Why Do Liberals Hate the Free Market?

[red states rule]

Why do so many liberals see the free market ( i.e. capitalism) as evil?

The free market got rid of major diseases that plauged humanity for centuries

The free market has raised the standard of living around the world

The free market allows people with little means to attain great amounts of wealth

The free market gave the US the best education system in the world before government got involved

The free market is an excellent system which allows the people able to please the greatest number of people with products and services succeed.


Yet liberals want the government to micromanage the free market and make government the answer to all problems

 

[William Joyce]

Why do so many liberals see the free market ( i.e. capitalism) as evil?

The free market got rid of major diseases that plauged humanity for centuries

The free market has raised the standard of living around the world

The free market allows people with little means to attain great amounts of wealth

The free market gave the US the best education system in the world before government got involved

The free market is an excellent system which allows the people able to please the greatest number of people with products and services succeed.


Yet liberals want the government to micromanage the free market and make government the answer to all problems

Because when free markets are operating, they expose human differences in ability that liberals can't abide. Some will get richer because they're smarter and harder-working. Liberals hate that idea.

 

[LOki]

Because when free markets are operating, they expose human differences in ability that liberals can't abide. Some will get richer because they're smarter and harder-working. Liberals hate that idea.

I think you're referring to leftists. Liberals can embrace free markets just a easily (maybe moreso) than conservatives, but leftists demand that excellence be forcefully handicapped and incompetence be forcefully promomoted to establish a "fairness" whose primary characteristic is mediocracy. Pointing this out is not ignoring that rightists have their own notions of "fairness" enforced at gunpoint to promote their notions hereditary and "might makes right" notions of social stratification--they're not too keen on free markets either.

The reason, I think, that some folks oppose free markets is that free markets endorse the notion that human beings are not entitled, by need, by force, by group membership, or by heredity, to make other human beings the means to their own ends.

 

[Hamiltonian]

I know, why don't we privatize the military? If we create a free market for mercenaries, then free market competition between competing firms will lower the cost of maintaining a military, and lower the wage for soldiers to cut down on costs. We will also have less bureaucracy to deal with, and less corruption. Those liberals should be for privatizing the military. Maybe then if they thought it was more affordable they wouldn't be so insistent on cutting and running.

 

[Gurdari]

What country has a free market? Most countries I know of have some sort of subsidy for certain industries... also, the things most fundamental in a nation are dealt with in a socialist manner. Why would that be if free-market capitalist style was superior?

Maybe there will be a truly socialist nation someday we could use as an example, or for that matter, a truly capitalist nation for an example, until then, we only have rough approximations of each economic model...

 

[gabosaurus]

What free market? Our market is dominated by profit hungry multi-national corporation who gladly ship jobs overseas rather than pay prevailing wages to American workers.

 

[Gurdari]

Because when free markets are operating, they expose human differences in ability that liberals can't abide. Some will get richer because they're smarter and harder-working. Liberals hate that idea.

So you don't believe wealth should be passed down from 'smart, hard-working parents'? I guess that would allow some to be rich even if they didn't earn it by being smart and hardworking.
Not sure the scope of your definition of liberal, but if I qualify then I disagree - I do NOT hate differences in human ability or think hardwork and smarts should go unrewarded, or that we should pay people the same if they are lazy assholes as we would ambitious champions. But when one group exerts more influence then others and its not because of IQ but becuase of priviledge unearned... well that just sounds to me like propping up lazy assholes...

 

[Gurdari]

What free market? Our market is dominated by profit hungry multi-national corporation who gladly ship jobs overseas rather than pay prevailing wages to American workers.

Actually - that does seem free-market to me. Freedom to have your workforce anywhere, to sell goods anywhere... agree or disagree with the ethics, outsourcing is pure capitalism and those that are true capitalists embrace it.
Perhaps some should think about the purpose of 'business' in the first place, if it only exists to serve humanity and make life better, then a certain trajectory of strategy would mold laws/regulations/rewards to that end. If the goal is just one-upmanship, and infighting... well.... we should carry on.

 

[Vintij]

America will never be a command economy. The free market is crucial because we have the most consumers in the world, and to keep that economy strong we need demand for product without coersion. I wouldnt trust the government with any authority over that, especially right now. BUT, i dont agree with the sky rocketing gas profits of the past 3 years. A free market is a market without force, but i feel like the gas companys lie about the supply and hike up the prices because we are FORCED to buy gas to fuel our cars and go about our buisness. We know there is plenty of oil in the world, no need to raise gas prices and pretend the supply is low while posting up record profits in back to back years, that is a command market! Not a free market. Other than that i like the way the US free market makes money off of trend and the sheep/consumerists who buy in. Its kinda funny.

 

[JeffWartman]

What free market? Our market is dominated by profit hungry multi-national corporation who gladly ship jobs overseas rather than pay prevailing wages to American workers.

Those "profit hungry multi-national corporations" are responsible for the lowest unemployment rate in years.

 

[LOki]

I know, why don't we privatize the military? If we create a free market for mercenaries, then free market competition between competing firms will lower the cost of maintaining a military, and lower the wage for soldiers to cut down on costs. We will also have less bureaucracy to deal with, and less corruption. Those liberals should be for privatizing the military. Maybe then if they thought it was more affordable they wouldn't be so insistent on cutting and running.

Use of force is the legitimate purview of government. Abdicating that jurisdiction to the free market is essentially corporatism, which makes the notion of free market impossible.

What country has a free market? Most countries I know of have some sort of subsidy for certain industries... also, the things most fundamental in a nation are dealt with in a socialist manner. Why would that be if free-market capitalist style was superior?

Examples? You know, so there can be a sensible response.

Maybe there will be a truly socialist nation someday we could use as an example, or for that matter, a truly capitalist nation for an example, until then, we only have rough approximations of each economic model...

Well, for Socialism look at the former USSR, look at China; they were/are pretty much purely Socialist--particularly in their domestic economies. For Free-Market Capitialism, you can look to the US prior to the Federal Reserve, the Sherman Act, and all those state created transportation and mineral monopolies--I'll admit that it wasn't so terribly "pure" since the government was still preferentially doling out land to well connected speculators in an effort to expand West, but it was pretty close to pure Free-market Capitalism.

What free market? Our market is dominated by profit hungry multi-national corporation who gladly ship jobs overseas rather than pay prevailing wages to American workers.

If your complaint is "...gladly ship jobs overseas...", the cause is government mandated "...prevailing wages...".

 

[red states rule]

Those "profit hungry multi-national corporations" are responsible for the lowest unemployment rate in years.

According to the liberal media the US is only two days awasy from another Depresion

It must really drive libs nuts to see a growing and strong economy (because of tax cuts) withstand everything the markets can dish out

 

[Hamiltonian]

Use of force is the legitimate purview of government. Abdicating that jurisdiction to the free market is essentially corporatism, which makes the notion of free market impossible.

Well isn't that unfortunate, since the free market results in corporatism and natural monopolies. I guess then the free market is impossible .

What you're saying seems a bit odd. Who says the government must "abdicate their jurisdiction." They don't abdicate their jurisdiction anymore than they do when privatizing any sector, and there is no need for a monolithic corporation to handle the military.

 

[LOki]

Well isn't that unfortunate, since the free market results in corporatism and natural monopolies. I guess then the free market is impossible .

You should be aware that I am aware that "free market" and "corporatism" are terms with actual meanings.

Free Markets do not result in corporatism unless corporations are allowed to engage in the exercise of force in the market, in which case the market then stops being a Free Market.

What you're saying seems a bit odd. Who says the government must "abdicate their jurisdiction."

You say.

They don't abdicate their jurisdiction anymore than they do when privatizing any sector, and there is no need for a monolithic corporation to handle the military.

I might suggest that there are a number of reasons that excersises of military force should not be determined by the profit motives of shareholders. I would also suggest that the nature of human rights (self defense being the one in question) is such that they cannot be legitimately sold or traded.

 

[Gurdari]

Those "profit hungry multi-national corporations" are responsible for the lowest unemployment rate in years.

I said outsourcing is pure capitalism. Freedom to have workers wherever its profitable, and sell goods wherever its profitable.

Not sure if you agree or disagree... but regardless, I bet those profit hungry* corps as you called them are responsible for the lower unemplyment rate.

*(isn't profit the goal? why act as if its a left conspiracy that corporations are after market share and profit?)

But, I also those same corporations are aware of the benefit to them of having temp, or transitional work forces... so someone may no longer be unemployed... but the job isn't what jobs were thirty years ago, or what they need to be now if someone wanted to have just one... but hey, why not avoid benefits, over time pay, all the rest if can? Makes perfect sense and is not the least bit illegal.

 

[Bern80]

What free market? Our market is dominated by profit hungry multi-national corporation who gladly ship jobs overseas rather than pay prevailing wages to American workers.

Nice text book definition of the free-market there Gabby

 

[red states rule]

Nice text book definition of the free-market there Gabby

The free market in Russia perhaps

 

[Gurdari]

Examples? You know, so there can be a sensible response.

Well, for Socialism look at the former USSR, look at China; they were/are pretty much purely Socialist--particularly in their domestic economies. For Free-Market Capitialism, you can look to the US in the past (edited by Gurdari)...but it was pretty close to pure Free-market Capitalism.

Socialism or communism as I understand them mean we all have an equal right to affect the outcome of the nation, and China (a commie country with millionaires???) and Russia (secret police?) are poor examples of socialism and GREAT examples of tyranny. Even Cuba, which has some amazing elements also has many reidicous ones ( no press freedom, etc).

Examples of subsidy? Canada's subsidies for agriculture, US subsidies for defense corporations, subsidies for auto industry... is that waht you asked for?


And, as I state everywhere, the most important things are usually dealt with in a socialist manner... the things we can't live without. Why is that?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Once more, you paint with an overly broad brush. You really don't know what liberals think, nor do you care

Why do so many liberals see the free market ( i.e. capitalism) as evil?

The free market got rid of major diseases that plauged humanity for centuries

The free market has raised the standard of living around the world

The free market allows people with little means to attain great amounts of wealth

The free market gave the US the best education system in the world before government got involved

The free market is an excellent system which allows the people able to please the greatest number of people with products and services succeed.


Yet liberals want the government to micromanage the free market and make government the answer to all problems

The fact of the matter is that the closest America came to a totally free market was during the robber-baron era in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The basic research on the cures you speak of were funded by government grants or a direct result of research US government agencies.

Regulated free markets have done much to raise the standard of living around the world. Where those free market forces are allowed to act unchecked, you see environmental degradation, human suffering and exploitation and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority giving rise to an aristocracy in name, if not in fact.

Government has always been involved in education. Public education has been a part of American culture since its inception, and has produced some of America's greatest minds.

Government is not the end all and be all for all of our problems. It is incumbent on government to act in the public interest and reign in the excesses of unregulated free markets to prevent environmental degradation, promote worker safety and ensure product safety.

Unregulated free markets are little better than the law of the jungle where the most ruthless reap the greatest rewards. That might be fine for animals, but not for humans.

 

[red states rule]

Once more, you paint with an overly broad brush. You really don't know what liberals think, nor do you care




The fact of the matter is that the closest America came to a totally free market was during the robber-baron era in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The basic research on the cures you speak of were funded by government grants or a direct result of research US government agencies.

Regulated free markets have done much to raise the standard of living around the world. Where those free market forces are allowed to act unchecked, you see environmental degradation, human suffering and exploitation and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority giving rise to an aristocracy in name, if not in fact.

Government has always been involved in education. Public education has been a part of American culture since its inception, and has produced some of America's greatest minds.

Government is not the end all and be all for all of our problems. It is incumbent on government to act in the public interest and reign in the excesses of unregulated free markets to prevent environmental degradation, promote worker safety and ensure product safety.

Unregulated free markets are little better than the law of the jungle where the most ruthless reap the greatest rewards. That might be fine for animals, but not for humans.

Libs regualte the free market to increase their control and power. Libs do not give a shit about the "poor" or the working class. All libs care about is being the mommy and daddy party and the transfer of wealth from the producers and the non producers