What IS The Free Market

[regent]

I don't think it was Marx, but rather American politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated. But maybe we should start with: should government be allowed to regulate trucks used in business?

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

Of course he could. He wouldn't be the owner otherwise, would he? Is this where you start hyperventilating about how private roads are going to persecute black people and not allow them to use private roads?

Prohibiting blacks on the roads was not my goal, not much money there. Money is with corporations. My goal would be to see what deal I could make with corporations prohibiting other corporations trucks from using my roads. Roads could be the key to making monopolies. The roads would probably be regulated by state and federal governments.

Why would the owner of any road make such a deal? This sounds like the same "logic" used to justify net neutrality.

Money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Teddy Roosevelt and many others that decided that business should be regulated.

the issue is, regulated by communists or regulated by capitalists. Liberals are 100% stupid, lack the IQ to understand capitalism, and so always want more and more regulations. This makes them, in effect, communists.

and lets never forget that the liberal is a communist at heart who wants no end of govt interference in the free market to the point where the free market disappeares and becomes a communist market.

 

[bripat9643]

You can only answer that after you answer the question of whether government should build the roads. The answer is "no," it shouldn't be building roads. If roads were all privately owned, then the owners would decide what kind of trucks they would allow to use their property.

If roads were private property could an owner decide to close his roads whenever?
Could the owner only decide what vehicles could use his road?

Of course he could. He wouldn't be the owner otherwise, would he? Is this where you start hyperventilating about how private roads are going to persecute black people and not allow them to use private roads?

Prohibiting blacks on the roads was not my goal, not much money there. Money is with corporations. My goal would be to see what deal I could make with corporations prohibiting other corporations trucks from using my roads. Roads could be the key to making monopolies. The roads would probably be regulated by state and federal governments.

Why would the owner of any road make such a deal? This sounds like the same "logic" used to justify net neutrality.

Money.

He would make less money doing that.

 

[georgephillip]

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 @

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation? Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

and what economics lesson would one learn from that experience?

 

[georgephillip]

and what economics lesson would one learn from that experience?

Adam Smith's lesson about the vile maxim of the masters of mankind:all for ourselves and nothing for other people.
Education is Ignorance by Noam Chomsky Excerpted from Class Warfare

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and what economics lesson would one learn from that experience?

Adam Smith's lesson about the vile maxim of the masters of mankind:all for ourselves and nothing for other people.
Education is Ignorance by Noam Chomsky Excerpted from Class Warfare

dear, what was the lesson??? We don't take reading assignments from liberals.

 

[dblack]

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation?

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation?

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

it's Darwinian and liberals are anti science!!

 

[dblack]

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation?

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

it's Darwinian and liberals are anti science!!

Special Ed..... please.

 

[georgephillip]

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Markets are political creations. They can be under democratic control or oligarchic control. Town drunks are less of a threat to society than central bankers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At what point in human history were markets ever free of state guarantees, security, international law, labor control and regulation?

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Your video celebrates an economic system where power is allocated in an unequal and unstable manner yet, through the mythological invention of an "invisible hand", guarantees the "freedom" of those subjected to it. You need to spend a few years in a Nike sweat shop, or a Chinese graphite mine.

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic power unequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing.

it's Darwinian and liberals are anti science!!

Special Ed..... please.

" Free markets are decidedly about distributing economic powerunequally. They allow us to vest the power to direct labor and resources with those who provide us with the goods and services we want and need. It's hard to see that as an inherently bad thing."

 

[dblack]

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Markets are political creations. They can be under democratic control or oligarchic control. Town drunks are less of a threat to society than central bankers.

That doesn't answer the question, or address the point I was making. The entire point of economic freedom is to allow us to invest our energy and resources unequally, to focus them on projects that matter. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Freedom is always a matter of degree. At times they've been more free, at times less. Why do you ask?

Markets are political creations. They can be under democratic control or oligarchic control. Town drunks are less of a threat to society than central bankers.

dear, no one disagreed. Do you have any idea what point you are trying to make??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The entire point of economic freedom is to allow us to invest our energy and resources unequally, to focus them on projects that matter.

no, the point of freedom is to maintain consistency with natural law whether that results in equal or unequal investment.

 

[georgephillip]

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Wouldn't that depend on the morality of the prudent, thoughtful people? Elizabeth Warren or Ralph Nader would use their power to advance democratic control of markets while someone like Hank Paulson or Ken Lay would be inclined to use his power for the enrichment of a few at the expense of the majority.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Elizabeth Warren or Ralph Nader would use their power to advance democratic control of markets.

actually dear socialism killed 120 million through slow starvation.

 

[dblack]

I didn't watch the video, but would you really want an economic system where power was allocated equally? Where the town drunk had just as much say in what we all do for a living as more prudent, thoughtful people?

Wouldn't that depend on the morality of the prudent, thoughtful people?

Exactly. You want the people who do the things you value to have more money, more economic power, right? A free market makes it possible for each of us to do that. It allows us to invest our money freely, as individuals, according to our own values and priorities.

Elizabeth Warren or Ralph Nader would use their power to advance democratic control of markets

Let's be clear. Democratic control of markets is what I'm arguing against. I see no reason why the majority should dictate individual economic decisions.

 

[georgephillip]

The entire point of economic freedom is to allow us to invest our energy and resources unequally, to focus them on projects that matter.

If your economic freedom to invest unequally is limited to markets operated like casinos, what point are you trying to make?

 

[dblack]

The entire point of economic freedom is to allow us to invest our energy and resources unequally, to focus them on projects that matter.

If your economic freedom to invest unequally is limited to markets operated like casinos, what point are you trying to make?

What do you mean? I think we should each be free to spend our money how we like, on the things we value. I don't see what that has to do with casinos.