Free Market vs Socialism

[dxoigmn]

Like freemarket is oppression?

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.

What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."   It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.

[dxoigmn]

If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Always fun to make up our own standards.  But the whole unemployment thing has been discussed before and it's proven that there are people who can't find work for a lot of reason.  Look at the thread again.

[DOOM]

Well at least communism worked so well to even things out...

Never been tested.  There really has never been a *true* communist country.  Whether or not this is a testament that communism doesn't work is arguable.

That is true, there has never been a true communist country.  But I think the examples of so-called communist countries in this world do show communism's overall failure to some extent.  For communism to truly work, everyone has to agree to and play by the rules.  But there is always going to be someone who isn't satisfied, who wants more.  And they are going to try get more power for themselves at the expense of everyone else.

[Adron]

Actually, there would. That's what people from the western civilization forget when they imagine how much better things would be without regulation.

You are wrong adron. Without regulation, without price floors like minimum wage the market would reach an quilibrium on its own and companies would not save any money by having facilities over seas.

I guess I should expect you to reject and not give these freemarket economic principles a chance if you have rejected them all of your life being a socialist... you like the government to handle your cash.

I'm not wrong. I'm exactly right, and we probably agree. The only difference is that you're speaking of the equilibrium situation and I'm speaking of what would happen after today. If regulations were removed right now, a lot of Americans would suddenly be unemployed, unless they were willing to work for $1 / day.

America is high on the scale right now, and development countries are low on the scale. The current state of American economics, the current wellbeing, requires that there is an imbalance. There have to be people to make Nike shoes for wages low enough that they never make enough money to be able to buy a pair themselves.

Then come balance, come equilibrium, when location doesn't matter for economic status. Come cars for everyone, computers for everyone? No, of course not. Those were previously financed by the imbalances created by regulation!

[quasi-modo]

Like freemarket is oppression?

The majority of people in a free market are oppressed.  The rich get richer and the poor poorer.

What kind of voodoo economics are you talking about? Explain why you think a poor person will get poorer, because that is not the way I was thought... I might have just gotten lucky on the ap if I am wrong about this eh.

What you learn in AP economics is purely theory.  But in any case, maybe I should revise it to say: "The gap between the rich and poor is getting wider."   It's something like the wealthiest 20% have nearly 50% of all income in the US.  If you compare incomes, the richer get richer much faster than the poor and I don't even think this is taking into account inflation.  So while on the surface everyone may become a little richer (or a lot richer in the case of the already rich), inflation counter acts it.

You are inherently wrong. Inflation aids the debtor but hurts the loaner.

[quasi-modo]

If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Always fun to make up our own standards.  But the whole unemployment thing has been discussed before and it's proven that there are people who can't find work for a lot of reason.  Look at the thread again.

What reason is that? I have not seen unemployment disgussed anywhere in the thread but here.

[quasi-modo]

Actually, there would. That's what people from the western civilization forget when they imagine how much better things would be without regulation.

You are wrong adron. Without regulation, without price floors like minimum wage the market would reach an quilibrium on its own and companies would not save any money by having facilities over seas.

I guess I should expect you to reject and not give these freemarket economic principles a chance if you have rejected them all of your life being a socialist... you like the government to handle your cash.

I'm not wrong. I'm exactly right, and we probably agree. The only difference is that you're speaking of the equilibrium situation and I'm speaking of what would happen after today. If regulations were removed right now, a lot of Americans would suddenly be unemployed, unless they were willing to work for $1 / day.

America is high on the scale right now, and development countries are low on the scale. The current state of American economics, the current wellbeing, requires that there is an imbalance. There have to be people to make Nike shoes for wages low enough that they never make enough money to be able to buy a pair themselves.

Then come balance, come equilibrium, when location doesn't matter for economic status. Come cars for everyone, computers for everyone? No, of course not. Those were previously financed by the imbalances created by regulation!

Even if there are some layoffs american citizens still have power, they can boycott. Nothing would stop them from doing that. In any case if there were mass layoffs the buying ability of the citizen sharply decreases too and then you have massive deflation, hence you can now work for a doller. Boom, no regulation, the system repairs its self. No matter what you do there is always a period of adjustment, like imposing or removing a regulation. For instance in florida they just pulled up minimum wage 1 doller... I hate minimum wage because it is a price floor and it drives up inflation. Now inflation will go up with the minimum wage and my pay will eventually go up with it. The adjustment period will be probably about a year, but just wait a year, we will be exactly where we are started... the market controls it's self.

[Forged]

Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs.

Other countries can out source us because of regulations are put on U.S buisness for good reason.  If you think Lassie Faire is the way to go I suggest you read some Upton Sinclaire.

If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Also, I fail to see how the Jungle and other works by a socialist have to do with laissez faire not working. So some people get some toes cut off at a meat factory? Well people would naturally quit buying their meat, they will clean up their act, it all works out naturally. Some regulation is always neccessary to correct the market failiors (like negative externalities) but other then that the market can take care of its self, and it has proven that time and time again.

If you are against free market then you cannot a libertarian, which I believe you claimed to be one time forged. To my knowlege free market conservative economic theories were some core values of the libertarian party.

PS: It is laissez faire, not lassie, some retarded dog  .

Free market or not, corps should not be able to dump hazardous materials or be able to sell things without labels.  They also shouldn't be able to fuck over their employs in ways like they did in The Jungle.  While I do consider myself a libertarian, I think some of their ideas to be a little wacky, but it is the party I tend to agree with the most.  As for the spelling mistake, please forgive my incomptence.

[quasi-modo]

Sounds like someone is a little pro-bad stuff & not enough pro-good stuff.  Communism is a good idea, but in reality we all found out doesn't work.  Why not expand capitalism, it is why any other nation on earth can recieve our outsourced jobs.  If there was no US, we wouldn't need India to do all of our programming & other *-collar jobs.

Other countries can out source us because of regulations are put on U.S buisness for good reason.  If you think Lassie Faire is the way to go I suggest you read some Upton Sinclaire.

If there are regulations then it corrupts the whole free market theory. If this were a pure market without government regulations outsoursing would not exist. That does not change the fact that capialism works and people are not getting poorer. If you have not noticed our unemployment rate is in the normal range again, those who can't find jobs are those who do not want jobs. Yes I know in the definition of employment to be unemployed you must be looking for a job, but if you can't find any work right now then you are obviously not looking.

Also, I fail to see how the Jungle and other works by a socialist have to do with laissez faire not working. So some people get some toes cut off at a meat factory? Well people would naturally quit buying their meat, they will clean up their act, it all works out naturally. Some regulation is always neccessary to correct the market failiors (like negative externalities) but other then that the market can take care of its self, and it has proven that time and time again.

If you are against free market then you cannot a libertarian, which I believe you claimed to be one time forged. To my knowlege free market conservative economic theories were some core values of the libertarian party.

PS: It is laissez faire, not lassie, some retarded dog  .

Free market or not, corps should not be able to dump hazardous materials or be able to sell things without labels.  They also shouldn't be able to fuck over their employs in ways like they did in The Jungle.  While I do consider myself a libertarian, I think some of their ideas to be a little wacky, but it is the party I tend to agree with the most.  As for the spelling mistake, please forgive my incomptence.

I forgive you It is one of those dirty french words that I feel dirty uttering.
Well pollution is a negative externality, which is a market failure. That is one of the few things the government should regulate. For example, I feel that a pollution tax is a good idea. That way it will not drive the company out of business if they pollute, but it can give them a very real incentive to figure out a more environmental friendly way to produce their widgets. Also, I like to think of employees as a small company in themselves because they are selling a service. If the employees team up, which is a form of collusion yes, but it can occur naturally if the company is fucking everyone, and they can get what they want (which would probably be more money or better working conditions) in the form of a strike. I mean its not like they are powerless. I know this is all on paper because no government is going to be able to let a market run completely free, there need to be laws and taxes (which will create dead weight loss), but I believe we should keep it to the absolute minimum.... This is why I consider myself to be a libertarian fiscally.

I have a cool libertarian assault doughnot button. I will take a picture of it sometime and post it here.

[Adron]

Even if there are some layoffs american citizens still have power, they can boycott. Nothing would stop them from doing that. In any case if there were mass layoffs the buying ability of the citizen sharply decreases too and then you have massive deflation, hence you can now work for a doller. Boom, no regulation, the system repairs its self.

Oh, of course. The system will regulate itself. But the new balance won't involve living at the standard that Americans are used to.

[quasi-modo]

Even if there are some layoffs american citizens still have power, they can boycott. Nothing would stop them from doing that. In any case if there were mass layoffs the buying ability of the citizen sharply decreases too and then you have massive deflation, hence you can now work for a doller. Boom, no regulation, the system repairs its self.

Oh, of course. The system will regulate itself. But the new balance won't involve living at the standard that Americans are used to.

Sure it will, there will just be the correctional period. So things well be messy for a few years if you just remove the regulations, but then it will recover, my bet is in the end the standard would end up higher because we would have a more efficient market.

[Adron]

Oh, of course. The system will regulate itself. But the new balance won't involve living at the standard that Americans are used to.

Sure it will, there will just be the correctional period. So things well be messy for a few years if you just remove the regulations, but then it will recover, my bet is in the end the standard would end up higher because we would have a more efficient market.

I think the global standard would end up lower than the American standard, but higher than the current standard in development countries. The average would probably increase a bit, but there just isn't enough to get everyone in the world a car.

[Stealth]

They also shouldn't be able to fuck over their employs in ways like they did in The Jungle.

The Jungle was written in 1906. Things have changed drastically since then.

[Forged]

Yes but if we go back to deregulation like in that book it will start aknew, maybe not to the extreme it was then, but it would still be pretty shitty.

[quasi-modo]

Well if there are now laws saying the company cant screw its employees the employees can say you cant screw us by joining forces... forming a union.