Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Laissez Faire in modern times

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:28:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can laissez faire capitalism work in modern times today? Why or why not? I believe that they can and if we were to go back to a laissez faire capitalist way, I believe we would greatly prosper.

What are your thoughts on LFC?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 5:58:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would say that if it isn't laissez-faire, it isn't really capitalism.

I would also contend that if society is only sustainable to the extent that we establish coercive monopolies over all of the most vital services within society, we aren't worth keeping around at all.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:24:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Erm, I don't think complete deregulation of markets would help at all. The whole point of capitalism is that is provides the best quality goods & services for the majority of people by providing competitive wages and thru competition between businesses. Remove antiturst regulations and antimonopoly regulations, and you would find a) a lack of competition (bad), and b) few places to work, with little option to get good, high-paying employment (bad). Also, removing regulations on activities that harm people's health is irresponsible and would not be desirable. Other than that, as long as those things aren't affected, I think laissez faire works just fine.

Just my two cents.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:24:47 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
Remove antiturst regulations and antimonopoly regulations, and you would find a) a lack of competition (bad)

Most monopolies are actually facilitated by the State and its regulations. The only three monopolies that evolved solely by market principles were De Beers (still active), Imperial Oil (Dead), and Standard Oil (Dead).

, and b) few places to work, with little option to get good, high-paying employment (bad).

Why? Removing regulations would actually make it so there are more jobs since employers are reluctant to hire when regulations impede costs onto themselves.

Also, removing regulations on activities that harm people's health is irresponsible and would not be desirable.

That's assuming that corporations have an incentive to harm people's health, which they don't.

Other than that, as long as those things aren't affected, I think laissez faire works just fine.

Just my two cents.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that a Laissez Faire economy would greatly prosper, where free individuals live freely in the market economy. The market would self-regulate, and if unhindered would do well.

However, government should promote equality of opportunity so that all Americans have the opportunity to prosper if they wish, and government should have some simple rules in place (anti-trust regulations, clean air, and honest labeling). Elsewhere though, besides the basic functions of gov't, the market can do well most of the time, with gov't interference only beneficial when improving education, having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:40:00 PM, Contra wrote:
I think that a Laissez Faire economy would greatly prosper, where free individuals live freely in the market economy. The market would self-regulate, and if unhindered would do well.

You make me so.. very happy. I'm so glad you.. came into my life.

However, government should promote equality of opportunity so that all Americans have the opportunity to prosper if they wish, and government should have some simple rules in place (anti-trust regulations, clean air, and honest labeling).

Give me an example of a natural monopoly that would require anti-trust regulation. A natural monopoly is a monopoly that arises without government assistance.

Elsewhere though, besides the basic functions of gov't, the market can do well most of the time, with gov't interference only beneficial when improving education,

Read carpediem's post: http://www.debate.org...
Government basically f*cked up education for millions of students...

having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.

Why do you think a market system cannot provide any of this? Need I post 5 articles for each mentioned?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:00:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:40:00 PM, Contra wrote:
I think that a Laissez Faire economy would greatly prosper, where free individuals live freely in the market economy. The market would self-regulate, and if unhindered would do well.

You make me so.. very happy. I'm so glad you.. came into my life.

However, government should promote equality of opportunity so that all Americans have the opportunity to prosper if they wish, and government should have some simple rules in place (anti-trust regulations, clean air, and honest labeling).

Give me an example of a natural monopoly that would require anti-trust regulation. A natural monopoly is a monopoly that arises without government assistance.

Good point, and when you have free entry in the market (open markets) this kind of thing is unnecessary, as a natural monopoly must remain competitive or else new businesses will likely consistently enter the market, reducing profits, and also reducing public confidence in that natural monopoly.

Elsewhere though, besides the basic functions of gov't, the market can do well most of the time, with gov't interference only beneficial when improving education,

Read carpediem's post: http://www.debate.org...
Government basically f*cked up education for millions of students...

No, I promote progressive school vouchers. Each student would get a voucher, according to family income. Say a poor kid gets $12,000, and a rich kid gets $3,500. This would provide huge incentives for wealthy schools to permit poor children to come, since they cannot survive with only rich kids, and the wealthy schools would provide transportation and compete for the lowest income students, raising the quality of our school system. It is a mostly libertarian solution, I agree that throwing money at schools is usually ineffective, we spend much more on education than other countries and are less effective. Funds used for special education, to help children who have fallen behind though are beneficial.

having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.

Why do you think a market system cannot provide any of this? Need I post 5 articles for each mentioned?

Yes you do have to, well, at least the part about infrastructure, I am not really likely to change my position on defense or the judicial system.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:32:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:13:16 PM, Contra wrote:
No, I promote progressive school vouchers. Each student would get a voucher, according to family income. Say a poor kid gets $12,000, and a rich kid gets $3,500. This would provide huge incentives for wealthy schools to permit poor children to come, since they cannot survive with only rich kids, and the wealthy schools would provide transportation and compete for the lowest income students, raising the quality of our school system. It is a mostly libertarian solution, I agree that throwing money at schools is usually ineffective, we spend much more on education than other countries and are less effective. Funds used for special education, to help children who have fallen behind though are beneficial.
The problem with this is that it can give government control of private schools too. Once the voucher system is in place, and the private schools are dependent on government vouchers, what's to stop the government from attaching strings to the vouchers? The vouchers aren't for anything--they're just for school, right? So who gets to define what qualifies something as a 'school' for the purposes of receiving vouchers? Does homeschooling count? How about non-traditional schools, like Montessori schools? How about schools that don't have teacher's unions? If the government controls the money, they can control the schools by attaching whatever requirements they want to the vouchers. It would probably be better than direct government ownership of schools, but it would have many of the same problems.

having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.

Why do you think a market system cannot provide any of this? Need I post 5 articles for each mentioned?

Yes you do have to, well, at least the part about infrastructure, I am not really likely to change my position on defense or the judicial system.

I bet you didn't think you were likely to change your position on health care either. Did you read the stuff I sent you on free market roads and courts?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 9:28:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The point is this: government run schools are detrimental to education because,

1. Government funding eliminates the incentive of providing a superior education. Look at it this way: Parents want the best education for their children so they select the school they believe offers that. Privatized schools, because they need money to stay open necessarily must compete with each other as relating to pricing, exceptional teachers, outstanding curriculum, and ultimately an unprecedented educational experience. If they don't achieve this they lose money. Public schools, however, don't need to compete in this fashion because they will always have financial support from the government to endorse them.

2. The government is in itself inefficient. Because the government, whether state or federal, make the decisions pertaining to public education, the education system suffers.

a) Firstly, the government has no idea what any one school needs to function, and so should not be making these decisions at all. Decisions pertaining to the schools should be left up to the people who interact with the schools on a daily basis. It is they who truly know what they need to function.

b) Secondly, government is excessively slow to put any plan into action. Because of this, schools have to wait too long simply for an "okay" to move ahead with whatever beneficial changes they want to make.

3. Through the government's ignorance in educational affairs, public schooling is unnecessarily expensive. Whenever anyone talks about the fact that students in the United States are falling behind those in other countries, the government's first response is to throw more funds into the public school system. This has not and will continue to not make a difference in our educational system. What schools need to do is figure out how to teach in an effective manner. It is possible for children to learn effectively without increased spending. The government, however, because of the lack of actual understanding that they have about education, will only needlessly continue to raise spending for education.

4. "And I'm sure government schools don't engage in any indoctrination at all."
"Teaching content not approved by the Department of Education is not allowed."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 9:54:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 9:31:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
@Contra:

WTH is a "Wealthy school" ????

A school that has no need to charge tuition????

A public, or private school that is in a wealthy community, and with higher revenues is usually of a superior quality.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 12:22:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:32:15 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/15/2012 8:13:16 PM, Contra wrote:
No, I promote progressive school vouchers. Each student would get a voucher, according to family income. Say a poor kid gets $12,000, and a rich kid gets $3,500. This would provide huge incentives for wealthy schools to permit poor children to come, since they cannot survive with only rich kids, and the wealthy schools would provide transportation and compete for the lowest income students, raising the quality of our school system. It is a mostly libertarian solution, I agree that throwing money at schools is usually ineffective, we spend much more on education than other countries and are less effective. Funds used for special education, to help children who have fallen behind though are beneficial.
The problem with this is that it can give government control of private schools too. Once the voucher system is in place, and the private schools are dependent on government vouchers, what's to stop the government from attaching strings to the vouchers?

Well...

The vouchers aren't for anything--they're just for school, right? So who gets to define what qualifies something as a 'school' for the purposes of receiving vouchers?

It would have to be explicitly defined in the bill.

Does homeschooling count? How about non-traditional schools, like Montessori schools? How about schools that don't have teacher's unions? If the government controls the money, they can control the schools by attaching whatever requirements they want to the vouchers. It would probably be better than direct government ownership of schools, but it would have many of the same problems.

I don't see why the market would want to invest in poor children when they have a higher likelihood of failing to succeed.

having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.

Why do you think a market system cannot provide any of this? Need I post 5 articles for each mentioned?

Yes you do have to, well, at least the part about infrastructure, I am not really likely to change my position on defense or the judicial system.

I bet you didn't think you were likely to change your position on health care either. Did you read the stuff I sent you on free market roads and courts?

I haven't got to those yet, had some internet problems.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 7:53:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 12:22:02 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/15/2012 8:32:15 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/15/2012 8:13:16 PM, Contra wrote:
No, I promote progressive school vouchers. Each student would get a voucher, according to family income. Say a poor kid gets $12,000, and a rich kid gets $3,500. This would provide huge incentives for wealthy schools to permit poor children to come, since they cannot survive with only rich kids, and the wealthy schools would provide transportation and compete for the lowest income students, raising the quality of our school system. It is a mostly libertarian solution, I agree that throwing money at schools is usually ineffective, we spend much more on education than other countries and are less effective. Funds used for special education, to help children who have fallen behind though are beneficial.
The problem with this is that it can give government control of private schools too. Once the voucher system is in place, and the private schools are dependent on government vouchers, what's to stop the government from attaching strings to the vouchers?

Well...

The vouchers aren't for anything--they're just for school, right? So who gets to define what qualifies something as a 'school' for the purposes of receiving vouchers?

It would have to be explicitly defined in the bill.
What stops them from just changing the bill?
Does homeschooling count? How about non-traditional schools, like Montessori schools? How about schools that don't have teacher's unions? If the government controls the money, they can control the schools by attaching whatever requirements they want to the vouchers. It would probably be better than direct government ownership of schools, but it would have many of the same problems.

I don't see why the market would want to invest in poor children when they have a higher likelihood of failing to succeed.
The market wouldn't need to invest in them--their parents would. Even people in the 19th century could afford to educate their children--and all of them were much poorer than any American today.
having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.

Why do you think a market system cannot provide any of this? Need I post 5 articles for each mentioned?

Yes you do have to, well, at least the part about infrastructure, I am not really likely to change my position on defense or the judicial system.

I bet you didn't think you were likely to change your position on health care either. Did you read the stuff I sent you on free market roads and courts?

I haven't got to those yet, had some internet problems.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 9:27:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:36:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:24:47 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
Remove antiturst regulations and antimonopoly regulations, and you would find a) a lack of competition (bad)

Most monopolies are actually facilitated by the State and its regulations. The only three monopolies that evolved solely by market principles were De Beers (still active), Imperial Oil (Dead), and Standard Oil (Dead).


They were some of the most destructive monopolies of all time. Don't forget United Steel. The point is, they are not good, and antimonopoly and antitrust regulations should be kept in place if we return to laissez faire.

, and b) few places to work, with little option to get good, high-paying employment (bad).

Why? Removing regulations would actually make it so there are more jobs since employers are reluctant to hire when regulations impede costs onto themselves.


The monopolies are what I'm concerneed about here. They would inhibit transferring between fields, and for obvious reasons, there would be no competition for wages.

Also, removing regulations on activities that harm people's health is irresponsible and would not be desirable.

That's assuming that corporations have an incentive to harm people's health, which they don't.


They have an incentive to reduce costs as low as possible, and that sometimes means cutting out expensive safety techniques.

Other than that, as long as those things aren't affected, I think laissez faire works just fine.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, I think we agree, pretty much. No monopolies/trusts, don't kill people, and laissez faire works just fine.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:55:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 9:27:53 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:36:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:24:47 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
Remove antiturst regulations and antimonopoly regulations, and you would find a) a lack of competition (bad)

Most monopolies are actually facilitated by the State and its regulations. The only three monopolies that evolved solely by market principles were De Beers (still active), Imperial Oil (Dead), and Standard Oil (Dead).


They were some of the most destructive monopolies of all time. Don't forget United Steel. The point is, they are not good, and antimonopoly and antitrust regulations should be kept in place if we return to laissez faire.

So you are recognizing the few monopolies that were propped up under a free market system and saying that there needs to be regulation, while this regulation has propped up many more monopolies? No system is perfect, but the system that minimizes damages the most should be used. In this case, few monopolies is better a lot of monopolies.

, and b) few places to work, with little option to get good, high-paying employment (bad).

Why? Removing regulations would actually make it so there are more jobs since employers are reluctant to hire when regulations impede costs onto themselves.


The monopolies are what I'm concerneed about here. They would inhibit transferring between fields, and for obvious reasons, there would be no competition for wages.

There has never been a monopoly in the traditional sense of the word, but instead a few oligopolies. This would be enough competition to make sure that market and social conditions are met. Price fixing would obviously be illegal so these companies would not be able to congregate and collaborate with their decisions.

Also, removing regulations on activities that harm people's health is irresponsible and would not be desirable.

That's assuming that corporations have an incentive to harm people's health, which they don't.


They have an incentive to reduce costs as low as possible, and that sometimes means cutting out expensive safety techniques.

You're not taking into account cost-benefits. Whenever an action is performed, there is always a cost and a benefit. Reducing costs to a bare minimum is nonsensical because it does not take the social costs into consideration, which are extremely substantial. A company reaches an equilibrium where both the employee and the employer are happy.

Other than that, as long as those things aren't affected, I think laissez faire works just fine.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, I think we agree, pretty much. No monopolies/trusts, don't kill people, and laissez faire works just fine.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:37:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 10:55:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/16/2012 9:27:53 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:36:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:24:47 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
Remove antiturst regulations and antimonopoly regulations, and you would find a) a lack of competition (bad)

Most monopolies are actually facilitated by the State and its regulations. The only three monopolies that evolved solely by market principles were De Beers (still active), Imperial Oil (Dead), and Standard Oil (Dead).


They were some of the most destructive monopolies of all time. Don't forget United Steel. The point is, they are not good, and antimonopoly and antitrust regulations should be kept in place if we return to laissez faire.

So you are recognizing the few monopolies that were propped up under a free market system and saying that there needs to be regulation, while this regulation has propped up many more monopolies? No system is perfect, but the system that minimizes damages the most should be used. In this case, few monopolies is better a lot of monopolies.


How many monopolies have there been in the US after Teddy Roosevelt? I don't think any that weren't promptly split up by the government (the company my dad works at being one of the results).

, and b) few places to work, with little option to get good, high-paying employment (bad).

Why? Removing regulations would actually make it so there are more jobs since employers are reluctant to hire when regulations impede costs onto themselves.


The monopolies are what I'm concerned about here. They would inhibit transferring between fields, and for obvious reasons, there would be no competition for wages.

There has never been a monopoly in the traditional sense of the word, but instead a few oligopolies. This would be enough competition to make sure that market and social conditions are met. Price fixing would obviously be illegal so these companies would not be able to congregate and collaborate with their decisions.


True, but these oligopolies reduced the wages of workers. There was a sharp spike in wages since the time of Teddy to, say the time of woodrow Wilson (who I despise). The economy shot up because of increased demand, and I wouldn't want that happening in my "perfect" economy.

Also, removing regulations on activities that harm people's health is irresponsible and would not be desirable.

That's assuming that corporations have an incentive to harm people's health, which they don't.


They have an incentive to reduce costs as low as possible, and that sometimes means cutting out expensive safety techniques.

You're not taking into account cost-benefits. Whenever an action is performed, there is always a cost and a benefit. Reducing costs to a bare minimum is nonsensical because it does not take the social costs into consideration, which are extremely substantial. A company reaches an equilibrium where both the employee and the employer are happy.


However, companies do that all the time. For example, mountaintop removal mining, which releases toxic chemicals into rivers and streams that feed of the mountain. Companies continue to do this, even though it is extremely harmful. Also, there was a production on Nova or some show like that (I'm completely blanking), where companies dumped toxic waste near a town and it caused all kinds of spikes in cancer rates and such. Companies typically don't pay for or care about these, so they should either a) have to pay for the damage they caused or b) not do it. I'm really only concerned with activities that kill or injure people, because if you wait for public opinion to turn against the company, that person or those people have already been killed/injured, and you can't fix it.

Other than that, as long as those things aren't affected, I think laissez faire works just fine.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, I think we agree, pretty much. No monopolies/trusts, don't kill people, and laissez faire works just fine.

Cats.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
bucephalus
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:06:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 9:28:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
The point is this: government run schools are detrimental to education because,


Now, I'm not saying that comparing 5 million population to 300 million is anyway legitimate. But, the top rated educations in the world at least the top 5 are tied including Cuba have a pretty strong public education system. Take Finland for example, that country is 5 million population and is almost completely public education even through university level. And, they are rated as the #1 country in the world for education, or at least they are in a 5 way tie for first.

Now, I understand that 5 million population is nothing compared to 300+ million of the US, but it goes to show that government can fund education and have the best. Which, I believe that you make the claim that, "Government funding eliminates the incentive of providing a superior education." Which is false on face value with the example of Finland. Given your premise of government funding eliminates the incentive of providing a superior education would apply even to a population of 5 million because you argue that funding by gov't demotivates. By your first argument you would expect to see that Finland, a country that is almost completely publicly funded would have lousy results even if they had a small population or large (in the US case). So, your first point is wrong, and needs to be changed.

Your second point can be true. The inefficiency of the government can be debated in terms of monetary cost. Given that the study I read on Finland and the rankings did not go into detail about cost structures. So, it is possible that private education can lower education cost, but as far as studies go I haven't seen any with data backing their claims. The theory of free market lowering cost is sound, but keep in mind the lowest price in free market is always going to be the lowest quality (ie generic products are always cheaper to produce.)

Your third point is logical and I agree with most of it. However, I do want to point out that private education spends more and get better results because of it, and that is axiomatic. In other words it's common sense the more money you throw at the better results you will get. But, keep in mind that the private schools do so well because they have to pay for the best teachers that they steal away from public education. So, really you are pretty much correct until the government figures out the real problem on education more money won't help. Having a stronger educational teacher will help and figuring out how to increase that will undoubtedly cost a lot of money though. So, in a way we are both right and wrong on this point.

Your last point I could care less about. If anything it's the private schools, mostly, religious ones that prohibit pertinent education like darwin, and safe sex. But, if you want to argue that public schools don't argue creationalism than you can put a point on your chalk board on that one. Albeit, I might be forgetting other information that the public school systems leave out, but since you didn't cite anything and I can't think of anything else I'll just leave it at that.

So, to summarize I would argue that public education clearly works around the world, and can work in the US, and arguing that it stops incentive for stronger education is clearly wrong. However, I would say that you would have to make a different argument against public education, which the strongest I can see from your point of view would be cost. But, keep in mind that education can be the best and be provided by government. The real question is which is cheaper, while giving the best quality? Public VS Private: The Cost Debate

I have yet to see a study on education cost and quality between countries and over time. But, the evidence shows that government can provide the best education, just remember the machination of the government isn't always so.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:01:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now that I think of it, there also is the problem of scientific research, if anybody wants to correct me on that...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:17:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:40:00 PM, Contra wrote:
I think that a Laissez Faire economy would greatly prosper, where free individuals live freely in the market economy. The market would self-regulate, and if unhindered would do well.

Yes.


However, government should promote equality of opportunity so that all Americans have the opportunity to prosper if they wish, and government should have some simple rules in place (anti-trust regulations, clean air, and honest labeling).

So you are saying government regulation would help prevent monopolies and small business? Correct me if I am wrong. You admit a free market can fix the problem, therefore government red take is unnecessary. And then you think government regulations help the environment and advertizement and such. Government regulation has been shown to be ineffective and private protection policies seem to be more effective, and protecting the environment with property rights would also prevent some of the problems we face. And forcing honest labeling is worthless. Let the free market deal with it. If they say X, but Y occurs the product will do worse then products that live up to its promise.

Government intervention seems unnecessary.

Elsewhere though, besides the basic functions of gov't, the market can do well most of the time, with gov't interference only beneficial when improving education, having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:36:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:17:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:40:00 PM, Contra wrote:
I think that a Laissez Faire economy would greatly prosper, where free individuals live freely in the market economy. The market would self-regulate, and if unhindered would do well.

Yes.


However, government should promote equality of opportunity so that all Americans have the opportunity to prosper if they wish, and government should have some simple rules in place (anti-trust regulations, clean air, and honest labeling).

So you are saying government regulation would help prevent monopolies and small business? Correct me if I am wrong. You admit a free market can fix the problem, therefore government red take is unnecessary. And then you think government regulations help the environment and advertizement and such. Government regulation has been shown to be ineffective and private protection policies seem to be more effective, and protecting the environment with property rights would also prevent some of the problems we face. And forcing honest labeling is worthless. Let the free market deal with it. If they say X, but Y occurs the product will do worse then products that live up to its promise.

Honest labeling I think isn't an infringement on the free market. Even Gary Johnson supports this kind of thing.

Air, I don't see how air could be divided into property rights, does my air include the air in my 4 acre property and up to 10,000 feet high?

And pollution, except in some explicit cases, would be hard to track the source. That is why some regulations must be passed, but not be too heinous, to allow markets to prosper and individuals to breathe clean air.

Property rights may work in air, but I have yet to seen an strong argument in its favor.

Government intervention seems unnecessary.

Elsewhere though, besides the basic functions of gov't, the market can do well most of the time, with gov't interference only beneficial when improving education, having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:36:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:17:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:40:00 PM, Contra wrote:
I think that a Laissez Faire economy would greatly prosper, where free individuals live freely in the market economy. The market would self-regulate, and if unhindered would do well.

Yes.


However, government should promote equality of opportunity so that all Americans have the opportunity to prosper if they wish, and government should have some simple rules in place (anti-trust regulations, clean air, and honest labeling).

So you are saying government regulation would help prevent monopolies and small business? Correct me if I am wrong. You admit a free market can fix the problem, therefore government red take is unnecessary. And then you think government regulations help the environment and advertizement and such. Government regulation has been shown to be ineffective and private protection policies seem to be more effective, and protecting the environment with property rights would also prevent some of the problems we face. And forcing honest labeling is worthless. Let the free market deal with it. If they say X, but Y occurs the product will do worse then products that live up to its promise.

Honest labeling I think isn't an infringement on the free market. Even Gary Johnson supports this kind of thing.

The free market itself will regulate these things. I see no need for governmental regulation which can be abused.


Air, I don't see how air could be divided into property rights, does my air include the air in my 4 acre property and up to 10,000 feet high?

The free market will regulate this, too. Capitalism itself reduces pollution as if there is no regulation it will sort these things out. Nuclear, if there was no regulation, would likely being implemented solving the problem to large extents. So lowering regulation, not increasing governmental standards, would be a solution.

Also, if it weren't for government standards in California diesel would be more popular if no regulations where induced. Mainly because it would be cheaper (the reason its expensive is taxes), it uses overall less gas then a hybrid, does not put toxic batteries into landfills like hybrids, and is "greener" then the unleaded gasoline. Also, this is to show you I am not pulling this out of my @$$ https://docs.google.com...


And pollution, except in some explicit cases, would be hard to track the source. That is why some regulations must be passed, but not be too heinous, to allow markets to prosper and individuals to breathe clean air.

Property rights may work in air, but I have yet to seen an strong argument in its favor.
http://www.independent.org...
http://www.independent.org...


Government intervention seems unnecessary.

Elsewhere though, besides the basic functions of gov't, the market can do well most of the time, with gov't interference only beneficial when improving education, having a strong defense and a judicial system that protects property rights, and having a strong basic infrastructure.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 3:00:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Laissez-Faire Capitalism will work much better contemporarily.

1. Capital is more productive now, allowing for a larger division of labor.
2. International trade has increased greatly.
3. Technology allows for more efficient business (e.g. Wal-Mart's scanners and Amazon's logistics); more informed consumers (reviews are available online for nearly all products, services, and businesses); better regulation and reputation mechanisms through the dispersal of news stories and exposés.
4. The ideas of liberty are growing exponentially, and fewer and fewer people will be duped into continually voting more tyranny into office and supporting the state.

There are probably many more reasons, but those are my thoughts at 4 a.m.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 8:23:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Laissez Faire is a Utopian dream. There are so many changes that would need to happen to set up a Laissez Faire system that I don't even think business would go for it.

1. The judicial system would have to change. Things like making the looser pay court costs in a civil case. Punitive damages would have to NOT be capped. Also business structures that allow leaders who make decisions to avoid liability due to these legal structures would have to be dismantled.

2. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would need to be shut down, which would have a huge impact on the mortgage industry as far as funding of home purchases. I actually would welcome this as a long term unwind. There would be many other government involvement that would have to be cut as well, FDA, mail, etc. I imagine business would love to change the FDA how it works, but would guess they don't want it eliminated due to the increased liability. Business sucking the teat of gov maybe the biggest obstacle of moving to a lassie faire system.

3. Gov would have to not bail out companies when they go under because they are too big to fail. Could imagine in 2008 having all the financials such as AIG and many of the auto companies going completely under? The the social repercussions of the lost jobs and deeper recessions from a laise faire policy would cause much gnashing of the teeth.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I would not accept it without the legal changes in #1. If we get rid of the FDA for example and I get some greedy bass turd who puts a drug on the market knowing it is not effective and is dangerous or even unintentionally did not properly test the drug and I suffer as a result, I would need to take his whole life down, not just his company that he can hide behind.

It still is very tough to prove someone willfully or via neglect did wrong when they have no oversight requirements to keep documentation or a standard of openness with reporting or historical record keeping. Lassie Faire is also very reactive rather than proactive, so it results. The market and consumer would have much pain as we relearned how to evaluate risk when doing business with companies.

I think a better approach though, is to reevaluate what the gov is doing today and try to divest as much gov provided services to the private sector, health care, mail etc. It should take things in that are capital intensive that hinder competition, such as paying for the electric grid infrastructure and road infrastructure.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 10:07:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 8:23:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
Laissez Faire is a Utopian dream. There are so many changes that would need to happen to set up a Laissez Faire system that I don't even think business would go for it.

1. The judicial system would have to change. Things like making the looser pay court costs in a civil case. Punitive damages would have to NOT be capped. Also business structures that allow leaders who make decisions to avoid liability due to these legal structures would have to be dismantled.

What is bad about not capping tort payments? It ensures that justice is served, and if it was a simple cap, there would be cases where justice is not served with the right size tort payment.

All that would change would be cutting the red tape and unleashing America's entrepreneurial spirit.

2. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would need to be shut down, which would have a huge impact on the mortgage industry as far as funding of home purchases. I actually would welcome this as a long term unwind. There would be many other government involvement that would have to be cut as well, FDA, mail, etc. I imagine business would love to change the FDA how it works, but would guess they don't want it eliminated due to the increased liability. Business sucking the teat of gov maybe the biggest obstacle of moving to a lassie faire system.

I see nothing wrong with getting gov't out of Fannie and Freddie. Other gov't involvement in the economy is usually burdensome, as the market can most of the time regulate itself..

The FDA is a prime case. The FDA is as most people know, horribly slow and inefficient as a result. Economists have estimated that the health benefits of quicker access to drugs was roughly about 12 times as great as the costs of adverse drug reaction.

Private evaluators certify drugs and self regulate markets. Causes greater economic efficiency and causes drug companies to pay attention to details and provide high quality products or face social backlash and lower profits.

FDA can "certify certifiers", and goods evaluated have the trademark inscribed in the good to create competition and incentivize high quality goods.

Consumers will rely on brand-name reputation, medical professionals and doctors, and the tort (Judicial) system to protect property rights and thus consumers as well naturally.

Free trade of prescription drugs across state and national lines to cut costs.

But gov't attracts corruption. When gov't can make the laws of the land, special interests want to harm their competitors through gov't, called regulatory capture. It is a dangerous thing.

And the Constitution permits the American gov't to create a postal service. Probably a good idea to keep it.


3. Gov would have to not bail out companies when they go under because they are too big to fail. Could imagine in 2008 having all the financials such as AIG and many of the auto companies going completely under? The the social repercussions of the lost jobs and deeper recessions from a laise faire policy would cause much gnashing of the teeth.

Natural selection in process :D Seriously though, the auto bailouts were not as many think. Gov't did provide the funding since no banks could at the time, but they went with a "managed bankruptcy" and restructured their operations, making them rise on top.

The bankers were forced to lend under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and lend to risky households. And when they couldn't afford their homes, the market collapsed. And the foolish bankers who rapidly traded in the derivatives market, they would have owned their customers the money back if they so demanded it, because of property rights.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I would not accept it without the legal changes in #1. If we get rid of the FDA for example and I get some greedy bass turd who puts a drug on the market knowing it is not effective and is dangerous or even unintentionally did not properly test the drug and I suffer as a result, I would need to take his whole life down, not just his company that he can hide behind.

Yep. The FDA by its inefficiency kills roughly 50,000 a year (http://www.independent.org...). If private evaluators such as UL certified drugs, people would strongly be inclined to use these drugs and incentivize drug manufacturers to get them certified. Remember, if drugs were harmful, and the manufacturer didn't put this warning out, they would be sued, and probably put out of business, with gov't, they can be sued, but never go out of business. Manufacturers would explicitly show if their drugs are untested.

It still is very tough to prove someone willfully or via neglect did wrong when they have no oversight requirements to keep documentation or a standard of openness with reporting or historical record keeping. Lassie Faire is also very reactive rather than proactive, so it results. The market and consumer would have much pain as we relearned how to evaluate risk when doing business with companies.

I think a better approach though, is to reevaluate what the gov is doing today and try to divest as much gov provided services to the private sector, health care, mail etc. It should take things in that are capital intensive that hinder competition, such as paying for the electric grid infrastructure and road infrastructure.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:34:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:22:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The free market will regulate this, too. Capitalism itself reduces pollution as if there is no regulation it will sort these things out. Nuclear, if there was no regulation, would likely being implemented solving the problem to large extents. So lowering regulation, not increasing governmental standards, would be a solution.

You got any proof for this nonsense? By the time that it becomes profitable for the private sector to regulate itself, the environmental damage will become irreversible.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:38:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:37:07 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/16/2012 10:55:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/16/2012 9:27:53 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:36:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:24:47 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
Remove antiturst regulations and antimonopoly regulations, and you would find a) a lack of competition (bad)

Most monopolies are actually facilitated by the State and its regulations. The only three monopolies that evolved solely by market principles were De Beers (still active), Imperial Oil (Dead), and Standard Oil (Dead).


They were some of the most destructive monopolies of all time. Don't forget United Steel. The point is, they are not good, and antimonopoly and antitrust regulations should be kept in place if we return to laissez faire.

So you are recognizing the few monopolies that were propped up under a free market system and saying that there needs to be regulation, while this regulation has propped up many more monopolies? No system is perfect, but the system that minimizes damages the most should be used. In this case, few monopolies is better a lot of monopolies.


How many monopolies have there been in the US after Teddy Roosevelt? I don't think any that weren't promptly split up by the government (the company my dad works at being one of the results).

Lol yes. They were created AND then split up by the government- that's not necessarily a good thing. That's like taking a sh!t on the driveway, cleaning it up, and proclaiming yourself altruist of the month.

, and b) few places to work, with little option to get good, high-paying employment (bad).

Why? Removing regulations would actually make it so there are more jobs since employers are reluctant to hire when regulations impede costs onto themselves.


The monopolies are what I'm concerned about here. They would inhibit transferring between fields, and for obvious reasons, there would be no competition for wages.

There has never been a monopoly in the traditional sense of the word, but instead a few oligopolies. This would be enough competition to make sure that market and social conditions are met. Price fixing would obviously be illegal so these companies would not be able to congregate and collaborate with their decisions.


True, but these oligopolies reduced the wages of workers. There was a sharp spike in wages since the time of Teddy to, say the time of woodrow Wilson (who I despise). The economy shot up because of increased demand, and I wouldn't want that happening in my "perfect" economy.

Oligopolies compete with each other so that the wages of the workers are indicative of their labour value. Assuming there is no price fixing, which I am FIRMLY for gov. intervention in, competition between the oligopolies will drive workers wages to their real value. If they don't, then the workers will leave the company.

Also, removing regulations on activities that harm people's health is irresponsible and would not be desirable.

That's assuming that corporations have an incentive to harm people's health, which they don't.


They have an incentive to reduce costs as low as possible, and that sometimes means cutting out expensive safety techniques.

You're not taking into account cost-benefits. Whenever an action is performed, there is always a cost and a benefit. Reducing costs to a bare minimum is nonsensical because it does not take the social costs into consideration, which are extremely substantial. A company reaches an equilibrium where both the employee and the employer are happy.


However, companies do that all the time. For example, mountaintop removal mining, which releases toxic chemicals into rivers and streams that feed of the mountain.

That's cause there are either A) No effective government regulations or B) No effective property rights. I would be fine with either.

Companies continue to do this, even though it is extremely harmful. Also, there was a production on Nova or some show like that (I'm completely blanking), where companies dumped toxic waste near a town and it caused all kinds of spikes in cancer rates and such.

That's cause there are either A) No effective government regulations or B) No effective property rights. I would be fine with either.

Companies typically don't pay for or care about these, so they should either a) have to pay for the damage they caused or b) not do it.

Yup, they should. Under a strictly Laissez-Faire system with distinct property rights, they would.

I'm really only concerned with activities that kill or injure people, because if you wait for public opinion to turn against the company, that person or those people have already been killed/injured, and you can't fix it.

You don't have to wait for public opinion; you can wait for laws.

Other than that, as long as those things aren't affected, I think laissez faire works just fine.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, I think we agree, pretty much. No monopolies/trusts, don't kill people, and laissez faire works just fine.

Cats.

Pigs.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 4:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 10:07:36 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/21/2012 8:23:00 AM, slo1 wrote:
Laissez Faire is a Utopian dream. There are so many changes that would need to happen to set up a Laissez Faire system that I don't even think business would go for it.

1. The judicial system would have to change. Things like making the looser pay court costs in a civil case. Punitive damages would have to NOT be capped. Also business structures that allow leaders who make decisions to avoid liability due to these legal structures would have to be dismantled.

What is bad about not capping tort payments? It ensures that justice is served, and if it was a simple cap, there would be cases where justice is not served with the right size tort payment.

I'm with you bro. I think I just wrote it a little a little awkward. I'm pretty much with you, excluding the post office. The constitution was written during a time where the capital investment and capability for mail delivery was not capable for private firms. It clearly can be done privately now without question.

My main point is that business is so in bed with government these days and in ways that benefit them, i don't think it will ever happen.

I will say I am also very skeptical that social goods are absent in a completely free market. Not because capitalism has a flaw. Instead the consumer has a flaw. If the consumer is not in tune to things like the environment, they will not require a strong environmental standards when choosing who to buy from.

Just look at the Frito Lay fully compostable chip bag they produced for their sun chips. The consumers thought it was more important to have a bag that was not as loud and cause them to discontinue it.

Laize Faire systems fail at the consumer level because consumers do not demand products that are socially, environmentally, and economically responsible. If the market does not demand it the business surely is not going to pay money to give something the market does not want.