What IS The Free Market

[dblack]

WalMart doesn't have that kind of power. They may support and benefit from welfare programs, but the legislatures that pass these laws are the responsible parties.

Wal-Mart shareholders acting through their board of directors have sole power to set wages for their 1.4 million US workers. If they chose to pay a living wage the taxpayers wouldn't need to provide $6.2 billion every year to Wal-Mart's labor force.

Taxpayers don't "need" to provide anything to their labor force. They're forced to do so by government, not Wal-Mart.

 

[georgephillip]

Walmart didn't choose the politicians sitting in Congress who approved Welfare and Medicaid.

Wal-Mart shareholders choose to pay Wal-Mart workers $6.2 billion a year less than the workers needed to support themselves and their families, so politicians were obligated to provide public assistance. If the rich weren't too greedy to pay a living wage, government wouldn't need to get involved.

 

[georgephillip]

Taxpayers don't "need" to provide anything to their labor force. They're forced to do so by government, not Wal-Mart.

Society has decided government needs to provide a safety net whenever capitalism proves either unwilling or incapable. Wal-Mart shareholders need to pay their workers a living wage so that US taxpayers aren't required to socialize Wal-Mart's costs while shareholders privatize the profit.

 

[bripat9643]

Walmart didn't choose the politicians sitting in Congress who approved Welfare and Medicaid.

Wal-Mart shareholders choose to pay Wal-Mart workers $6.2 billion a year less than the workers needed to support themselves and their families, so politicians were obligated to provide public assistance. If the rich weren't too greedy to pay a living wage, government wouldn't need to get involved.

Government doesn't need to get involved. If you're so concerned about them, then you and other liberals can setup a charity to boost their incomes to whatever level you care to pay for.

 

[dblack]

Taxpayers don't "need" to provide anything to their labor force. They're forced to do so by government, not Wal-Mart.

Society has decided government needs to provide a safety net whenever capitalism proves either unwilling or incapable. Wal-Mart shareholders need to pay their workers a living wage so that US taxpayers aren't required to socialize Wal-Mart's costs while shareholders privatize the profit.

That's "society's" call. If it's a problem, the solution is simple : prohibit any company from hiring someone on welfare.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxpayers don't "need" to provide anything to their labor force. They're forced to do so by government, not Wal-Mart.

Society has decided government needs to provide a safety net whenever capitalism proves either unwilling or incapable. Wal-Mart shareholders need to pay their workers a living wage so that US taxpayers aren't required to socialize Wal-Mart's costs while shareholders privatize the profit.

"Society?" You mean a small group of politicians decided it. I certainly never agreed to it. Walmart doesn't "need" to carry out the policies of the U.S. government to save it some money. Walmart is a private corporation that exists to serve the purposes of its owners, not yours and not the governments.

That's what you don't seem to get: corporations are not welfare agencies.

 

[georgephillip]

That's "society's" call. If it's a problem, the solution is simple : prohibit any company from hiring someone on welfare.

Why not bring back child labor and debtor's prison?

 

[dblack]

That's "society's" call. If it's a problem, the solution is simple : prohibit any company from hiring someone on welfare.

Why not bring back child labor and debtor's prison?

SOMALIA!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

That's "society's" call. If it's a problem, the solution is simple : prohibit any company from hiring someone on welfare.

Why not bring back child labor and debtor's prison?

The minimum wage is currently the law of the land, numskull.

 

[ralfy]

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

dear, the Fed Chairman is usually a college professor appointed by the president and approved by Congress and supported intellectually by most college economics professors.

The Fed is a private consortium controlled by commercial banks. It also operates independently of the government.

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

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

 

[ralfy]

The catch is that unequal power counters free markets.

How so? To be clear, I'm talking about economic power, not state power.

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

 

[ralfy]

Wal-Mart shareholders forced US taxpayers to subsidize Wal-Mart workers by means of food stamps, Medicaid premiums, and subsidized housing vouchers. Taxation is not voluntary in spite of what the investor class would have you believe.

Of course thats very very stupid and liberal . If that was true you could blame all the poverty and unemployment in the world on corporations for not hiring enough and paying enough.

Actually, that's also the opposite of "liberal," as investors ultimately rely on a growing market of consumers.

 

[dblack]

How so? To be clear, I'm talking about economic power, not state power.

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

All of them? Huh? What do you mean 'take over'?

take over - definition of take over by The Free Dictionary

Hence, deregulation from the '80s onward, increased military spending and profits from conflict while keeping the petrodollar propped up, bailouts, and consumer spending.

You can't have de-regulation without first having regulation. You're simply pointing out the very real dangers of government economic manipulation.

Free market capitalism requires regulation, as increasing complexities, the notion of private property, and other measures towards limited liability involves legal issues. That's why robber barons worked hand-in-hand with government. After that, industrialists and financiers take over, which is exactly what happened, starting with control of money supply by commercial banks, followed by deregulation leading to trillions of dollars in unregulated derivatives.

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. It doesn't require a government actively engaged in dictating our economic decisions.

 

[georgephillip]

The minimum wage is currently the law of the land, numskull.

And how does that relate to child labor and debtor's prisons?

 

[dblack]

Those who gain economic power through free markets eventually take over. Hence, robber barons followed by Wall Street and the Fed, etc.

dear, the Fed Chairman is usually a college professor appointed by the president and approved by Congress and supported intellectually by most college economics professors.

The Fed is a private consortium controlled by commercial banks. It also operates independently of the government.

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

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

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

 

[georgephillip]

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. I

Only property rights?
What about human rights?
Capitalism has a rich history of conflict between private property rights and social rights.

 

[dblack]

You're conflating regulation with law in general. Free market capitalism requires a stable legal framework regarding property rights. I

Only property rights?
What about human rights?
Capitalism has a rich history of conflict between private property rights and social rights.

Civilized society requires human rights. What are "social rights"?

 

[georgephillip]

Civilized society requires human rights. What are "social rights"?

Rights for humans who've organized into societies.
There are some human who believe their rights began and ended with civil and political guarantees. Others believe economic, social, and cultural rights are now on the table.

 

[regent]

Has America since the Washington administration ever had a free market economy?

 

[dblack]

Civilized society requires human rights. What are "social rights"?

Rights for humans who've organized into societies.
There are some human who believe their rights began and ended with civil and political guarantees. Others believe economic, social, and cultural rights are now on the table.

I also grabbed this from wikipedia:

Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economichuman rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to healthand the right to science and culture.

So, yeah. I'd agree with your assessment that these "rights" are often, if not always, in conflict with property rights. That's part of why I reject them as viable political rights.