NationStates Jolt Archive

the market is a tool, and a useful one. but worship of this tool is a hollow faith. far more important is what you make with it. many of america's greatest accomplishments stand in complete defiance of the free market: the prohibition of child labor, the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of wilderness areas and national parks, the construction of dams, bridges, roads, churches, schools, and universities. If all that mattered were the unfettered right to buy and sell, tainted food could not be kept off supermarket shelves, toxic waste could be dumped next door to elementary schools, and every american family could import an indentured servant (or two), paying them with meals instead of money.

- Fast Food Nation

i really dont understand all those regan and thatcher fans who think that the market is all powerfull and can fix anything. i think the market is a tool, but it also has its drawbacks. monopolies get formed, the rich-poor gap grows, companies get too much power. im not saying the market is all bad, it helps with innovation and productivity, as long as there really is copetition. i guess i just dont understand people who think the market needs to be as liberal as possible, no matter what the costs.

Think about it- many of those people are Reagan and Thatcher fans- and what surer sign of brain damage could there be?

The weird thing is, I just finished the section on Social Cost and Social Benifit in Econ 251. The basic idea is, when society as a whole would benifit from something, there needs to be a mechanism that sweetens the deal a little. Bring the cost for that "thing" down, so doing it is profitable. ie tax breaks or subsidies. See: Farming or Education. When things hurt society, there needs to be some mechanism that raises the cost to match the cost it imposes on society. ie fines or taxes. See: Polution or Cigarets. I think Cigaretes are one of the systems biggest achevements. WIthout banning them the government drasticaly cut down on their consumption by taxing them and providing accurate information about their effects.

The weird thing is, I just finished the section on Social Cost and Social Benifit in Econ 251. The basic idea is, when society as a whole would benifit from something, there needs to be a mechanism that sweetens the deal a little. Bring the cost for that "thing" down, so doing it is profitable. ie tax breaks or subsidies. See: Farming or Education. When things hurt society, there needs to be some mechanism that raises the cost to match the cost it imposes on society. ie fines or taxes. See: Polution or Cigarets. I think Cigaretes are one of the systems biggest achevements. WIthout banning them the government drasticaly cut down on their consumption by taxing them and providing accurate information about their effects.

yeah, but taxes and penalties go against the free market. the government is stepping in, setting artificial prices and hurting the companies who make cigarettes.

the market is a tool, and a useful one. but worship of this tool is a hollow faith. far more important is what you make with it. many of america's greatest accomplishments stand in complete defiance of the free market: the prohibition of child labor, the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of wilderness areas and national parks, the construction of dams, bridges, roads, churches, schools, and universities. If all that mattered were the unfettered right to buy and sell, tainted food could not be kept off supermarket shelves, toxic waste could be dumped next door to elementary schools, and every american family could import an indentured servant (or two), paying them with meals instead of money.

- Fast Food Nation

i really dont understand all those regan and thatcher fans who think that the market is all powerfull and can fix anything. i think the market is a tool, but it also has its drawbacks. monopolies get formed, the rich-poor gap grows, companies get too much power. im not saying the market is all bad, it helps with innovation and productivity, as long as there really is copetition. i guess i just dont understand people who think the market needs to be as liberal as possible, no matter what the costs.


I think your post and the words by the author of Fast Food Nation belie an ignorance of the freemarket underlined by an assumption that absent of government intervention things would not get done.

I think your post and the words by the author of Fast Food Nation belie an ignorance of the freemarket underlined by an assumption that absent of government intervention things would not get done.

no, things get done, hence the innovation and competition being good things the market brings. however, as power concentrates in the hands of a few trusts, as happens in all free markets, the benifits go away. workers are payed less and must accept the wages because there are fewer people buying their labor. competitors are bought rather than competed against, and the system falls apart. furthermore, prices can be cut by cutting the quality of the product. soon, the best sellers are cheap and dangerous. the free market has real problems is what im saying, and the government needs to be there to correct them. it should be a tool to keep corporations in check, not to further all their causes blindly.

no, things get done, hence the innovation and competition being good things the market brings. however, as power concentrates in the hands of a few trusts, as happens in all free markets, the benifits go away. workers are payed less and must accept the wages because there are fewer people buying their labor. competitors are bought rather than competed against, and the system falls apart. furthermore, prices can be cut by cutting the quality of the product. soon, the best sellers are cheap and dangerous. the free market has real problems is what im saying, and the government needs to be there to correct them. it should be a tool to keep corporations in check, not to further all their causes blindly.

In the government, power is less concentrated? Less abused? Workers who are paid less still have options and opportunity to move to other careers. I know this isn't always easy....few things worth doing are. I am aware of corporations acquiring corporations. I know that in the Pharma industry, it is not so much to stymie competition as it is to acquire that company's drug portfolio. It is not so much a market "failure" but a poor long term business strategy that will have its own negative consequences. Prices can be cut by cutting the quality of the product, and consumers can respond by not purchasing that product. And while the decrease in quality may result in a dangerous product, I haven't seen where this is the norm. And the marketing of dangerous product has its own consequences- lawsuits. I'm not saying that there should be no set of laws that corporations needs to play by, but the laws need to be as unobstructive and least burdensome possible...and I'm not sure that's always the case.

the market is a tool, and a useful one. but worship of this tool is a hollow faith. far more important is what you make with it. many of america's greatest accomplishments stand in complete defiance of the free market: the prohibition of child labor, the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of wilderness areas and national parks, the construction of dams, bridges, roads, churches, schools, and universities. If all that mattered were the unfettered right to buy and sell, tainted food could not be kept off supermarket shelves, toxic waste could be dumped next door to elementary schools, and every american family could import an indentured servant (or two), paying them with meals instead of money.

- Fast Food Nation

i really dont understand all those regan and thatcher fans who think that the market is all powerfull and can fix anything. i think the market is a tool, but it also has its drawbacks. monopolies get formed, the rich-poor gap grows, companies get too much power. im not saying the market is all bad, it helps with innovation and productivity, as long as there really is copetition. i guess i just dont understand people who think the market needs to be as liberal as possible, no matter what the costs.

Hurry up. You have to go to work soon.

i really dont understand all those regan and thatcher fans who think that the market is all powerfull and can fix anything. i think the market is a tool, but it also has its drawbacks. monopolies get formed, the rich-poor gap grows, companies get too much power. im not saying the market is all bad, it helps with innovation and productivity, as long as there really is copetition. i guess i just dont understand people who think the market needs to be as liberal as possible, no matter what the costs.

Thatcher was heavily influenced by Hayek. Neither of them believed in a completely "free" market. The idea is that the market is regulated to prevent the formation of trusts and monopolies, therefore competetion will act in the most efficient manner, driving down costs and creating wealth (as well as driving innovation).

So Thatcher didn't believe that the market was all powerful, she just believed that using market forces was a better way of regulating the economy than central planning. Looking at the UKs economy today compared to the 1970s, she was right.

the market is a tool, and a useful one. but worship of this tool is a hollow faith. far more important is what you make with it. many of america's greatest accomplishments stand in complete defiance of the free market: the prohibition of child labor, the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of wilderness areas and national parks, the construction of dams, bridges, roads, churches, schools, and universities. If all that mattered were the unfettered right to buy and sell, tainted food could not be kept off supermarket shelves, toxic waste could be dumped next door to elementary schools, and every american family could import an indentured servant (or two), paying them with meals instead of money.

- Fast Food Nation

i really dont understand all those regan and thatcher fans who think that the market is all powerfull and can fix anything. i think the market is a tool, but it also has its drawbacks. monopolies get formed, the rich-poor gap grows, companies get too much power. im not saying the market is all bad, it helps with innovation and productivity, as long as there really is copetition. i guess i just dont understand people who think the market needs to be as liberal as possible, no matter what the costs.

You are so naive. Why are Nike's and Reebok's made by children in Indonesia? Who built the Interstate Highway Bridge in Laughlin, Nevada? Who goes to Clinton's useless wilderness area in Utah? Why do Universities have 90% liberal professors, but Bill Gates quit early? If it weren't for the huge surplus fo blinded liberals, the rich might have to work more than 1 hour per week.

The free market relies on gross inequalities. Nowadays, inequalities between nations.
The US can consume vast amount of what the earth produces simply because it is the richest country. If all 6 billion people were to live the lifestyle of the average American, we'd need 8 planet Earth's. It's simply not sustainable - the 'free market' is doomed to fail.

The free market relies on gross inequalities. Nowadays, inequalities between nations.
The US can consume vast amount of what the earth produces simply because it is the richest country. If all 6 billion people were to live the lifestyle of the average American, we'd need 8 planet Earth's. It's simply not sustainable - the 'free market' is doomed to fail.


That assumes that all resources are finite. We will eventually run out of fossile fuels, but not before we have something else to replace them.

That assumes that all resources are finite. We will eventually run out of fossile fuels, but not before we have something else to replace them.

What about food, water and other raw materials?

That assumes that all resources are finite. We will eventually run out of fossile fuels, but not before we have something else to replace them.

In case you haven't noticed, ALL people do not (and never will, by definition) live at the highest standard.

What about food, water and other raw materials?

Food is a renewable resource, we easily have the resources to feed the planet with what we have. Most often political situations prohibit the feeding of impoverished peoples.

As far as drinking water, technology will improve to the point where we will be able to desalinize ocean water.

Besides fossile fuels, there is no shortage of raw materials. Economist Julian Simon made a bet with Paul Ehrlich (author of the Limits to Growth) about the price of 10 raw materials (higher prices indicating scarcity)-

The ultimate embarrassment for the Malthusians was when Paul Ehrlich bet Simon $1,000 in 1980 that five resources (of Ehrlich’s choosing) would be more expensive in 10 years. Ehrlich lost: 10 years later every one of the resources had declined in price by an average of 40 percent.

Thatcher was heavily influenced by Hayek. Neither of them believed in a completely "free" market. The idea is that the market is regulated to prevent the formation of trusts and monopolies, therefore competetion will act in the most efficient manner, driving down costs and creating wealth (as well as driving innovation).

So Thatcher didn't believe that the market was all powerful, she just believed that using market forces was a better way of regulating the economy than central planning. Looking at the UKs economy today compared to the 1970s, she was right.

but the economy is becoming centralized again. the regan legacy is that corporations can merge much more easily with little interference by the government. because these corps also give huge campaign contributions, the goivernment is reluctant to a. stop them from getting larger market shares and b. imposing regulations such as health and worker safty standards.

if industry is owned by a few big giants, how is it any better than having the government own everyhting? in fact, isn't it worse since corporations are responsible to their shareholders and governments to their people?

i'm not questioning whether the free market makes economies grow faster, it does. but if an economy grows by 500% and 499% of that growth only benifits ceo's, is it really worth it?

In the government, power is less concentrated? Less abused? Workers who are paid less still have options and opportunity to move to other careers. I know this isn't always easy....few things worth doing are. I am aware of corporations acquiring corporations. I know that in the Pharma industry, it is not so much to stymie competition as it is to acquire that company's drug portfolio. It is not so much a market "failure" but a poor long term business strategy that will have its own negative consequences. Prices can be cut by cutting the quality of the product, and consumers can respond by not purchasing that product. And while the decrease in quality may result in a dangerous product, I haven't seen where this is the norm. And the marketing of dangerous product has its own consequences- lawsuits. I'm not saying that there should be no set of laws that corporations needs to play by, but the laws need to be as unobstructive and least burdensome possible...and I'm not sure that's always the case.

if all corporations pay the same low wages, the employees cant really find better paying work, now can they? im pretty sure in the days before minimum wage, employees werent working for slave wages because they were too lazy to find a better job, they realized that none existed. if all industry produces the same shoddy products or lies about the quality of the product, consumers cannot make decisions about purchasing high quality products. and, free market lovers also seem to be the ones always complaigning about frivolous lawsuits. i mean, we're already talking about the government needing to set laws for the corporations to play by, and doesnt that mean that the free market cant regulate itself?

the market is a tool, and a useful one. but worship of this tool is a hollow faith. far more important is what you make with it. many of america's greatest accomplishments stand in complete defiance of the free market: the prohibition of child labor, the establishment of a minimum wage, the creation of wilderness areas and national parks, the construction of dams, bridges, roads, churches, schools, and universities. If all that mattered were the unfettered right to buy and sell, tainted food could not be kept off supermarket shelves, toxic waste could be dumped next door to elementary schools, and every american family could import an indentured servant (or two), paying them with meals instead of money.

- Fast Food Nation

i really dont understand all those regan and thatcher fans who think that the market is all powerfull and can fix anything. i think the market is a tool, but it also has its drawbacks. monopolies get formed, the rich-poor gap grows, companies get too much power. im not saying the market is all bad, it helps with innovation and productivity, as long as there really is copetition. i guess i just dont understand people who think the market needs to be as liberal as possible, no matter what the costs.
Yes, I have read fast food nation. I have read about Reagan and Thatcher's relentless deregulation. I am convinced that Reagan and Thatcher deregulated in defiance of practical realities, because they were both right-wing ideologues. Both leaders, particularly Reagan, are outstanding examples of politicaians disconnected from reality.