I think on paper, in definition the free market is a great idea. But I think there is a time in a free market economy when we have to make changes to the definition. The free market worked great in America for many years and advanced us immensely, but I think we got to a point when we had to keep the free market values, but make some exception for a controlled market,although it has to be controlled for the right reasons. Without the proper intervention, look where we are now. We have massive companys like Monsanto, Walmart, and other multi trillion dollar companies who kill the free market. With the wrong intervention these companies have been able to create such huge monopolies on so many different industry's they are killing all competition and killing the greatness of the free market. They are killing the whole economy. Since we are really a mixed economy because the government loves sticking their noses in everything, why cant they see how many jobs and wealth this is taking away from the people on a local level? That is why I believe we should decentralize the economy from the government/state and bring it to the local level, so the free market can do its job, the people can feel more involved in their local politics, which I believe would help our moral immensely and make our country stronger. Maybe we would even see our economy improving, instead of continuing on the downhill slope we have been forced on. What other things do you think should be changed in a free market to keep it free??
Within the confines of a societal structure, ideals can never be achieved. Some famous philosophers might call it a "coordination problem", as in, we have the mathematical tools to quantify a given matter, but it's physically impossible to be in enough places at enough times to develop an equalized strategy implementing those tools. What I'm really trying to say is that a true free market can never actually occur. Coercion is a necessary element of all thing societal. So no matter what you do, it's never free for real. That's why I rapidly dismiss people who tout the value of a free market while failing to give an example of one. Usually when someone says "free market" in a good way, they're talking about a not free market that provides an outcome they desire, and likewise when they give the term a negative connotation, they're referring to a non free market which doesn't favor their interests. There's no such thing, in this world as a free market, or a democracy, or a communist state, or anything like those things. Just groups of people who are more or less aligned w/ a particular ideal.
Other way around dude, Corporations like Walmart are able to be such huge momopolies is because of government intervention. Take the state out of the equation and then you would get competition and the greatness of the free market.
I stopped reading. Are you trolling? I honestly can't tell if you believe this. Are you really that ignorant of our government's role in the economy?
I hope this thread evolves into a good conversation and not a bunch of hating. I'll be reading as people post, but my opinion on the Free Market might not sit well with some of the people here. anyway, please please PLEASE don't let this thread get derailed and turn into a fight rather than a debate or discussion.
There has already been massive intervention into the market process. The United States has been a controlled economy for a hundred years. Each year the government takes over more and more of the economy. Your argument seems to be focused on the size of companies, as if the size of the company dictates whether or not a company is good or bad. I hear this a lot. "We need to break up corporations" or "we need to control these massive corporations so the economy can be free." This is completely wrong of course. In a market, especially a market free of governmental controls and regulations, companies live and die based off of the services or the products they supply. If their product or service is inferior or the company is managed wrong the market will push the company out of business. This happens all the time. On the flip side companies that do what they say and deliver what they promise usually do very well and continue to operate. Wal-Mart didn't become the worlds largest retailer because they are bad at retail. Wal-Mart understood (perhaps better when Sam Walton was still alive) that people not only want cheaper goods, but many people NEED cheaper goods. Wal-Mart focused on the middle class and the poor as their consumer base. They deliver quality goods at an affordable price so that people can have the things they want or need and in general the service is ok. At least I can tolerate mediocre service for cheap goods. Wal-Mart or Monsanto are not monopolies. Though they are very large they are far from being the evil corporations you make them out to be (well... Monsanto might be but it is protected by the federal government). Wal-Mart has plenty of competition which forces it to constantly find better ways of doing business. Nor are large corporations "killing the economy." That responsibility falls directly on the federal and State governments. A large corporation isn't bad. Think economy of scale. A large corporation has more resources to draw from which can be used to reduce overhead and increase the bottom line. The bottom line is really what's important. Without a strong profit margin corporations have to cut jobs, reduce pay, slash benefits. The more profitable a company is the more people it can hire, the more it can pay, the more benefits it can offer. We actually need far fewer controls over the economy and business if we want to see strong economic growth. While most people believe regulations aid the market they are flat wrong. Regulations have real cost associated with compliance. Smaller companies often do not have the resources available to them to absorb the cost of compliance. In order to afford it they must raise their prices. This puts them at a disadvantage because smaller companies rely on their ability to operate on a razor thin margin in order to compete with larger companies. If regulation cost them too much then they will have to price themselves right out of the market. Larger companies can absorb the cost associated with new regulations. In fact, most regulations are actually written by giant corporations or special interest groups representing a particular industry for exactly the reason I explained. Higher regulatory cost puts their cheaper competitors out of business or makes them less competitive. You are right that a lot of companies are abusive, but only because they enjoy the protection of the government at all levels. Large companies WANT regulations. They don't dislike them at all. The tighter the controls over that segment of the economy the few companies they are going to have to compete against. That means they are insulated from the market forces which would either put them out of business or force them to change their business model.
I understand this. Which is why I said the free market is great in definition and values, but can never actually work unless we are constantly making changes to accommodate the different factors we will inevitably face as the free market continues to grow. I think it could work if we broke it down to the county level, with the people recommending what changes they would like to see in their local economy, and then even possibly voting on the different laws they believe would be for the benefit of all the people and not some large corporation. Of course this would never work if there is corruption in the system, which should be determined by the people of the county, and the official should be put on trial and put in jaiil if found guilty. This whole system would have to be based on the people for it to work. Which I believe the people would be interested in if they actually have a real part in their local economy, and they have the power to actually let their voices be heard, and change it when they feel its no longer working for them.
The paradox actually stems from a problem in defining "free". I'm not saying that there's some smoke filled room of "governments" who coerce people into doing particular things. I'm saying that it's impossible to conceptualize a social situation in which stratification isn't an interest of almost everyone involved, (if not everyone). Most people hold beliefs that are incompatible with other beliefs that they themselves hold. They have to weigh their interests in any given situation against one another in order to make a "choice", or better, a "free choice". It's almost never the case that a person doesn't have competing interests within their own system of beliefs. I know that's a bit abstract, you can try and give me a real life situation in which you believe that the ability to make an uncoerced decision exists, and if you want I'll do my best to explain how it in fact does. Check out this guy....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin He had alot to say about freedom/liberty.
Exactly why do we need to make changes to "accommodate the different factors we will inevitably face as the free market continues to grow"? The only changes you need to make is take away the protection large corporations receive from the government (subsidies, regulations, licensing laws, taxation, etc.) and allow the market to actually function. Companies revenues rely on the people buying their products or services. If the government doesn't protect bad companies and punish good companies (through taxation, regulation, licensing laws, subsidies, etc.) then the market will sort it out. I'm not sure why people hate companies so much. I guess everyone just wants to be dirt farmers again.
jesus christ man, what do you think the antitrust committee, the federeal reserve, etc has been doing since pretty much from the getgo?....sheesh....
Make the state's role in economic affairs more competitive by decentralizing power, privatization and implementing private bid contracts into most public services. State monopolies that derive their existance from force, like the FDA or DMV, are way more inefficient and corrupt than private monopolies who derive their existance from satisfying demand, like Microsoft or Wal Mart. If we can find a way to keep the bureaucrats on their toes then It'd be a start. There has to be more risk in government jobs... Returning power to the states would be a great first step, we could watch as freer markets compete with planned markets and witness firsthand the failures of things like price fixing and prohibition.
Thats what I meant if I said it wrong, and I do believe Walmart is a monopoly. They are so large and kill so much competition that they have a monopoly over the people. Im not saying we should close down Walmart because they are evil either, all Im saying is a market really free when companies are able to become so large that entrepreneurs cannot start their own stores because Walmart can shut them down with ease, there is no reason for someone to try and compete. I think it would be better if we could restrict them to one store per county or something so people can actually have a chance instead of their being 1 walmart every 10 miles. This is what I mean by every free market has a point when they can no longer be free, because to me free means open to anybody, and its not open to anybody when one company has such influence on the market. And what about Walmart manufacturing their own products with their own brand, just wait until they manufacture everything they sell, then they will really have a monopoly ever the industry, and its not just one industry its every industry that people need. They kill the competition and therefore the wealth on the local level where the people need to be making the money, not some huge company thats has so much influence over the government they make the government their chicken head hoe.
Freedom isn't an absolute value. It's context dependent. It's a matter of degree. There's the "freedom from" people doing bad things to you, and the "freedom to" do what makes you happy. Taken as an absolute, one cancels out the other, so it's gotta be a little of each. This is the case in any situation involving a government and that which is governed, whether it be people or companies. So the term "free" as used in the layman's sense is pretty much a contradiction in almost every case, or it's a misconstrued ideal.
Exactly, now you got my idea of what I mean by this thread. Thats also very similar to my ideas, we need to take away government power over all the things the should be ran by the people and actually for the people, not someones interests because that is what is killing this countries economy and our moral. I dont understand how they think they are going to fix our economy the way they are trying to. I just don't see it happening ever. And for those of you how think this is about good company, bad company, its not. Its about running the economy on a more local level, by decentralizing the economy from the government/state level. I guess free market was the wrong word to use with you guys since you take it so literal. I mean a controlled market, controlled for the right reasons, that keeps the basic values of a free market. Is that a little better?
That's not true at all. They have lots of competition. A few examples are Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, and a slew of grocery stores, Walgreens, CVS and other pharmacies. The only time I go to Wal-Mart is to buy groceries but that may change now that there is an Aldi close to me. Nearly everything else I buy from Amazon or Craigslist.