NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that this has probably been discussed numerous times already but I don't care because I'm too lazy to fetch for it by reading hundreds of pages just to find specifically what I'm looking for and I've noticed people repeating discussed topics anyway, so. . . yea; that's all there is to that.

Anyway, the purpose of creating yet another thread on this subject besides that I'm lazy, is because I want to hear people's opinions on whether a free market economy is a good idea. And for further clarification, since the original meaning of the term has been corrupted over time, I mean a free market system in which the government intervenes as little as possible; only to the point of preventing forced monopolies or preventing something reasonably dangerous to society (such as creating missiles and bombing the nation's cities, but I understand "reasonably" dangerous is debatable too) or forcing people to become enslaved for their intentions of cheap money making; you know, the obviously needed intervention.

What are your opinions on this economic system? Why or why not should it be implemented? Keep in mind that: I personally believe this system can work, reasonably, if things are left naturally to flow on their own, so if you notice that I decide to argue against people who disagree with a free market economy, don't be surprised or upset. Since most people simply make these kinds of threads to flex their debate-muscles (trolling/ what ever), I thought I should emphasize that I'm not attempting to go on the power trip. I don't expect there to be no real answer, nor do I expect to this to be a conclusion for anyone else bring up this topic again in the future, and I hope no one bashes me or anyone else for having their economic opinions.

Please don't deviate from subject, unless it's necessary to come to a point relevant to this subject, and thanks for taking your time to read and respond to my first post here. :)

Free market is good. what is debatable is the extent of regulation the goverment should put in place.
companies for instance should not be allowed to out right lie. for instance claiming that hummer over there get 200 miles a gallon when it does not.

Free market economy? I'll take it!

(Yeah, I'll show myself out.)

Yes, so long as it's nicely taxed to provide state-run services.

Free market economy? I'll take it!

(Yeah, I'll show myself out.)

Ha! A free-marketer like you would insist on showing yourself out!
You'd probably oppose a government funded initiative to show others out, too.

Free market is good. what is debatable is the extent of regulation the goverment should put in place.
companies for instance should not be allowed to out right lie. for instance claiming that hummer over there get 200 miles a gallon when it does not.

Given that the market requires for full access to information to function, this is an important role for the government in assisting the function of the market.

Define free markets for me. Definitions vary greatly. Yootopia calls for a free market with public services funded by taxes. Milton Friedman said he was for free markets, and yet he was for government management of the money supply, publically funded education, even welfare. I have also met people who say that free markets can only occur when the state no longer exists.

Ha! A free-marketer like you would insist on showing yourself out!
You'd probably oppose a government funded initiative to show others out, too.

You're damn right I would. If they can't be bothered to show themselves out, let them stay in. :D

It's hard for me to tell from your response whether my joke came through, but I have to know. I was going for a variation on the "Free Tibet" joke; I know it wasn't good, but was it at least recognizable? ;)

It's hard for me to tell from your response whether my joke came through, but I have to know. I was going for a variation on the "Free Tibet" joke; I know it wasn't good, but was it at least recognizable? ;)

I'm now kicking myself for not noticing. :(
Things like that often work better in illustrated form.

Define free markets for me. Definitions vary greatly. Yootopia calls for a free market with public services funded by taxes. Milton Friedman said he was for free markets, and yet he was for government management of the money supply, publically funded education, even welfare. I have also met people who say that free markets can only occur when the state no longer exists.
Yeah. Economists usually acknowledge the limitations of a free market in the form of market failures, and while they may disagree on how common those are and how they're best addressed, there is general consensus in the mainstream that the state is the best tool to do it.

And then you have people of the Ayn Rand kind who argue in favour of a free market not so much with the focus on the "market", but on the "free".

Oh, and then there are those types who say "yeah, I'd love a free market", but who reckon that the accumulation of private property allows some to control it to the point where it is no longer free. And those people might reckon that a free market is only possible in a system that you really couldn't call "capitalism" as such.

Yeah. Economists usually acknowledge the limitations of a free market in the form of market failures, and while they may disagree on how common those are and how they're best addressed, there is general consensus in the mainstream that the state is the best tool to do it.

And then you have people of the Ayn Rand kind who argue in favour of a free market not so much with the focus on the "market", but on the "free".

Oh, and then there are those types who say "yeah, I'd love a free market", but who reckon that the accumulation of private property allows some to control it to the point where it is no longer free. And those people might reckon that a free market is only possible in a system that you really couldn't call "capitalism" as such.
A fantastic summation.

Define free markets for me. Definitions vary greatly. Yootopia calls for a free market with public services funded by taxes. Milton Friedman said he was for free markets, and yet he was for government management of the money supply, publically funded education, even welfare. I have also met people who say that free markets can only occur when the state no longer exists.How about a free market where the government only controls: 1) The police; 2) The military; 3) Public roads/ highways/ paths/ etc; 4) City halls (and the like), and. . . yea.

I understand the controversy of "if the government regulates our borders, criminal activity and the like, why shouldn't they regulate whether we all get enough food or medicine, and etc?", but I guess you just have to decide when it's appropriate or not to put your foot down; some libertarians argue that we should have a state without military or police regulations; people would hire their own body guards or rent-a-cops or even form their own militias or something (but I don't really think that would be possible for long, because there's would really be nothing from stopping a mutually agreed "corporate" take over).

I'm now kicking myself for not noticing. :(
Things like that often work better in illustrated form.

Yeah, I think the problem with it is that "free market economy" is most often used as a single, three-word noun (as opposed to "Free Tibet," in which the two words are clearly separate -- it could be a complete imperative sentence in which "free" is a verb, or a noun phrase in which "free" is an adjective). Thus, when people see the joke, they think I'm saying "I'll take a free market economy!" rather than "I'll take a market economy... for free!"

Anyway, there's no reason you should have noticed. As I said, I was shooting for a marginally recognizable joke rather than an actually good one.

Yeah, I think the problem with it is that "free market economy" is most often used as a single, three-word noun (as opposed to "Free Tibet," in which the two words are clearly separate -- it could be a complete imperative sentence in which "free" is a verb, or a noun phrase in which "free" is an adjective).

I think the problem lies on the emphasis and rhythm in the phrase. "Free market economy" is normally rushed in the first half (as in "free-market economy") but, as you say, the humour relies on the first word being a separate entity… what is needed for the purposes of the joke is a "free market-economy".

Anyway. Language is poetry, etc. :cool:

I think the problem lies on the emphasis and rhythm in the phrase. "Free market economy" is normally rushed in the first half (as in "free-market economy") but, as you say, the humour relies on the first word being a separate entity… what is needed for the purposes of the joke is a "free market-economy".

Anyway. Language is poetry, etc. :cool:

Also true. If pressed to pull an adjective out of some portion of the noun "free market economy," I suspect that at least 95% of the population would make "free market" the adjective, and that roughly the same percentage would leave "economy" standing alone as the noun. Few would mark "market economy" as a separate part of speech from "free." And frankly, I'm sympathetic to this; after all, it'd be tough to differentiate a "free market economy" from an "unfree market economy."

I never believed that this was a great joke, a good joke or even an okay joke. I just threw it out there to see how it would fare.

No.

And for further clarification, since the original meaning of the term has been corrupted over time, I mean a free market system in which the government intervenes as little as possible; only to the point of preventing forced monopolies or preventing something reasonably dangerous to society (such as creating missiles and bombing the nation's cities, but I understand "reasonably" dangerous is debatable too) or forcing people to become enslaved for their intentions of cheap money making; you know, the obviously needed intervention.But of course, interfering enough to create the private property rights necessary for a market economy in the first place.

The 'free' market is only 'free' for those who control it - the bourgeois, for everyone else it's wage slavery.

The market failures, the concentration of power in the hands of a few, the global problems which can be accounted for in market theory - using socialized ressources which either can't be priced or be measured (like say air) will lead to a wrong price and put a strain on these ressources), and not be addressed as long as nation-states are making the laws ...
these facts make it inadvertable that a "free market" system has to be overcome. It is a pity that not enough resources are made free to research on alternatives (but then, why would hte mighty who profit most spend money on research that weakens them? Not enough enlightenment in the world will lead to desaster for mankind)

The 'free' market is only 'free' for those who control it - the bourgeois, for everyone else it's wage slavery.
Buy some shares then.

The 'free' market is only 'free' for those who control it - the bourgeois, for everyone else it's wage slavery.

If you have nothing to sell, sell your own abilities. I really don't see what is so difficult about the concept of having yourself as your own capital, in that case everyone owns capital.

As for my view, there will never be a perfectly fair AND productive way of distributing resources. Allowing people to obtain and share their own resources has proven so far to be by far the best way to raise capital and increase equilibrium wealth in densely populated countries, so long as the state doesn't allow it to get out of control, and as long as any company is subject to social law. It's like democracy, all systems of distribution are flawed to some extent, I feel that the free market is the least flawed of the flawed systems, just like democracy is the lesser of evils. The trick is to get exactly the right balance of state regulation and market self regulation, as well as ignoring Keynesian price controls like the plague.

I don't remember Keynes calling for price controls.

Buy some shares then.

Yeah! Then, instead of owning none of the means of production at all, you'll own a tiny, infinitesimal portion... what a wonderful innovation of the ownership society!

I really don't see what is so difficult about the concept of having yourself as your own capital, in that case everyone owns capital.

Because it entirely misses the point of the socialist critique of capital: namely, that when the overwhelming share is held in the hands of the few, most everyone else ends up subordinated and exploited through the necessity of attaining employment at the hands of those few (or borrowing the necessary capital for entrepreneurship and/or self-employment).

Re-labeling labor power as capital doesn't actually change this reality, it just contributes to obscuring our capacity to notice it.

I don't remember Keynes calling for price controls.

Well whether he truly did or didn't (it's kind of hard to tell), his buddies sure did.

Because it entirely misses the point of the socialist critique of capital: namely, that when the overwhelming share is held in the hands of the few, most everyone else ends up subordinated and exploited through the necessity of attaining employment at the hands of those few (or borrowing the necessary capital for entrepreneurship and/or self-employment).


You can call it 'subordination and exploitation' technically, thing is most people don't mind, and they are still relatively free. Again, every system has flaws.

Well whether he truly did or didn't (it's kind of hard to tell), his buddies sure did.

Which ones?

thing is most people don't mind,

I tend to think otherwise.

True, most people aren't calling for the overthrow of capitalism... but that's political consciousness, and not the same thing as "minding". Plenty of people don't like their jobs, or their boss, or their pay--and plenty of people who do only do so because they figure that there's no alternative.

You yourself refer to the free market in terms of the "least evil."

and they are still relatively free.

"Relative" to what?

Which ones?

By buddies I mean the people who bought into his school of thought in Britain who decided to adopt this policy in government which resulted in the retarded policy of price control to stop inflation.

By buddies I mean the people who bought into his school of thought in Britain who decided to adopt this policy in government which resulted in the retarded policy of price control to stop inflation.

I doubt contemporary keynesians argue for price controls.

I tend to think otherwise.

True, most people aren't calling for the overthrow of capitalism... but that's political consciousness, and not the same thing as "minding". Plenty of people don't like their jobs, or their boss, or their pay--and plenty of people who do only do so because they figure that there's no alternative.

You yourself refer to the free market in terms of the "least evil."


But again, in every system not everyone is going to like the work they do, luckily when a society is generally rich (which the free market tends to provide) they generally don't have to work loads and loads of hours, which means work does not completely control their life.


"Relative" to what?

Let me clarify, in pretty much every single system you're going to have many working for a few, whether its the state or the corporation. The only way to not have this and have a completely fair society is to have something like complete communal anarchism (something which I do no think is possible, nor nessecerally that great). I feel that at least with the free market the few is the largest few of all other systems, and the many are the wealthiest etc...

I doubt contemporary keynesians argue for price controls.

The people I'm talking about weren't contemporary, I'm talking about politicians and economists from the 60s and before.

But again, in every system not everyone is going to like the work they do,

So? The issue is whether we can do better, not whether we can be perfect.

Let me clarify, in pretty much every single system you're going to have many working for a few, whether its the state or the corporation.

Ideally, the "state" in a democratic society, unlike a corporation, is the representative of the public. If the people work for the state, they work for themselves.

(The degree to which this ideal is actually realizable in the context of the political forms of present states is a separate political challenge that doesn't alter this point.)

There will never be a completely free market while there are separate countries. For example it is hard to imagine the US embracing a free market for people's labour - they will always whine about Mexican's coming and 'stealing their jobs'.

The people I'm talking about weren't contemporary, I'm talking about politicians and economists from the 60s and before.

I know, but you said you were against Keynesian price controls. Price controls were one policy endorsed by some Keynesians in the 60s and seventies, but not not by many before or after that. So there is there isn't any reason to call price controls Keynesian unless you meant are non-keynesian price controls as well as keynesian price controls.

So? The issue is whether we can do better, not whether we can be perfect.


Exactly why I go for the free market which I feel is the best system, even if it isn't perfect.


Ideally, the "state" in a democratic society, unlike a corporation, is the representative of the public. If the people work for the state, they work for themselves.


Any work in a free market, realistically, is for themselves. Obviously if nobody worked everyone would be suffering from starvation and disease (and probably chronic boredom) etc... The free market is just a more complicated and probably more natural way of circulating the money. And just because you're working for the 'tyranny of the majority' doesn't mean that's any better.

I know, but you said you were against Keynesian price controls. Price controls were one policy endorsed by some Keynesians in the 60s and seventies, but not not by many before or after that. So there is there isn't any reason to call price controls Keynesian unless you meant are non-keynesian price controls as well as keynesian price controls.

Well the 'Keynesians' who opt for price controls differ from others since their premise is different.

Any work in a free market, realistically, is for themselves. Obviously if nobody worked everyone would be suffering from starvation and disease (and probably chronic boredom) etc...

That's a truism that applies to any economic system (under a broad enough definition of "work", anyway.)

The free market is just a more complicated and probably more natural way of circulating the money.

There's nothing "natural" about a free market, which depends in a variety of ways on highly artificial institutions, starting with private property itself.

And just because you're working for the 'tyranny of the majority' doesn't mean that's any better.

"The majority" is not a constant, homogeneous entity--it's a product of ever-shifting coalitions between a wide variety of minorities, with the consequence that, with some exceptions, the procedure of "majority rules" tends to get us fairly close to the empowerment of everyone... especially in the context of a constitutional structure that protects minority rights.

Free market for me. No Government Regulation, just a complete, unaltered free market.

That's a truism that applies to any economic system (under a broad enough definition of "work", anyway.)


And so I don't see how working for the state is any better, even if it sounds better, realistically it makes no difference and planned economies tend to be a whole lot worse for society.


There's nothing "natural" about a free market, which depends in a variety of ways on highly artificial institutions, starting with private property itself.


I was hesitant in typing natural because I knew you would say this, but I stand by it. Once the market is in motion, its impossible to get rid of it. Look at Lenin, when he tried to stop people from selling their own food, it caused mass famine, which forced Lenin to legalise the black market. People have their own things whether the state allows it or not, the state is there to make sure that what's theirs is theirs fairly and contractually to stop others from taking other peoples things (social contract theory etc...), this is something most people would naturally opt for in a densely populated area, where private space is valued and needed.


"The majority" is not a constant, homogeneous entity--it's a product of ever-shifting coalitions between a wide variety of minorities, with the consequence that, with some exceptions, the procedure of "majority rules" tends to get us fairly close to the empowerment of everyone... especially in the context of a constitutional structure that protects minority rights.

In a pure democracy, coalition governments tend to be very weak and tend to be something everyone is indifferent towards because of all the resulting compromises, not supportive of. In which case, working for some entity that doesn't seem to have your best interests at heart wouldn't seem that great either.

Yeah! Then, instead of owning none of the means of production at all, you'll own a tiny, infinitesimal portion... what a wonderful innovation of the ownership society!
I was being faecetious.