social issues & the free market

[IDL]

Any chance of a free market is gone though. How would you go about getting your government back from under the thumb of private interests, when they are in cahoots? I see very little difference between public and private at the higher levels these days, except for the label.

Seems like a runaway type situation things are in. Private interests use their power to gain more power. With that gained power, they use it to gain more power.

This cycle continues at an ever increasing rate because less and less stands in their way.

 

[Ishaq]

I am not a fan of favoring certain industries or trying to dictate winners and losers.

This is an interesting point that you raise. I was actually watching a video wherein they were talking about the US government's sugar program.

Alfie and Pepe Fanjul own the Florida Crystals Corporation. They lobbied government to place import quotas and effectively ban all sugar imports from outside the US, thereby inflating their sugar price and in addition, the government would buy back all unsold sugar from the Fanjul's at the market price.

I actually couldn't believe it was true. What type of BS government program is that? It made zero economic sense.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So enforcing property rights was a huge, tyrannical disruption in society? Really?

Yes, really. Were you not aware of that? Look up enclosures, for example (and vagrancy laws and their relation to each other).

If you can't see the difference between a government protecting a man's property and a government deciding who gets to own what property, then I'm afraid, there's not much more I could say to you.

Again, the gov't lays out rules by which property ownership transfers, and recognizes titles. With no gov't, that becomes far more fluid and subject to fuzzy community standards. Plus, of course, gov'ts recognize property claims that were questionable to begin with.

You're arguing semantics. You can call it whatever role you like. That's what laissez faire & free market proponents mean when they say limited government intervention.

You're arguing semantics. I'm talking about reality, which is that in a system of property rights, the gov't necessarily has to intervene in a massive way, and you're saying, "well, people who support that kind of massive intervention but not other interventions to balance things out for common people choose to not recognize that reality by changing the meaning of words."

The only reason my argument is confusing is because you have a communist's perception of a free market economy.

I'm not confused. I am fully aware of your ignorance regarding gov't intervention in the economy, and I'm calling it to your attention. That is, there's a huge flaw in your understanding.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Here is the problem with government not encouraging or support certain types of industries. The free market is incredibly short sighted.

Yes and no. Businesses pop up all the time, the ones with staying power last and either adapt to changing market trends or die off. And that's fine. Creative destruction is the heart of economic advancement. I don't think you need the government to pick industries, because the government will not let things die off which is an important part of the economic cycle.

Where I do think government plays a role is in doing basic research and making sure that basic technological advancement occurs which businesses can then bring to market. The US needs to fund a lot more basic research, that's where the businesses of tomorrow come from, and most businesses can't afford to do a lot of basic research on their own. But I don't think the government needs to pick which industries it subsidizes and which it does not.

 

[Uchi Mata]

This is an interesting point that you raise. I was actually watching a video wherein they were talking about the US government's sugar program.

Alfie and Pepe Fanjul own the Florida Crystals Corporation. They lobbied government to place import quotas and effectively ban all sugar imports from outside the US, thereby inflating their sugar price and in addition, the government would buy back all unsold sugar from the Fanjul's at the market price.

I actually couldn't believe it was true. What type of BS government program is that? It made zero economic sense.

Dow got industrial hemp made illegal along with high THC marijuana back in the day. It happens. It's bad, but it happens. Protectionism is nothing new.

 

[m52nickerson]

Yes and no. Businesses pop up all the time, the ones with staying power last and either adapt to changing market trends or die off. And that's fine. Creative destruction is the heart of economic advancement. I don't think you need the government to pick industries, because the government will not let things die off which is an important part of the economic cycle.

Where I do think government plays a role is in doing basic research and making sure that basic technological advancement occurs which businesses can then bring to market. The US needs to fund a lot more basic research, that's where the businesses of tomorrow come from, and most businesses can't afford to do a lot of basic research on their own. But I don't think the government needs to pick which industries it subsidizes and which it does not.

I agree with you on the research part, and for most businesses and industries having them fail is fine. However some industries are going to be important in the future and need to be established now, even before markets will naturally support them.

Look at the energy industry. We know for a fact that fossil fuels are going to run out sometime in the future. Right now they are still cheap and will most likely remain so until close to the end. At which point the prices will skyrocket much faster than alternate energy sources can be adequately produced and put into place by the market. That would cause massive havoc.

The way to avoid this is by government subsidizing alternate forms of energy and/or putting an increase cost on fossil fuels.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The only reason my argument is confusing is because you have a communist's perception of a free market economy.

Having become familiar with Jack's ideology, calling his a "communist's perception" is pretty damned funny.

And if you call the cops to tell them your car was stolen, they locate the car but find that the person in possession of it holds the title, what will happen at that point and why? The what and the why are all a direct product of the property laws and legalities created by government.

 

[sangreporsangre]

And the surplus productivity and wealth to provide such services for those that aren't fit comes from what sort of system?

I'm sorry?? I don't understand the question. This is heavily subsidized by the municipal and provincial government, if you were wondering.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Who is promoting a totally free market? It's strange people keep arguing against a totally free market when not even 1 person is arguing for it.

I don't know exactly what you call it. I'm talking about guys who believe every single thing should be privatized, that every single thing has to be done to make a profit. The kind who say what the OP was talking about, like if the question is "if the church won't help them out should we let them starve?" and if he says "yes" they all cheer lmao. There used to be a bunch of guys like that in here but I think some of them have been posting less lately.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I agree with you on the research part, and for most businesses and industries having them fail is fine. However some industries are going to be important in the future and need to be established now, even before markets will naturally support them.

Look at the energy industry. We know for a fact that fossil fuels are going to run out sometime in the future. Right now they are still cheap and will most likely remain so until close to the end. At which point the prices will skyrocket much faster than alternate energy sources can be adequately produced and put into place by the market. That would cause massive havoc.

The way to avoid this is by government subsidizing alternate forms of energy and/or putting an increase cost on fossil fuels.

I think if the government subsidizes the basic research into better solar and wind technologies then business will start selling them when the price becomes competitive with fossil fuels. Likewise, if carbon emissions are ruled to be harmful then the government could tax them as a negative externality and drive up the price of fossil fuel prices to where they're competitive with renewables. Or in the long term there will be less oil and gas, prices will rise, and solar and wind will be price competitive. None of those scenarios require the government to pick winners and losers and all allow free markets to do what they do best, namely find cheap solutions when governed by constraints. Besides, it's not like fossil fuel price will collapse all at once, I don't think gradual rises are going to cause market panic.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Having become familiar with Jack's ideology, calling his a "communist's perception" is pretty damned funny.

Yeah, it's crazy. Not the worst I've seen, though. Wingslaught disagreed with this flowchart: http://www.selectsmart.com/commentary/blog.php?m=2456

A lot of posters simply cannot get their heads around the idea that someone can support a position without supporting every single argument in favor of that position.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

proponents of the free market suggest that social issues would be handled by charity which comes off as responsibility im not sure is proper in that type of economy/society

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here - but conservative thought tends to be either 1) you can't force me to be charitable or/and 2) if the gov took less of my taxes then I'd have more to give to charity.

 

[OldGoat]

Yes, really. Were you not aware of that? Look up enclosures, for example (and vagrancy laws and their relation to each other).



Again, the gov't lays out rules by which property ownership transfers, and recognizes titles. With no gov't, that becomes far more fluid and subject to fuzzy community standards. Plus, of course, gov'ts recognize property claims that were questionable to begin with.



You're arguing semantics. I'm talking about reality, which is that in a system of property rights, the gov't necessarily has to intervene in a massive way, and you're saying, "well, people who support that kind of massive intervention but not other interventions to balance things out for common people choose to not recognize that reality by changing the meaning of words."



I'm not confused. I am fully aware of your ignorance regarding gov't intervention in the economy, and I'm calling it to your attention. That is, there's a huge flaw in your understanding.

Property rights are ancient, Jack. What does enclosure have to deal with concepts and rights that people have held to be common since antiquity? Societies don't engage in trade and use currency if they hold the common belief that all property goes to the king/big man/burgermeister/etc. Or that all property is just a free for all for the one with the biggest army.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Property rights are ancient, Jack. What does enclosure have to deal with concepts and rights that people have held to be common since antiquity?

Enclosures are where we begin to see the process of "free markets" (that is, where the gov't declares who owns everything and enforces those claims with violence) take hold. People have not held modern conceptions of property since antiquity.

Societies don't engage in trade and use currency if they hold the common belief that all property goes to the king/big man/burgermeister/etc. Or that all property is just a free for all for the one with the biggest army.

Societies don't engage in internal trade without strong gov'ts. They trade with other societies, but that's very different. Anyway, some form of "property rights" exists in most societies, but not the form required for "free markets" to operate.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Why are people so na

 

[OldGoat]

Enclosures are where we begin to see the process of "free markets" (that is, where the gov't declares who owns everything and enforces those claims with violence) take hold. People have not held modern conceptions of property since antiquity.



Societies don't engage in internal trade without strong gov'ts. They trade with other societies, but that's very different. Anyway, some form of "property rights" exists in most societies, but not the form required for "free markets" to operate.

So, ancient Rome didn't have the concept of private property? And what's the point of currency if you cannot buy or sell more or less freely? And currency is ancient in concept and exists even in places/societies that didn't have strong central government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

Even in BC the idea of private property was common.

 

[Calmete]

Why are people so na

 

[OldGoat]

Why are people so na

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Lol another poster addressing a fabricated boogeyman. It's like a cult or something.

Are you living in your own world or something????


How can anyone with half a brain say fabricated boogeyman???

Just outta curiosity and to get a good laugh please tell me how the financial sector are not complete crooks??

 

[Calmete]

Are you living in your own world or something????


How can anyone with half a brain say fabricated boogeyman???

Just outta curiosity and to get a good laugh please tell me how the financial sector are not complete crooks??

That's my point. Who are you addressing with that post? I haven't seen 1 person advocate for some 100% free market fantasy.

Yet you're like the fourth poster who's pretending someone did. It's just really strange. You know, cult like.