• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is a truly free market system actually a good thing?

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
I see the right parroting this notion time and time again. Someone argue why a system with no government intervention, rules, or regulations is better than one with them.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
57
91
Only idiots will argue that a full on no-rules, regulation, or government capitalism works perfectly.
Most conservatives will argue that they want fewer rules, but not none.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Is profit evil?

I see the left parroting this notion time and time again. Someone argue why a system completely devoid of any reason to produce goods or provide services other than kindness can work for a species which historically is not very kind?
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Voluntary trades yield the most production, because both sides have fear of loss to check their behavior. In some cases, we sacrifice quality/choice for convenience, like government roads over toll roads. But that's not a very good tradeoff for most things.

Some rules can be benign and worth the cost while others can be completely ridiculous. Most rules are actually created via big companies bribing so-called regulators to pass them because they know they will hurt competitors. That's right, who's regulating the regulators? They are just as greedy as everyone else. The more you accept the idea that someone should save you from your own choices, the more that's going to happen.

Things that could never be choices, such as murder and theft, are far easier to police than things that could. Because choice implies competition, and only a competing body would try and bribe an institution of force (the government) into preventing consumers from choosing competitors.

In cases where you see greed and rampant speculation causing problems, you'll want to look hard at government activity in that area and whether it offloaded risk onto the taxpayer, thereby creating a "win-win" gambling situation. It gets more complex when you realize that the problems of some regulations can be mitigated by other regulations. Glass-Steagall mitigated the problems created by FDIC insurance. Once you remove fear of loss from depositors and banks no longer have to compete on safety of deposits, it becomes necessary to limit what banks can do with those deposits. You can't just have one or the other, but when Clinton removed the restrictions and left FDIC alone, that's exactly what he did. Some socialists are more short-sighted than others.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Of couse not. See my recent post that discusses the idea of 2% of the people being able to own everything and meet all their own needs, leaving 98% unneeded.

'The Market' will devour the people if the people don't keep it under control. See any of the tyrannical forms of human society for the result.

I've been considering the following article by Joseph Stiglitz for its own thread, but in the meantime, it has a few relevant things to say about this.

Also note my sig - 'free market' is too much an ideology.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=all
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Voluntary trades yield the most production, because both sides have fear of loss to check their behavior. In some cases, we sacrifice quality/choice for convenience, like government roads over toll roads. But that's not a very good tradeoff for most things.

Some rules can be benign and worth the cost while others can be completely ridiculous. Most rules are actually created via big companies bribing so-called regulators to pass them because they know they will hurt competitors. That's right, who's regulating the regulators? They are just as greedy as everyone else. The more you accept the idea that someone should save you from your own choices, the more that's going to happen.

Things that could never be choices, such as murder and theft, are far easier to police than things that could. Because choice implies competition, and only a competing body would try and bribe an institution of force (the government) into preventing consumers from choosing competitors.

In cases where you see greed and rampant speculation causing problems, you'll want to look hard at government activity in that area and whether it offloaded risk onto the taxpayer, thereby creating a "win-win" gambling situation. It gets more complex when you realize that the problems of some regulations can be mitigated by other regulations. Glass-Steagall mitigated the problems created by FDIC insurance. Once you remove fear of loss from depositors and banks no longer have to compete on safety of deposits, it becomes necessary to limit what banks can do with those deposits. You can't just have one or the other, but when Clinton removed the restrictions and left FDIC alone, that's exactly what he did. Some socialists are more short-sighted than others.
Excellent post. It's always nice to see someone that gets it.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Voluntary trades yield the most production, because both sides have fear of loss to check their behavior. In some cases, we sacrifice quality/choice for convenience, like government roads over toll roads. But that's not a very good tradeoff for most things.

Some rules can be benign and worth the cost while others can be completely ridiculous. Most rules are actually created via big companies bribing so-called regulators to pass them because they know they will hurt competitors. That's right, who's regulating the regulators? They are just as greedy as everyone else. The more you accept the idea that someone should save you from your own choices, the more that's going to happen.

Things that could never be choices, such as murder and theft, are far easier to police than things that could. Because choice implies competition, and only a competing body would try and bribe an institution of force (the government) into preventing consumers from choosing competitors.

In cases where you see greed and rampant speculation causing problems, you'll want to look hard at government activity in that area and whether it offloaded risk onto the taxpayer, thereby creating a "win-win" gambling situation. It gets more complex when you realize that the problems of some regulations can be mitigated by other regulations. Glass-Steagall mitigated the problems created by FDIC insurance. Once you remove fear of loss from depositors and banks no longer have to compete on safety of deposits, it becomes necessary to limit what banks can do with those deposits. You can't just have one or the other, but when Clinton removed the restrictions and left FDIC alone, that's exactly what he did. Some socialists are more short-sighted than others.
It's nice to see this post. Not a lot of people draw any connection between Glass-Steagall's repeal and FDIC insurance still sticking around. IMO FDIC needs to go away.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Excellent post. It's always nice to see someone that gets it.
The problem is with unrestrained anything. Certainly it's more cost efficient to drop toxins the sewer. Disposal of dioxin in a safe manner cuts profit. I'd say that government regulation is a positive thing. The problem is when regulation is extended too far or badly implemented. If someone dumps a bottle of a diuretic on the floor and they spill out it would be ridiculous to insist that each pill goes into their own individual hazmat bag That is both extraordinarily expensive and unneeded, but that's how we're supposed to do it. Why? "Because that's the regs" according to the authorities and you will be punished if you don't". That is the only answer.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
The problem is with unrestrained anything. Certainly it's more cost efficient to drop toxins the sewer. Disposal of dioxin in a safe manner cuts profit. I'd say that government regulation is a positive thing. The problem is when regulation is extended too far or badly implemented. If someone dumps a bottle of a diuretic on the floor and they spill out it would be ridiculous to insist that each pill goes into their own individual hazmat bag That is both extraordinarily expensive and unneeded, but that's how we're supposed to do it. Why? "Because that's the regs" according to the authorities and you will be punished if you don't". That is the only answer.
The point of his post was not "Regulation bad." It's that many times regulation exists because of market distortion due to regulation or other government meddling. The free market frequently gets blamed by the left when in fact very few markets actually are free. You should know this well in your field, the left complains about how awful "free market" healthcare is when in fact there is no such thing as free market healthcare.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,911
406
126
The point of his post was not "Regulation bad." It's that many times regulation exists because of market distortion due to regulation or other government meddling. The free market frequently gets blamed by the left when in fact very few markets actually are free. You should know this well in your field, the left complains about how awful "free market" healthcare is when in fact there is no such thing as free market healthcare.
I've never heard anyone complain about "free market" healthcare. I hear them complain about "for profit" healthcare, and I think there are lots of legitimate complaints about the latter.

Please feel free to direct me to an instance of someone complaining about "free market" healthcare, however.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I've never heard anyone complain about "free market" healthcare. I hear them complain about "for profit" healthcare, and I think there are lots of legitimate complaints about the latter.

Please feel free to direct me to an instance of someone complaining about "free market" healthcare, however.
I was thinking the same thing. hehe
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I've never heard anyone complain about "free market" healthcare. I hear them complain about "for profit" healthcare, and I think there are lots of legitimate complaints about the latter.

Please feel free to direct me to an instance of someone complaining about "free market" healthcare, however.
Bringing up a bunch of links with a phone isn't something I care to do but we have a search feature. There are people who believe we have free market healthcare. Hard to believe but true.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
All regulations should be abolished. They've always caused more harm than good. The state murders people and it doesn't stop people from murdering more than agents of the state murder. I don't want paper money in existence and regulations are necessary for paper money to exist in the long term.

Everything the state does is inefficient. The larger and more centralized a state is, the more harmful it is.

I just wish more people would apply the lesson learned from the 18th Amendment to the whole U.S. Federal Constitution.

Nature has a certain order of things and the collective cannot know how to preserve the laws of nature. The state is a revolt against nature.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,911
406
126
All regulations should be abolished. They've always caused more harm than good. The state murders people and it doesn't stop people from murdering more than agents of the state murder. I don't want paper money in existence and regulations are necessary for paper money to exist in the long term.

Everything the state does is inefficient. The larger and more centralized a state is, the more harmful it is.

I just wish more people would apply the lesson learned from the 18th Amendment to the whole U.S. Federal Constitution.

Nature has a certain order of things and the collective cannot know how to preserve the laws of nature. The state is a revolt against nature.
"Nature" probably would've thinned you from the herd a long, long time ago.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,911
406
126
Bringing up a bunch of links with a phone isn't something I care to do but we have a search feature. There are people who believe we have free market healthcare. Hard to believe but true.
I ran a search on "free market healthcare." I see a lot of people talking about healthcare and the so-called "free market," but none that gave me the distinct impression that anyone actually thought that healthcare was a legitimately free market.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
No. The 'truly free market' as you call it is the economic equivalent of the Hobbes' State of Nature.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Anarchist, there really isn't anything humans do that is "unnatural" it's quite fucking retarded to say anything we do is anything but "natural" we're naturally occurring things. Not to mention how do you think anything is formed if not to come together? If anything society is proof of "nature", not the opposite.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,402
3,941
126
Is profit evil?

I see the left parroting this notion time and time again. Someone argue why a system completely devoid of any reason to produce goods or provide services other than kindness can work for a species which historically is not very kind?
You are a blind fool.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Anarchist, there really isn't anything humans do that is "unnatural" it's quite fucking retarded to say anything we do is anything but "natural" we're naturally occurring things. Not to mention how do you think anything is formed if not to come together? If anything society is proof of "nature", not the opposite.
I see what you're saying, but I prefer to use the language I do:) But you're right, to say a "stateless society" is more accurate than the "state of nature".
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Even Adam Smith thought there should be some regulation.

The thought that capital holders fear losing all of their capital in a "free market" is silly. They don't give a rats ass about losing it, mainly because they can always buy laws, judges, or escape prosecution of anything major.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I ran a search on "free market healthcare." I see a lot of people talking about healthcare and the so-called "free market," but none that gave me the distinct impression that anyone actually thought that healthcare was a legitimately free market.
Then why use the phrase? It's as dumb as calling Obama a Communist, but perhaps thats the answer, dumb. Hyperbole packaged as self evident truth.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY