• 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?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,119
20,790
136
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.
We should definitely not get rid of the FDIC.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,119
20,790
136
Of course a truly free market isn't a good thing. One has never existed, nor will one ever exist. I'm not even sure why this is up for discussion considering it's impossibility.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,548
649
126
Of course a truly free market isn't a good thing. One has never existed, nor will one ever exist. I'm not even sure why this is up for discussion considering it's impossibility.
B/c small minded people are still allowed to express their opinions. They want corporate monopolies, slavery and lawlessness where there is only the rich and poor.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Totally Free Markets or Totally controlled markets are opposite extremes and fall into the "utopian" categories...

Functional economies that don't strangle innovation or turn into "gilded age" models are found in between those two extremes.

Yet people here still argue with blinders on.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,919
8
81
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.
I hear Somalia is nice this time of the year. I think you would be quite happy over there.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
B/c small minded people are still allowed to express their opinions. They want corporate monopolies, slavery and lawlessness where there is only the rich and poor.
Monopolies, slavery and lawlessness are symptoms of a perfectly free market? So you're saying we have a perfectly free market right now? Because that's where we're heading. Or are you admitting that the highly regulated and government directed market has us heading the same direction?

Small minded indeed, you should look in a mirror.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,548
649
126
Monopolies, slavery and lawlessness are symptoms of a perfectly free market? So you're saying we have a perfectly free market right now? Because that's where we're heading. Or are you admitting that the highly regulated and government directed market has us heading the same direction?

Small minded indeed, you should look in a mirror.
:D Coming from you, yes you're small minded.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
Government is what created the huge wealth disparity and monopolies in the first place.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,119
20,790
136
Before governments? When was this?
You realize that humans existed before governments, right? Most certainly governments as we know them. (humans being a prerequisite for governments after all) Funny thing is that the first 'governments' were basically strongmen who crushed all opposition to them due to their tremendous power and yes... wealth.

Strongmen are of course one of the the natural results of a lack of government, which is yet another irony of those ranting against government tyranny... as a short route to it is by getting rid of the government.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Strongmen are of course one of the the natural results of a lack of government, which is yet another irony of those ranting against government tyranny... as a short route to it is by getting rid of the government.
Of course you realize the irony in your post is that government is hoping your strongman will protect you from the other guys strongman.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
I think my vague use of "government" is causing confusion. What I meant is that monopolies and wealth disparities are created by specific government action, usually the kind that is sold to the masses as consumer protection or wealth redistribution. Surprise, most of those measures are anti-competitive in practice.

My understanding is that a competitive market where everybody starts from the same point results in very little wealth disparity, with the little that does occur being caused by wealth differences between industries as a whole and differing abilities to acquire material wealth amongst people. The gross kind of wealth disparity today isn't just caused by some people being better at making money or their particular industry being bigger than another. It's the result of systematic monetary policy, regulatory policy, and public good schemes which benefit the lobbyists and moneyed interests who control their execution. Control over the economy is never exercised in the more or less fair way imagined by those who advocate it...

The situation we have now is a bit confusing because you are correct in saying that removing all regulations now would likely result in tyranny. This is from the natural monopoly enjoyed by the corporatocracy as a result of their wealth. In other words, the wealth disparity itself creates monopoly power. However, I don't think this wealth disparity would have been able to flourish in the first place if not for anti-competitive government regulation, and I think a full understanding of just what a competitive free market actually is will bear this out.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
For me it's a simple question that has nothing to do with the definition of "truly free markets."

Do I plan for myself, or do I let someone else make my decisions for me? Do you allow people to buy what they want, or not?

It comes down to freedom.
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
I think my vague use of "government" is causing confusion. What I meant is that monopolies and wealth disparities are created by specific government action, usually the kind that is sold to the masses as consumer protection or wealth redistribution. Surprise, most of those measures are anti-competitive in practice.

My understanding is that a competitive market where everybody starts from the same point results in very little wealth disparity, with the little that does occur being caused by wealth differences between industries as a whole and differing abilities to acquire material wealth amongst people. The gross kind of wealth disparity today isn't just caused by some people being better at making money or their particular industry being bigger than another. It's the result of systematic monetary policy, regulatory policy, and public good schemes which benefit the lobbyists and moneyed interests who control their execution. Control over the economy is never exercised in the more or less fair way imagined by those who advocate it...

The situation we have now is a bit confusing because you are correct in saying that removing all regulations now would likely result in tyranny. This is from the natural monopoly enjoyed by the corporatocracy as a result of their wealth. In other words, the wealth disparity itself creates monopoly power. However, I don't think this wealth disparity would have been able to flourish in the first place if not for anti-competitive government regulation, and I think a full understanding of just what a competitive free market actually is will bear this out.
I would argue the opposite. Things are bad because there is next to no oppositional force to those with wealth (ie no regulation). Wealth is inherently corrupting. Periods of the highest regulation lead to the lowest wealth disparity, and thereby the least need of regulation. Regulation is relaxed, disparity increases, that wealth allows perpetuating abuses and next thing you know you've got a great depression or our current situation.

Monetary policy isn't government regulation, it's wealth controlled. TRUE government is a regulatory body stopping wealth from increasing as it can only be achieved (at a greater rate than natural growth) thru devaluation or concentration. ANYTHING that promotes growth is acting counter to the purpose and scope of government. Governments maintain/sustain/protect. That's all.

Our own 'government' hasn't really existed in two hundred years, if it ever did. It plays at it from time to time, but for the most part its founded on unsustainable principles which can only result in wealth and health disparity, unrest, and eventual collapse.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

-Winston Churchill
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Periods of the highest regulation lead to the lowest wealth disparity, and thereby the least need of regulation. Regulation is relaxed, disparity increases, that wealth allows perpetuating abuses and next thing you know you've got a great depression or our current situation.
Private wealth disparity maybe. Those running the government in highly regulated environments seem to do pretty well.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Even all the Wall Street higher ups and Treasury guys said they need to be regulated after the '08 crash, but they won't admit it publicly because that would admit a failing in their ridiculous ideaology. To honestly believe that a profit based system can run unchecked is like believing a president could run this country without any checks and balances.

Our forefathers knew this type of ideaology is what ruins great countries, thus they put in the system of checks and balances in our government which worked pretty well up until these mega corporations began to sieze control of DC.

As I said before, in closed door meetings the higher ups in Wall Street and DC admitted they should be more heavily regulated (specifically with regards to finance exec salaries, betting and profitting on failures, and the like). Capitalism running unchecked would be like the Church running unchecked back in the Dark Ages....which is basically what they want sadly.

They want to pretend that Wall Street is some holy place and that God signed the Declaration so they could be billionares, and then they package their success up and sell it to the easily mislead who rarely understand that if one little thing went differently these guys would be in jail or working a normal 9-5 like the people they sell this mess to.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,294
0
76
For me it's a simple question that has nothing to do with the definition of "truly free markets."

Do I plan for myself, or do I let someone else make my decisions for me? Do you allow people to buy what they want, or not?

It comes down to freedom.
If it comes down to freedom, or liberty, there is such thing as too much. See Thomas Hobbes and the complete freedom of "nature." Not so good. So the real statement should be, it comes down to the right level of freedom.

Libertarians or anarchists of various stripes might fantasize about statelessness and that market economies make government unnecessary and irrelevant. They may uphold the "sovereignty" of the market and believe policy must be made and deemed rational by global capital markets. This is course should scare the shit out of any intelligent person. Besides the fact that this has never been true, been achieved, or any real reason to believe it could ever happen, one can easily think of all the nastiness that life would become for nearly everyone. It would be unmitigated hell on earth, which is why almost everyone agrees that government is necessary to some degree.
 
May 16, 2000
13,529
0
0
Private wealth disparity maybe. Those running the government in highly regulated environments seem to do pretty well.
I would argue that's fallout from those with private wealth coercing abandonment of regulation, including regulation on government which would otherwise prevent such things.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY