Does the free market work?

[Chas]

(10-02-2012 09:58 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:33 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  There's no country in the world that has every implemented truly free market, therefore we don't know if it works or not.

The evidence shows that the more free the market, the more people are injured and the greater the economic disparity.

I don't need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know how it will end.

I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Free market economics promotes job growth, competition, and forces quality products onto the marketplace. As a libertarian I agree that any product that could be a danger to the unknowing public should be regulated to a point.

The evidence is the effects over the last 30 years of lessening restriction. It has led us to the current economic malaise.

Since you believe there should be some regulation, you do not believe a free market is really possible. We are only arguing about the amount of regulation.

[germanyt]

(10-02-2012 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:58 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:33 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  There's no country in the world that has every implemented truly free market, therefore we don't know if it works or not.

The evidence shows that the more free the market, the more people are injured and the greater the economic disparity.

I don't need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know how it will end.

I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Free market economics promotes job growth, competition, and forces quality products onto the marketplace. As a libertarian I agree that any product that could be a danger to the unknowing public should be regulated to a point.

The evidence is the effects over the last 30 years of lessening restriction. It has led us to the current economic malaise.

Since you believe there should be some regulation, you do not believe a free market is really possible. We are only arguing about the amount of regulation.

Regualtion in the interests of public safety. We regulate cattle farms so people don't die from disease. We regulate childrens toys so we don't get lead paint or harmful materials around our kids. However, some argue that if there were no restrictions on these things then quality products would drive sub par products out of business and competition would keep prices low. I cannot argue either way since never have I live in an unregulate free market and never lived in a state controlled and heavily regulated economy. IMO we need to streamline regulatory agencies, get rid of a few of them that really aren't necessary, and ease up on small business regulations so that it's easier for people to start a business and be successful.

Ron Paul 2012

[Chas]

(10-02-2012 11:29 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:58 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:33 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  There's no country in the world that has every implemented truly free market, therefore we don't know if it works or not.

The evidence shows that the more free the market, the more people are injured and the greater the economic disparity.

I don't need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know how it will end.

I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Free market economics promotes job growth, competition, and forces quality products onto the marketplace. As a libertarian I agree that any product that could be a danger to the unknowing public should be regulated to a point.

The evidence is the effects over the last 30 years of lessening restriction. It has led us to the current economic malaise.

Since you believe there should be some regulation, you do not believe a free market is really possible. We are only arguing about the amount of regulation.

Regualtion in the interests of public safety. We regulate cattle farms so people don't die from disease. We regulate childrens toys so we don't get lead paint or harmful materials around our kids. However, some argue that if there were no restrictions on these things then quality products would drive sub par products out of business and competition would keep prices low. I cannot argue either way since never have I live in an unregulate free market and never lived in a state controlled and heavily regulated economy. IMO we need to streamline regulatory agencies, get rid of a few of them that really aren't necessary, and ease up on small business regulations so that it's easier for people to start a business and be successful.

So we are only arguing about the amount of regulation.
The U.S. was a largely unregulated market in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It led to massive pollution, unsafe working conditions, unsafe products, and so on.

I am wary of buying products from that vast, unregulated, criminal enterprise called China.

I agree that we should have as little regulation as possible - that maximizes freedom and minimizes cost. But one has to look at 'cost' quite carefully. For instance, pollution has always been a hidden cost of industry - they won't voluntarily spend to keep things clean, the cost gets passed directly to society as pollution.

[N.E.OhioAtheist]

(10-02-2012 10:01 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:58 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:33 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  There's no country in the world that has every implemented truly free market, therefore we don't know if it works or not.

The evidence shows that the more free the market, the more people are injured and the greater the economic disparity.

I don't need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know how it will end.

I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Free market economics promotes job growth, competition, and forces quality products onto the marketplace. As a libertarian I agree that any product that could be a danger to the unknowing public should be regulated to a point.

Enjoy your cholera!


Turn off Faux News!
Find some brain cells that function, and pickup a book.

Never truer words have been spoken!!

[germanyt]

(10-02-2012 01:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:29 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:58 AM)germanyt Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  The evidence shows that the more free the market, the more people are injured and the greater the economic disparity.

I don't need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know how it will end.

I'm not sure what evidence you mean. Free market economics promotes job growth, competition, and forces quality products onto the marketplace. As a libertarian I agree that any product that could be a danger to the unknowing public should be regulated to a point.

The evidence is the effects over the last 30 years of lessening restriction. It has led us to the current economic malaise.

Since you believe there should be some regulation, you do not believe a free market is really possible. We are only arguing about the amount of regulation.

Regualtion in the interests of public safety. We regulate cattle farms so people don't die from disease. We regulate childrens toys so we don't get lead paint or harmful materials around our kids. However, some argue that if there were no restrictions on these things then quality products would drive sub par products out of business and competition would keep prices low. I cannot argue either way since never have I live in an unregulate free market and never lived in a state controlled and heavily regulated economy. IMO we need to streamline regulatory agencies, get rid of a few of them that really aren't necessary, and ease up on small business regulations so that it's easier for people to start a business and be successful.

So we are only arguing about the amount of regulation.
The U.S. was a largely unregulated market in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It led to massive pollution, unsafe working conditions, unsafe products, and so on.

I am wary of buying products from that vast, unregulated, criminal enterprise called China.

I agree that we should have as little regulation as possible - that maximizes freedom and minimizes cost. But one has to look at 'cost' quite carefully. For instance, pollution has always been a hidden cost of industry - they won't voluntarily spend to keep things clean, the cost gets passed directly to society as pollution.

We also had an industrial revolution, massive advances in manufacturing and technology, the best economic conditions the world has ever known, and the US became the world's only superpower.

I don't disagree regarding pollution though.

---

(10-02-2012 01:26 PM)N.E.OhioAtheist Wrote:  ]Never truer words have been spoken!!

In chimes our resident Marxist. As if your opinion is valid. You couldn't be any more partisan if you were Karl himself.

[Ben]

(10-02-2012 01:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  In chimes our resident Marxist. As if your opinion is valid. You couldn't be any more partisan if you were Karl himself.

His opinion isn't valid because it's different than yours?

[Observer]

(10-02-2012 01:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  We also had an industrial revolution, massive advances in manufacturing and technology, the best economic conditions the world has ever known, and the US became the world's only superpower.

You're forgetting mass poverty, unemployment, random layoffs, child mortality, and, to top it... the great depression.


but yeah...
sounds like they had a good time back then.



dude...
those good old days they talk about...
fairytales...

[germanyt]

(10-02-2012 03:58 PM)Ben Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 01:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  In chimes our resident Marxist. As if your opinion is valid. You couldn't be any more partisan if you were Karl himself.

His opinion isn't valid because it's different than yours?

It's not hard to understand that the further you get from center the less you represent the people and the more extreme you become. IIRC he pulled a 9 or 10 outta 10 to the left on the political compass. That's as disconnected to the left as one can be.

---

(10-02-2012 04:17 PM)Observer Wrote:  You're forgetting mass poverty, unemployment, random layoffs, child mortality, and, to top it... the great depression.

We have those things now. Except for child mortality but that's because of advances in medicine. Not because of government regulation.

[mysticjbyrd]

(10-02-2012 03:58 PM)Ben Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 01:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  In chimes our resident Marxist. As if your opinion is valid. You couldn't be any more partisan if you were Karl himself.

His opinion isn't valid because it's different than yours?

No, thats the way these nutjob conservatives think. Thats why you can bombard them with facts and they just brush them off like water on a ducks back.

[N.E.OhioAtheist]

(10-02-2012 04:18 PM)germanyt Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 03:58 PM)Ben Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 01:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  In chimes our resident Marxist. As if your opinion is valid. You couldn't be any more partisan if you were Karl himself.

His opinion isn't valid because it's different than yours?

It's not hard to understand that the further you get from center the less you represent the people and the more extreme you become. IIRC he pulled a 9 or 10 outta 10 to the left on the political compass. That's as disconnected to the left as one can be.

---

(10-02-2012 04:17 PM)Observer Wrote:  You're forgetting mass poverty, unemployment, random layoffs, child mortality, and, to top it... the great depression.

We have those things now. Except for child mortality but that's because of advances in medicine. Not because of government regulation.

Let Ron Paul have his way and you will have your mortality. If you don't have Ins. you don't get help. What a asshole!! How anyone could vote for that man is beyond me. I would much rather be a Marxist than be a prick like him.