.

Your "organization" argument is noted but again, it is not fundamental to free market capitalism. It is a mechanism to ensure certain things don't happen as the result of free market capitalism, it doesn't "enhance" it in any way. In many cases it fundamentally restricts it and prevents it.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's really amusing since I have a degree in business and have been a practicing businessman for 40 years.

There're a lot of lucky people in the world, and all of them find the humor in their good fortune.

 

[Boss]

There're a lot of lucky people in the world, and all of them find the humor in their good fortune.

I don't believe in luck... you make your own fortune. If I didn't know business and economics I could have never been as successful as I've been. I don't need your validation or anyone else's validation for that matter.

 

[320 Years of History]

Everyone is well aware of the "pros" of free market capitalism; there's no disagreement about them and how "wonderful" they are and are to enjoy. Still, you have yet to address how to mitigate the downsides of laissez faire capitalism without a government's involvement. And yet those downsides are what you or anyone else advocating free trade on a national or international level must address in order to be credible and have their ideas duly considered as having some sort of merit.

I want to be clear here. I don't oppose free trade. I'm all for it. Take a look at most posts about free trade and you'll see that I also address the matter of the downsides of it. You or others may not like the solution proposals I have offered, but I offer some and the ones I've presented will work, even if some folks may not like how they work.

Okay, so here is what you're doing... I say that government interfering with what free market capitalists can trade destroys free market capitalism and you run to an "extreme" example and scream "hazardous goods!" You see, you're taking me completely out of context to try and make your point. Certainly, there are times when we rely on government to ensure the public safety as that is government's first and foremost duty. That is NOT what I meant....

No, actually, I'm not. What I did was illustrate that your broadly offered statement in the prior post and in several before doesn't take into consideration that in order for free market capitalism to occur, there still needs to be government intervention for it to do so on national and international scales.

You rebuke me for having used the hazardous materials example, which you described as extreme. While there are extreme examples within the hazardous materials trade, the pathogen one being among them, look at the oversimplified illustration you provided -- one that's tantamount to 10 year olds selling lemonade from their driveways and folks having yard sales -- and provided with not the least bit of acknowledgement the complexities that exist in selling things that are more complicated and in selling situations that are more complicated.

Your post to which I most recently replied is not the only one in which you have made these broad sweeping statements and given no voice to the fact that things aren't anywhere near as simple or simplistic as you're making them out to be. What might be one of those more complicated examples that also doesn't involve, say, hazardous materials? Oh, how about making and trying to profit by selling in the market anything for which you think you have property rights? Who other than government do you think will ensure you (1) have any intellectual property rights, and (2) give you a venue in which to defend them? What do you want to do, challenge every usurper to a duel or some other less gentlemanly form of dispute settlement?


You asked me to elaborate on why free trade cannot exist in a state of anarchy. I provided you with lots of content that explains why. Your response was to restate that the exercise free trade doesn't require an organization to keep it happening and you stand on this idea that "free market capitalism" doesn't need government to make it work effectively. The laws of economics don't need a government to make them function effectively, efficiently and fairly, but the exercise of economically profitable behavior, business practice overall and on the scale of nation states, does.

Should the government mandate that you cannot produce or purchase incandescent light bulbs? Should they limit your options on toilets to the "low flow" style?

It sure should if "I" am producing them using "your" proprietary process/design and "I'm" not compensating "you" for it.

There is nothing in the constitution about "ensuring tranquility" of the people. That's pablum.

Excuse me? The one part of the Constitution that third graders know by heart and you are completely unaware of it?.

​

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

Did you completely forget that the Preamble's sole purpose is to identify why all that follows it the Constitution is there at all? Were the founders, in your mind, referring to the insurance industry? LOL I'm quite sure they were not. "Ensuring tranquility" is one of the purposes for quite a few of the document's provisions.

Organizationally, this is how the Constitution is structured:

• Constitution
  • Preamble -- Broad goals and the reason for having them and the document itself
  • Articles and Amendments -- Specific means for accomplishing one or more of the broad goals noted in the Preamble.

 

[Boss]

No, actually, I'm not. What I did was illustrate that your broadly offered statement in the prior post and in several before doesn't take into consideration that in order for free market capitalism to occur, there still needs to be government intervention for it to do so on national and international scales.

No, there doesn't need to be. Free market capitalism can happen regardless of government intervention... that is what free market capitalism is. If you wish to say free market capitalism needs common sense oversight to ensure public safety and fair trade, I agree. Again, it's like the analogy of the sports car having seat belts. The seat belts have absolutely nothing to do with the performance or sportiness of the car but they are a good idea to have for safety. Because seat belts are a good idea for safety doesn't mean attaching anchors to the bumper are also a good idea. One is reasonable and one is a step too far... neither have a damn thing to do with the performance itself.

Your post to which I most recently replied is not the only one in which you have made these broad sweeping statements and given no voice to the fact that things aren't anywhere near as simple or simplistic as you're making them out to be.

That's because free market capitalism is not complicated. It's very simple. I have something you need and want, you have something I need and want... we agree to voluntarily trade! There is no need for anyone else to be involved in that. As long as it's voluntary and we're both getting what we want and need, what is the problem?

You asked me to elaborate on why free trade cannot exist in a state of anarchy.

No I didn't. I said you'd need to expound on what you meant by introducing "anarchy" into the discussion when it has nothing to do with free market capitalism. We don't live in anarchy... it's a strawman.

It sure should if "I" am producing them using "your" proprietary process/design and "I'm" not compensating "you" for it.

Point is flying comfortably over your head. The government outlawing incandescent bulbs or mandating low-flow toilets has nothing to do with unfair or unethical trade practices.

Excuse me? The one part of the Constitution that third graders know by heart and you are completely unaware of it?.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It says nothing about ensuring individual tranquility.

 

[Wilbur Right]

It says nothing about ensuring individual tranquility.

Domestic tranquility doesn't include individuals eh? You are an idiot. Who is the term "domestic tranquility" referring to? It's Indians right. We were making America more tranquil for Indians.
I knew you would figure out some Bullshit, incorrect response.
LMAO

You ever figure out the difference between the words "how" and "what"?

As in you take you car to mechanic and he tells you "what" is wrong with your car. The transmission has failed. And you ask "how" to fix your bad transmission. And your mechanic tells you again "what" is wrong but you want to know "how" to fix it.

After a short time you figure out the mechanic doesn't know how to fix your car just like you bossy don't know how to fix our pitiful government. But you both figured out what is wrong. You just can't say how to fix it.

 

[sparky]

I'm worth what the market can bear.

Unfortunately , said 'market' isn't something i (et all worker ants) have any control of

We live in a bubble economy , dictated by many factors , few of which we have little influence of at all of

Thus, i find this older quote somewhat fitting >>>>

Each country has its own ruling class. In capitalist countries, the rulers own the means of production and employ workers. The capitalist class is also called the bourgeoisie. Means of production are what it takes to produce goods. Raw materials, satellite networks, machinery, ships and factories are examples. Workers own nothing but their ability to sell their labor for a wage.

~S~

 

[Boss]

Domestic tranquility doesn't include individuals eh? You are an idiot.

This is CDZ and insults are not permitted here. Next offense and you will be reported.

No... "insure domestic tranquility" does not mean "ensure the tranquility of all individuals."

"Domestic" means "inside the country." In other words, it means to provide national security and keep the general peace within the country. It has nothing to do with individuals.

As for your how/what question, it has been answered twice already. Again, if you want to continue to troll and harass in a CDZ thread, expect reprimand from a moderator because I will not tolerate this. Intelligent conversation... OR... Move along. Your choice.

 

[dblack]

What am I worth? Everything.

What is the labor I perform worth? It depends on who's buying.

 

[320 Years of History]

It says nothing about ensuring individual tranquility.

I truly have no idea why you thought I might at all be referring to individual, singular quietude. ??? Well, that's not entirely true. I have an idea, but if it's so, I'm insulted you thought I might have been making such an absurd reference; thus I'm going to ignore it for the time being.

No, of course there's no aim to provide for peace or peace of mind on a by-person basis/level; the goal is to establish conditions whereby individuals collectively exist in peace. Power, race, money -- they all figure into the calculus of calamity -- in the course of capitalism's history in the U.S. has on multiple occasions led to disquietude among the polity. From slavery and the Civil War to the ravages of the Gilded Age, the U.S. was roiled by a chain of crises bourne of the excesses of economic trade.

One could call the current state of the union "The Great Partitioning," and tranquil it isn't when a major party's nominee advocates punching people. The country has been split along regional lines, Blue States vs. Red States, in a highly polarized political environment. It was largely the same in the 19th century, and it was abetted by the thing some observers assumed would do the opposite: advances in technology, such as the telegraph, that made mass communication possible. Things that had been remote suddenly became more real. People began to have a more visceral reaction to developments such as the interstate slave trade, because it was no longer so abstract. It was common to read about it and to hear first-hand accounts about it.

The economy played a major role in the country’s disquiet in much of the 19th century. American-style laissez faire capitalism then led to a deep inequality that became more visible as the country became more connected. It’s a period of immense economic change before the Civil War and a period of intense economic change now. One could argue that as economic change accelerates, it deepens anxieties and those anxieties feed into partisanship.

What is that but a reduction in tranquility?

What was happening in the late 19th century was that people up and down the population hierarchy, from the poor to the wealthy, were all seeing the serious problems of trying to run a country by relying largely on unregulated competition, laissez faire.

Before the Civil War, the economics of slavery played a big part in the country’s anxiety about inequality. The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln were opposed to slavery not just on moral grounds, but also on the dangers it posed the nation. They saw slaveholders as aristocrats who could control the nation’s politics -- thereby making the country pro-slavery. The Republican party was only against the spread of slavery -- the party promised not to touch slavery where it already existed -- but even that was too much for Southerners to bear.

That fear of a spreading slave economy played out amid rising inequality in the North. With land in the West plentiful, ordinary white Americans could have their own land. An expansion of slavery, though, threatened that opportunity to level the economic field. The idea was that one might start off working for somebody else, but then one would save money and be able to go to the West and own farm or a shop. But if that land is already claimed by slaveholders and large plantations, then that model doesn’t work.

And where did the free trade in slaves get us? We both know "tranquility base" isn't the place. Among the lessons of the economics of slavery is that government has a role in managing trade so as to maintain tranquility. If not government, what other organization is going to do it on the scale needed?

Free market capitalism can happen regardless of government intervention...

Point is flying comfortably over your head. The government outlawing incandescent bulbs or mandating low-flow toilets has nothing to do with unfair or unethical trade practices.

The point isn't flying over my head. The point you may think you are making is one you've not made, and yet if it's the point I think you intend even though you've not clearly stated it, it's a point with which I agree.

• I suspect the point you are attempting to make is that we'd all be better off were governments to refrain from implementing obstructions to trade: tariffs, quotas (price or quantity ceilings or floors), subsidies/preferences and embargos. In short, I suspect the point you want to make is that trade should and can exist without protectionist policies, barriers to trade. When it does, it is "free trade."
• What you've been saying repeatedly is that free trade doesn't need government action in order for it to happen.

In the main, I agree that most barriers to trade should be abolished; however, some of them rightly exist. The barrier to trade in living persons (perhaps the only instance for which I consider morality as providing a singularly strong enough reason to impede trade), IMO, is appropriate. Ditto the hazardous materials barriers I mentioned earlier. I think the price floor established for labor, though it poses a bit of a quandary for me, is basically appropriate too.

Insofar as I see those barriers to trade as rightly existing, I see no better suited organization to implement and enforce them than government. Were the noted barriers to trade not in place, we would be at risk of having no or drastically less trade, free or otherwise. Sure, we could dispense with the barriers I noted above, and, yes, some trade (free) would occur, and both parties to the deal would be satisfied. But for how long will that exchange occur before one or several groups of stakeholders to the deal destroy the tranquility that makes the exchange executable? Without government, not long at all.

At the transaction level, no, most free trade doesn't inherently need government to be involved. But let's be real here. "Free trade" discussions and policy aren't generally about individual transactions, even though in some circumstances the conversation/decisions unavoidably flow down to the transaction level; they are about an overall climate that facilitates the transactions. Government is needed to establish and ensure that climate's existence and durability.

No I didn't. I said you'd need to expound on what you meant by introducing "anarchy" into the discussion when it has nothing to do with free market capitalism. We don't live in anarchy... it's a strawman.

You think I introduced a strawman. I did not. As I've stated just above, where no government maintains the "playing field," the economic climate if you will, free trade, though it may happen for a time, won't endure. If it won't endure, what's the point? A handful of parties will gain from the handful of transactions they conduct and then "the game's over." That's why I mentioned anarchy. Does anarchy have expressly to do with free trade? No, but in an anarchic environment, there is no persistent free trade either; something is going to come along and kill the "goose that laid the golden egg," the "goose" being free trade.

Free market capitalism can happen regardless of government intervention... that is what free market capitalism is. If you wish to say free market capitalism needs common sense oversight to ensure public safety and fair trade, I agree.

I had hoped you, as I, aren't aiming to make a purely academic point that free trade can happen without governmental involvement. Yes, it can. That it can isn't terribly relevant if it also doesn't persist.

• Can a carpenter or electrician do their work without being managed by a supervisor? Sure, but to what end and for how long will they do so efficiently as well as effectively?
• Can a shop of workers build "whatever" without being managed by a line manager, say? Yes, but to what end and for how long will they do so efficiently as well as effectively?
• Can an assortment of companies exchange their goods/services without the business environment being managed by government? Yes, and though we know to what end, the temporal and qualitative dimensions are short lived if there is no disinterested organization managing the business environment to make it possible for them to continue.

The government is the manager of the business environment in which free trade takes place. No well managed overall business environment, think of it as no stable playing field and no agreed upon rules by which the game is played, and there will be no free trade.

 

[sparky]

Agreed the government holds the reins of business 320, yet the bourgeoisie hold the reins on it .

The 'rules' of free trade may sound good, yet they are entirely engineered towards assuming the disparity we're living ,ergo they are often called 'free traitors'

Proof you say? Well it's all around us , for starters>>>>



~S~

 

[dblack]

Agreed the government holds the reins of business 320, yet the bourgeoisie hold the reins on it .

The 'rules' of free trade may sound good, yet they are entirely engineered towards assuming the disparity we're living ,ergo they are often called 'free traitors'

Proof you say? Well it's all around us , for starters>>>>



~S~

Yeah. Let's give the police the power to tell us how to earn a living. Great idea.

I can't breathe.

 

[sparky]

Police are mere minions of the elites dblack, the only authority they wield is that which they are given by them

~S~

 

[dblack]

Police are mere minions of the elites dblack, the only authority they wield is that which they are given by them

~S~

Right. Which makes me wonder why people want to give them power over our economic decisions.

 

[Boss]

In the main, I agree that most barriers to trade should be abolished; however, some of them rightly exist.

Rather than go through your entire post addressing numerous things I could challenge, I want to instead focus on this statement. In the main, we are closer together in thought than the thread would indicate, we both believe there should be some barriers but we disagree on the degree. If you go back to where I first started talking about free market capitalism in this thread, you will find that I articulated the combination of free market capitalism with a constitution and freedom of enterprise as being the greatest system man has ever devised. A system is an organized set of things which work together for a common purpose.

The problem is, whenever you concede to a Marxist that free markets should have some degree of constraint, you may as well be digging the grave for free market capitalism. They can always find a reason why one aspect or another needs oversight, needs government regulating it to make it "more fair" or whatever. You improve the effect of free market capitalism by removing barriers and constraints, not applying more. Small businesses in America are being stifled by ever-increasing government mandates and restrictions. Free market capitalists are literally being choked to death out of a total indifference between free market and corporatism.

This explains why, whenever I get into a debate on free market capitalism, I take a very hard line stand. There is nothing wrong with free market capitalism, it's not flawed and it's not that it doesn't work. To the degree we need and have constraints, it is to protect other fundamental constitutional rights of individuals. For instance, if there were a particular variety of lemon known to cause cancer, it would be beneficial for government to disallow free market capitalist lemonade stand operators to use that variety of lemon. Those types of constraints, I have no problem with... but fundamentally, free market capitalism works with or without them.

 

[sparky]

Wall street broke capitalism in '08 Boss. It was an easy bubble to predict , with roots hailing back to the rescinding of Glass Steagal during the Clinton era , just took 20 years to 'pop'...

They further granted the chair of the Banking commission to it's biggest proponent, Barney Frank

There are more examples, but this most recent one should easily express capitalism as an animal that eats itself.

Proof?

$70 B wall st, $38B Big Oil, 2T stashed offshore avioding taxation, $153B Walmart & McD worker ants,$813B military annual subsidization(s)

THAT is where 'free trade' got us.....

~S~

 

[Boss]

Wall street broke capitalism in '08 Boss. It was an easy bubble to predict , with roots hailing back to the rescinding of Glass Steagal during the Clinton era , just took 20 years to 'pop'...

They further granted the chair of the Banking commission to it's biggest proponent, Barney Frank

There are more examples, but this most recent one should easily express capitalism as an animal that eats itself.

Proof?

$70 B wall st, $38B Big Oil, 2T stashed offshore avioding taxation, $153B Walmart & McD worker ants,$813B military annual subsidization(s)

THAT is where 'free trade' got us.....

~S~

Well, no sparky... you're simply burping up propaganda put out by Marxists who seek to destroy Capitalism so they can implement Marxist Socialism.

First of all, "Wall Street" is a place. It is the financial district in New York City where stocks are exchanged daily as a part of our capitalist system. Most working Americans have 401ks which are tied to stocks being traded there. Thousands of American companies live and die, hire and fire, based on what happens there. So to just point your finger at "Wall Street" and blame it for all our problems is simply showing a profound lack of understanding in how our economic system works. The same can be said for any particular piece of legislation or even any particular political leader or administration. ALL of your "bubble bursts" come as a direct result of government interfering with free market capitalist mechanics. With true free market capitalism, the laws of supply and demand along with free enterprise competition, forces the markets to adjust and avoid any kind of artificial bubble... no bubble, no bubble burst. The problems occur when we get AWAY from free market principles and rely on government meddling. Politicians lack the financial wisdom to comprehend the ramifications and consequences of their policies.

Another thing you seem to be doing is calling out Big Conglomerate CORPORATISTS. These are NOT free market capitalists. Certain corporations and industries have very powerful lobbies in Washington, where they buy political influence in order to leverage an advantage over their competitors.... that is NOT free market capitalism, and is actually a bigger threat to free market capitalism than Marxist Socialism. But the Marxist is more than happy to exploit Corporatism in order to prop up the myth that Capitalism is failing you. What is failing you is Big Government in collusion with Corporatists implementing policies that destroy free market trade.

 

[320 Years of History]

In the main, I agree that most barriers to trade should be abolished; however, some of them rightly exist.

Rather than go through your entire post addressing numerous things I could challenge, I want to instead focus on this statement. In the main, we are closer together in thought than the thread would indicate, we both believe there should be some barriers but we disagree on the degree. If you go back to where I first started talking about free market capitalism in this thread, you will find that I articulated the combination of free market capitalism with a constitution and freedom of enterprise as being the greatest system man has ever devised. A system is an organized set of things which work together for a common purpose.

The problem is, whenever you concede to a Marxist that free markets should have some degree of constraint, you may as well be digging the grave for free market capitalism. They can always find a reason why one aspect or another needs oversight, needs government regulating it to make it "more fair" or whatever. You improve the effect of free market capitalism by removing barriers and constraints, not applying more. Small businesses in America are being stifled by ever-increasing government mandates and restrictions. Free market capitalists are literally being choked to death out of a total indifference between free market and corporatism.

This explains why, whenever I get into a debate on free market capitalism, I take a very hard line stand. There is nothing wrong with free market capitalism, it's not flawed and it's not that it doesn't work. To the degree we need and have constraints, it is to protect other fundamental constitutional rights of individuals. For instance, if there were a particular variety of lemon known to cause cancer, it would be beneficial for government to disallow free market capitalist lemonade stand operators to use that variety of lemon. Those types of constraints, I have no problem with... but fundamentally, free market capitalism works with or without them.

Red:
I recognize that we in overall agreement about the merits of free trade and capitalism over those of constrained trade and non-capitalism. I think we agree that laissez faire capitalism (including the free trade aspect of it) has some serious downsides. I think too that you know as well as I and every economist on the planet that taking a system to ever greater degrees of laissez fair-ness does not overcome those ills, it exacerbates them. If, however, you don't think that to be so, than please explain (or refer to credible documents/theories that do) just how moving to ever more unrestrained trade/capitalism can be shown/expected to mitigate the downsides of unrestrained capitalism/trade.