Conservatives idea of "free market" should be questioned

[thefloyd]

Really. How long before the market provides affordable health care for all? How long until the free market understands global warming and makes the necessary investments? How long before the free market provide all children with access to a good education? How long? Is the amount of time justified? Why should Americans count on a market which seems to treat people "differently". I am just saying. Feel free to add more free market questions.

[KitchenWitch]

1. How long before the free market provides a liveable wage for all its

workers?

[thefloyd]

2. Bingo

I know there are more.

[RogueBandit]

3. Are there any examples of a truly free market?

I keep hearing that phrase "free market" but it is bandied about so freely without any explainations of what it means.

If a free market would really work why are the corporations subsidized? Why are there union busters? Why are there monopolies like Microsoft (yes they are a monopoly, the feds said so...they just didn't punish them in any meaningful way...I think in exchange for back doors but then I think there are people who conspire...go figure)?

I appreciate you post. I makes more sense that most of the gibberish I hear about "free markets".

I do think I've been hearing more about "free markets" in local letters-to-the-editor submissions.

[Toots]

21. Yes OPEC and the GOP wants to destroy it

Not that I give a damn for OPEC but it is a wingers dream and yet if used against them it needs to be dismantled. :shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

35. The Drug Trade

The regulation is all extrinsic and is intended to stop the market, not regulate it. Obviously, it didn't work, so within that market itself, it's unbridled capitalism.
The Professor

[NMMNG]

4. The "free market" isn't about helping the consumer or community

It's about making huge profits for the shareholders. Don't you people know anything? :sarcasm:

[NorthELiberal]

11. "The "free market" isn't about helping the consumer or community"

That's why we have taxes........ Eureka!!!!!!!!! I don't know about you but they sure are a large part of my paycheck....... and no I am not complaining about high taxes..... I do like having the police, firefighters, roads, buses, trains, etc. around when I need them.

[rman]

14. Which is why corporations want to pay ever less taxes

in spite of the fact they benefit most from being a part of society.

In the mean time most politicians turn a blind eye on big corporations that exploit tax loopholes (po-box on the Bahama's, bank account on the Cayman Islands, etc) - not in the last place because those same politicians benefit from corporations exploiting tax loopholes.

[NMMNG]

31. Indeed

Although I wouldn't mind being able to allocate where my taxes go. I'd keep mine the heck away from the war machine, for starters.

[fasttense]

5. The brush administration was never really for free markets

Look how they manipulated the cost of labor. After Katrina hit, they lowered the cost of labor by doing away with the davis beacon act. They lowered the cost of labor by rewarding with tax incentives corporations that send jobs overseas. They lower the cost of labor by turning a blind eye to companies that exploit illegals. They lower the cost of labor by ignoring China's use of convict and child labor. They lower the cost of labor by not prosecuting companies that use sweat shop conditions and child labor in foreign markets.

What they want is free trade for corporations but not for Unions and workers.

[gordonlamb]

6. The US doesn't have free markets...

In the US we either have massive corporate welfare or unfair gov't impediments to the marketplace. We have never had truly free markets.

[tkmorris]

7. Free Markets can not solve every problem

There is no profit to be made on a school playground.

There is no profit to be made in a National Park.

There is no profit to be made from a catastrophic illness.

There is no profit to be made by having an adequate military.

There is no profit to be made in a public Fire Department.

There is no profit to be made fighting crime.

There is no profit to be made providing grade school education.

At least, none of these things and hundreds more should be operated with an eye to making money. The free market is fine for determining the fair market rate for a pound of bananas (arguably) but there are huge swaths of societally desirable things that free markets cannot and should not play a part in. This is the basic flaw with a far right wing capitalist approach to government; they are incapable of considering any problem except in terms of the bottom line.

In other words, I agree with you.

[rucky]

8. Free market? Corps are the bigges welfare queens of them all! n/t

[bananas]

9. The economic definition of a "free market"

has many conditions - which require regulation.
That's why the SEC has to regulate the NYSE.
No insider trading, investors must have equal access to information - therefore public filings are required etc.
A "free market" can only exist under strict regulation.
I have made this argument to conservatives,
and they always concede - a "free market" always requires strict governmental regulation.

[gordonlamb]

20. hmmm...

That may be slightly true, although I don't really think so, for securities trading but completely untrue for nearly everything else unless by "market" you specifically securities. Free means FREE. If you want to talk FAIR trade then that's another story.

[bananas]

22. How free is FREE?

With no governmental regulation, businesses are free to engage in all kinds of anti-competitive practices - price-fixing, monopolistic practices, forming cartels to shut out competition, hiring thugs to break the legs of competitors, extortion, bribery, etc. So without any regulation, anti-competitive practices predominate, and you no longer have a free market. In a truly FREE market, there is no government protection of patents or copyrights or "intellectual property".

[gordonlamb]

23. no, there are other laws concerning those things...

There is no reason to think that a free market would allow the destruction of such laws against graft, assault, extortion, etc. A law against physical assault doesn't have anything to do with the marketplace.
It is also untrue that in a free market protections don't exist for intellectual property. There are laws against theft and intellectual property is as defensible as any other type of property. Again, this has nothing to do with the free market.

[bananas]

24. A patent is a legal monopoly granted by the government

and they always have been.

"So far as patents are concerned, modern legislation harks back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/article01/39.html

[gordonlamb]

25. but patent law doesn't cover...

...specfic improvements to existing technologies, etc. Patent law is another form of intellectual property law. Someone who invents somthing SHOULD have the exclusive right to that thing just as surely as someone who writes a song or paints a picture. Ownership of ones labor is a very important thing.

[bananas]

27. That's not how it works

You can work real hard, if someone got a patent on the same idea last week, you're out of luck.
And most workers don't "own" the fruit of their labor - they get paid for their time and effort, but the product is "owned" by the company that hired them.

When you get a patent or copyright, you don't "own" the idea, you get a temporary legal monopoly on using it. After 17 years, it become public domain. If someone independently comes up with the same idea, too bad for them.

The idea of a free market is that competition is good.
The idea of a patent is that competition is bad - investors don't want competition, they want an exclusive franchise with no chance of competition.
It's the exact opposite of a free market.
And the monopoly is granted because in a FREE market system, there would be little incentive for an inventor, once his idea was out, the competition would be intense, and he wouldn't profit from it. Ergo, a legal monopoly to prevent competition - to prevent the free market from doing it's thing.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

[gordonlamb]

29. almost...

"they get paid for their time and effort, but the product is "owned" by the company that hired them."

this is the same thing as 'owning'ones labor. Your just choosing to sell it to a firm rather than make your own product.


"If someone independently comes up with the same idea, too bad for them."

It belongs to whoever gets it to the patent office first. This encourages robust and continuous innovation and invention.

A person or firm may have a monopoly on a product, a process or something else but this in no way prevents others from inventing their own products which supercede those already under pantent protection. For example I may invent some awesome new apple slicer and have it patented but this doesn't prevent you from inventing a superior product of your own.
Pantents do not hinder competition, they encourage further invention.

[bananas]

33. I don't have a lot of time to spend on this conversation

and may not be able to follow up, so I'll leave you with these thoughts.

When you said,

"A person or firm may have a monopoly on a product, a process or something else but this in no way prevents others from inventing their own products ...
Pantents do not hinder competition, they encourage further invention."


you are echoing what the Constitution says, as I quoted earlier:

"The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"


So you seem to be acknowledging that (1) patents are temporary legal monopolies granted by the government, not inalienable rights endowed by the Creator; and (2) that reason for them is because the free market would not function so efficiently if not for this specific government intervention (in other words, by saying "they encourage further invention", you are saying that getting rid of them would discourage further invention and make the free market less efficient).

If that's what you are saying, then you have made at least part of my point, that government intervention is required for a free market to function efficiently.

[bananas]

28. What about monopolistic practices?

If a company or cartel engage in monopolistic practices, is the market still "free"?

[gordonlamb]

30. give an example of what you mean by "monopolistic" practices.

[KitchenWitch]

10. How long before the free market actually seeks a sustainable way

of life for everyone on our planet?

[Montauk6]

12. Well, out of the starting gate, they're full of it.

They pound their chests about the wonders of a free market but won't budge an inch towards legalizing marijuana or prostitution. Nor are they willing to just walk away from abortion.

Plus, like another poster mentioned, there's no example of laissez faire (incl. the USA) that these guys can fall back on. At the time when America was supposedly at its "laissezfairest," you had slavery. I would think human bondage would slightly nudge you towards disqualification in the Von Mises Sweepstakes but I could be wrong.

[rman]

13. Simple: "free market" is a lie, like most of what the RW says

When was the last time they spoke the truth about anything, including economics?

The "trickle down" principal turned out not to work, but instead of admitting that, they just don't mention it anymore while they continue to benefit from it at our expense.
Same with "capitalism creates competition" which is supposed to provide consumers with better cheaper products - reality is capitalism creates ever fewer, ever larger corporate conglomerates and monopolies, by means of mergers and take-overs.

[Cerridwen]

15. Someone in the know, please explain what free market

ideology is - or point me to a good source online I can read through.

My question is this, does the ideology of free market take into account corporations formed for "eternity" rather than as they originally existed under states' charters for 20 - 30 years? Does the free market ideology include monies reglulated by private banks rather than monies regulated by government? How did these 2 changes to economic policy combined with "corporate personhood" impact the ideology of "free market?"

My understanding of economic history is obviously lacking.

I'm off to work soon, so please understand if I don't respond to any responses.

Thanks in advance,

Cerridwen

[thefloyd]

16. Should have been clearer

I want to question Conservatives alter the "free market". Free Markets have existed for years and Conservatives constantly campaign for less regulation, Government interference, and unionized labor. Democrats should most certaintly bring up the history and educate current generations how America got to this point in economic history and why Democrats question the notion of free market. My main contention basically is how long do Americans wait until the market addresses everones needs sufficiently. Also, is the amount of time necessary for market forces to work justified? No...simple answer because there exists no other model.

[bananas]

32. But conservatives don't care if everyone's needs are met

they are social darwinists, so you won't win anyone over with this argument, you'll just be preaching to the choir?

[applegrove]

17. Right. The free market doesn't do the job of civilization alone. It just

doesn't. A whole mix of "best policies" are needed.

That being said - the neocon type of free market is not a free market indeed. By bullying countries who are trying to reshape their nations into no regulations - they are locking in comparative advantage for themselves.

Just the idea that Wal Mart is supposed to go into Iraq and give them shit - that is criminal. Like some Iraqis cannot get together, form a company and order crap from China, and then keep the wealth that creates at home in Iraq - well that is how a democracy like Iraq would have to function. If all the wealth is bled from the country and oil industry divied up between US & Brit corporations - well that just leaves Iraq and countries like it ready to explode and go caveman when the oil runs out. Even before.

The neocon model of "free market" is not free market. Not when there is coertion. Not locals don't have the chance to build up local industry.

[400Years]

18. repub "free market" = our tax dollars given to Halliburton

they don't really believe in any free market.

[harlinchi]

19. How is this a 'free market' when one of the factors of production,...

...i.e., labor, is able to be manipulated to the extent it is here? If labor is not a relatively stable number but may be increased at will by those in power, serving the corporate interests that sustain them in power, if corporate risks are made public while their profits remain private, where does the 'free' come in?

[NewJeffCT]

26. There is no truly free market...

But, in answer to your 2nd question on global warming, some major corporations here in the US have taken the initiative and have adopted the Kyoto protocol for all of the businesses, factories, etc... including their US based operations. GE is the biggest name that I can recall off the top of my head. However, it's still a molehill against a mountain of a problem unless the like of ExxonMobil & Wal-Mart decide to adopt, too. However, the only way that happens is if the gov't forces them to do it.

[rman]

34. it's a lie in more then one way

1. The so-called free market is not in fact free - it is heavily regulated.
Nor do i think it should be really free, as in "deregulated" or "self-regulated".
The problem there is that the regulations enable (large) corporations to make (ever more) profits at the expense of the rest of us. So although it is regulated (and thus not "free") - it is regulated in the wrong way.

2. The other lie is that the term "free market" comes with frame that it's good for everyone. This frame relies much on the use of the term "free", simply because "free" has a positive association for most people.
But if you look at what actually happens in places where a "free market" is implemented - in particular in 3rd world nations that under guidance of IMF/WTO etc open their economy to the ("free") global market - you'll notice that it is without exception a disaster for the local population of those nations.
The ones who benefit are the owners/investors of the large corporations who are represented in the global organizations that set the rules for this so-called "free" market (IMF, WTO, Worldbank etc). Fox living inside the hen-house and all that.