Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

 

[Crystalclear]

The invisible hand works for the most part, but not always. That is why the free market does not always produce perfect outcomes. Not even close -- economic depressions is one example. Excessive inequality is another. The government can successfully interfere to improve the outcome in both cases.

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.

As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.







The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Laissez faire has never existed, so you can't say it doesn't work.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's not a definition. That's an evasion of the question.
Try again.
BTW your "pie" theory plays into the existence of the Zero Sum Game.
The Keynesian Theory has been debunked.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.





Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

What did you do to accumulate it from other people?
Were you an officer of Solyndra?
Did you have a no show job at University of Chicago Medical Center?
Be a little more specific.

It's an idiotic point for two reasonsL
1) He conflates wealth with income
2) If wealth were truly zero sum then GDP would never increase.
But Dad has a crack addiction so is hardly in any shape to use logic.

 

[Dad2three]

Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, incomes in the United States were becoming more equal. In other words, incomes at the bottom were rising faster than those at the top.

It's amazing how well you can do when you're the only major economy in the world not bombed into rubble.

Since the late 1970s, this trend has reversed.

Eventually, those other nations rebuilt.

Of course we did well as "the only major economy not bombed into rubble." But at what cost to us?

I hope you're not ignoring what it cost us to fight that war -- in addition to what it cost us to help rebuild those bombed out nations -- including the two which had been our enemies and had forced us to bomb them into rubble.

Ultimately the problem lies with those corrupted politicians who, once the rebuilt nations began competing with us, surreptitiously enabled them to surpass our productivity by limiting or removing tariffs on imported goods. This, along with other devious maneuvering and legislative manipulations, has vastly benefited back-door benefactors by transforming the once most productive nation in the world into the least productive.

The removal of protective regulations has consistently served to undermine the productive potential and economic stability of this Nation. And those who are responsible for these destructive maneuvers are never held to account. Nor is the issue of our Congress being dominated by multi-millionaires ever raised.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." (Edward R. Murrow)

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

LOL, DESPITE ANY PROOF OF THAT POSIT

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETt

...These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.


The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

These results are supported by surveys...

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/



Alexander Hamilton was protectionism's first major advocate. George Washington, in his first Address to Congress, said 'A free people . . should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military supplies.' Thomas Jefferson made a similar statement in 1816, as did also James Madison in 1815, and James Monroe in 1822. Southern states objected after the 1820s, seeing its slave-labor workforce unsuitable for industrial work.

 

[Dad2three]

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.





Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

What did you do to accumulate it from other people?
Were you an officer of Solyndra?
Did you have a no show job at University of Chicago Medical Center?
Be a little more specific.

It's an idiotic point for two reasonsL
1) He conflates wealth with income
2) If wealth were truly zero sum then GDP would never increase.
But Dad has a crack addiction so is hardly in any shape to use logic.

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

TO COMPLEX FOR YOU HUH?

 

[westwall]

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

They are experts in the usage of that "new math" stuff....

 

[Dad2three]

Economic depressions are the market working themselves out. Usually they are made worse, much worse, by government intervening and short circuiting the market's self correcting mechanism.

As far as "perfect outcomes" go, first tell me what a perfect outcome is, then show me a system that achieves it.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.







The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Laissez faire has never existed, so you can't say it doesn't work.

Closest thing the US has had to it the last 100 years ended in the GOP great depression and Dubya's great recession!


Weird how NO nation has ANYTHING like it though right? EVER!

 

[Dad2three]

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

Cool, and where is the proof this caused the economy a problem? Largest Corp profits EVER and lowest tax burden in 40+ years and first time EVER labor costs less than 50%

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000

 

[Dad2three]

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time Record Peak And Expected To Grow in 2014

Mar 27, 2014 - After-tax profits for American corporations hit another record high last year, rising to $1.68 trillion


As this chart from Quartz shows, profits have been on a roll for some time, more than fully recovering what was lost during the recession:

Corporate profits have also hit a record as a share of the country’s total income:

The profits have helped boost CEO pay: Among 50 public companies, they saw a 4.1 percent increase in pay at the median last year, netting $9.8 million at that mark. That’s after average CEO pay hit a record high in 2012.

But this wealth hasn’t trickled much further down. Despite the fact that workers have been increasing their productivity — helping to drive those corporate profits — they haven’t seen much of a reward. Wages are growing at the slowest rate since the 1960s, only just barely outpacing inflation.


Corporate Profits Hit A New Record High Last Year | ThinkProgress

 

[The Rabbi]

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

What did you do to accumulate it from other people?
Were you an officer of Solyndra?
Did you have a no show job at University of Chicago Medical Center?
Be a little more specific.

It's an idiotic point for two reasonsL
1) He conflates wealth with income
2) If wealth were truly zero sum then GDP would never increase.
But Dad has a crack addiction so is hardly in any shape to use logic.

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

TO COMPLEX FOR YOU HUH?

A) You still conflate wealth with income. I guess the distinction eludes you.
B) That is only in one year. Income of course fluctuates year to year.
These concepts are too difficult for someone with a crack addiction to grasp, I know.

 

[Dad2three]

That's not a definition. That's an evasion of the question.
Try again.
BTW your "pie" theory plays into the existence of the Zero Sum Game.
The Keynesian Theory has been debunked.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.





Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

What did you do to accumulate it from other people?
Were you an officer of Solyndra?
Did you have a no show job at University of Chicago Medical Center?
Be a little more specific.

 

[SAYIT]

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

Cool, and where is the proof this caused the economy a problem? Largest Corp profits EVER and lowest tax burden in 40+ years and first time EVER labor costs less than 50%

Ah, the fruit of tech advancement means greater productivity. The iceman is no longer needed.

 

[SAYIT]

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time Record Peak And Expected To Grow in 2014

Mar 27, 2014 - After-tax profits for American corporations hit another record high last year, rising to $1.68 trillion


As this chart from Quartz shows, profits have been on a roll for some time, more than fully recovering what was lost during the recession:

Corporate profits have also hit a record as a share of the country’s total income:

The profits have helped boost CEO pay: Among 50 public companies, they saw a 4.1 percent increase in pay at the median last year, netting $9.8 million at that mark. That’s after average CEO pay hit a record high in 2012.

But this wealth hasn’t trickled much further down. Despite the fact that workers have been increasing their productivity — helping to drive those corporate profits — they haven’t seen much of a reward. Wages are growing at the slowest rate since the 1960s, only just barely outpacing inflation.


Corporate Profits Hit A New Record High Last Year | ThinkProgress

And all those millions of Americans who set something aside in the form of investments are reaping the benefits of their foresight and sacrifice. Asset growth and dividends are a good thing, no?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

Cool, and where is the proof this caused the economy a problem? Largest Corp profits EVER and lowest tax burden in 40+ years and first time EVER labor costs less than 50%

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000

Cool, and where is the proof this caused the economy a problem?

Right, why would 169,301 pages (more since 2011) of regulations cause any problems at all?

Just look at the problems caused by Obamacare.
A sudden shift to jobs < 30 hours a week.

 

[itfitzme]

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Ah... You mean regulations like this one are strangling American businesses:
13 U.S. Code Chapter 1, Subchapter I - GENERAL PROVISIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

13 U.S. Code § 7 - Printing; requisitions upon Public Printer; publication of bulletins and reports

The evil of printing reports

 

[bripat9643]

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.







The Vienna and Chicago schools have foisted a load of baloney on the market that, when made into policy, has led to every major recession, not to mention the Great Depression, since the establishment of economics as a field.

Laissez faire has never existed, so you can't say it doesn't work.

Closest thing the US has had to it the last 100 years ended in the GOP great depression and Dubya's great recession!


Weird how NO nation has ANYTHING like it though right? EVER!

Wrong. It ended when the government created the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The Federal reserve was supposedly created to pu an end to financial panics. Instead it created the largest financial panic the world had ever seen.

Government meddling in the economy has always been the cause of recessions and depressions.

It's also weird how almost evey dog in the world has fleas, isn't it?

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is not the removal of tariffs on foreign goods as much as the crushing of our domestic producers under the boot of ever increasing regulation.

We have much less regulation and much lower taxes than in 70s.

Bullshit. We have far more regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

What did you do to accumulate it from other people?
Were you an officer of Solyndra?
Did you have a no show job at University of Chicago Medical Center?
Be a little more specific.

It's an idiotic point for two reasonsL
1) He conflates wealth with income
2) If wealth were truly zero sum then GDP would never increase.
But Dad has a crack addiction so is hardly in any shape to use logic.

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

TO COMPLEX FOR YOU HUH?

What you've said is that corporate income for a given year is corporate income for a given year. It's a tautology. If we look at a snapshot of the economy at a point in time, of course it isn't going to change because you are not looking at what happens over time. You're looking at a single point in time.

Your sylogism is an exercise in pure idiocy.

Furthermore, if you judge the "sum" of transaction purely in terms of money, you have failed to consider the fact that the government creates hundreds of billions of dollars every year simply by changing some ones and zeros stored in a computer.

I could go on and on ripping your "logic" to shreds, but I have a life to live.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

The increase in productivity in the last 35 years is a result of capital spending by corporations for technological advances. Workers don't have to know any more, they don't work harder or longer hours. Corporations have spent trillions on CNC machines, robots, computers and automated inventory control to make their employees' jobs easier. Are you telling me that a guy who stands by a machining center and pushes a button every 5 minutes is worth more than a master machinist simply because there are more pieces on his cart at the end of the day?

No, he isn't "worth" more, and people working at cashier stand or making hamburgers are "worth" even less. But that's not the point.

What do you think is the reason for having the free market based economy in the first place? The reason for having laws, the government, politics, the Constitution, democracy, the reason for living in a society? I think we have all that to make everyone's life better. Not to make everyone earn exactly as much as they "worth".

No, that isn't the reason. It's simply a pleasant side effect of the free economy. The reason is the fact that a free economy is what pertains when you respect the property rights of a nation's citizens, when injustices committed by government are eliminated from human relations. A free economy is one where justice obtains.

 

[bripat9643]

I just told you what is fair -- equal efforts (at being as productive, as you can, I thought that goes w/o saying) -- should be rewarded equally. That is the ultimate fairness and it is unachievable because it will remove the incentives to work as productive as you can. But we should try and get as close to fair income distribution as possible w/o hurting the overall productivity.



.

That's such nonsense. It's like an A for effort. In business results count,not effort. The guy who comes up with the killer advertising slogan while in the shower should get much more than the machine operator who toils for 8 hours a day. An advertising slogan that can sell more product is far more valuable. And rare.
People are paid based on the value to the company in bringing in revenue as well as the scarcity of that talent. And that's how it should be.

You are describing how the free market should work. I am talking about the reason for living in a society, having laws and following them. And having the free market based economy in the first place. That reason is NOT to count business results. Rather, it is to have a better quality of life for everyone.

Your belief that only government can crete such rules is where you go wrong. In societies previous to the 19th and 20th century law was not the result of legislation.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/murray-n-rothbard/discovering-the-laws-of-liberty/

In the Roman private law, in the Continental Civil Codes, in the Anglo-Saxon common law, &#8220;law&#8221; did not mean what we think today: endless enactments by a legislature or executive. &#8220;Law&#8221; was not enacted but found or discovered; it was a body of customary rules that had, like languages or fashions, grown up spontaneously and purely voluntarily among the people. These spontaneous rules constituted &#8220;the law&#8221;; and it was the works of experts in the law&#8212;old men of the tribe, judges, or lawyers&#8212;to determine what the law was and how the law would apply to the numerous cases in dispute that perpetually arise.

Legislation only serves the purposes of the state, not the people.