Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Market

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Who here is for it and who is against it?

Why?

Does it work?

What is better?

Is america so far away from it?

Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 10:00:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?

Against it.

Why?

A pure free market inevitably leads to rule by a few wealthy corporations who are free to exploit the people. There is nothing to protect the worker, and nothing to protect society from unethical practices.

Does it work?

Sure it works for some people. Any system works for some people.

What is better?

A largely free market with some select regulations.

Is america so far away from it?

America is closer to it than a command economy.

Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?

NO.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 10:07:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?
For.

Why?
Moral (freedom, nonviolence) and pragmatic (it is very efficient) reasons.

Does it work?
What does "work" mean???

What is better?
What is better than what???

Is america so far away from it?
Far relative to most other countries in the world, no. Distance is relative.

Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?
It was not the reason. It is the solution.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 10:20:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?

For it, but I know that the free market needs regulations to protect consumers and businesses aike.

Why?

Because I feel that the best way for people to make the most of their lives is to have control over the financial aspects as well. As well, competition is the best way for the economy, technology and everything else to progress. But those that abuse the market, the consumers, and other competitors should face punishment, and guarantees need to be put in place in order to make sure it doesn't happen.

Does it work?

Absolutely. Basically all world economies are based on the idea of the free market, and have so far done well. Some countries though either keep too little restrictions on it that allow it to run rampant, and others control it to the point where it the benefits are cancelled out. It is important to find the balanc inbetween, depending upon the situation and time, in order for the free market to work.

What is better?

A free market is better in a lot of circumstances, but it really depends on exactly what you want to happen. A free market is better for people who believe that individuals should have the opportunity to make of their lives what they will, and that businesses can play an important role in society and country, even if there are those that lose out for whatever reason.

A controlled market is better if you believe that individuals shouldn't make money at the expense of those that won't, and that private business is more detrimental than beneficial in most, if not all, regards.

I'm probably somewhere inbetween, though I'm more pro-free market - I'm just not naive enough to believe that businesses will always play by the rules, and that consumers and businesses hould have to protect themselves alone.

Is america so far away from it?

If you're a free market purist, where you believe that a market isn't free until the government is out of everything, then yes. If you're sensible about it, no. Contrary to popular belief, the Obama administration, along with other administrations, have provided a very free market in the United States, where competition is rife and regulation is low. This doesn't mean though that there isn't room for improvement, both in the sense that the government has failed to protect consumers and businesses, and that the government has failed to provide some of the best opportunities for a free market to prosper.

Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?

The free market in fact helped create the economic "down fall," which frankly doesn't exist. The fact that markets are so open to competition has allowed American jobs to be withered away, and a lack of response on the party of both businesses and the government has continued this. The lack of oversight has also allowed companies to abuse their consumers, and created this mess we're in today.

But that is just the risk that occurs. What is important is that there is a government and a base there to react - which is why I don't believe the whole "the market will correct itself" excuse. It may, but what about those that are left out in the cold in the meantime? Let them eat cake, eh?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 10:23:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 10:20:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:

Volkov:

I agree.... with everything you wrote....
wow

everything
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 10:26:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 10:23:12 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/28/2009 10:20:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:

Volkov:

I agree.... with everything you wrote....
wow

everything

I'm a very agreeable person.

Vote theLwerd/Volkov... 2010?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:12:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?

Everyone who knows anything about economy is for a free market. Planned economy has failed, and there is not one serious economist that is for planned economy any longer.

Why?

Firstly because it works, and secondly because it is an unavoidable result of the freedom of the individual.

Does it work?

Yes.

What is better?

Nothing.

Is america so far away from it?

Nah. It's protectionist and regulated the banking industry too much. Otherwise the US is pretty OK

Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?

Answer to? The free market is pretty much the reason for us having an economy in the first place. :)
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:14:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 10:00:41 PM, JBlake wrote:
A pure free market inevitably leads to rule by a few wealthy corporations who are free to exploit the people. There is nothing to protect the worker, and nothing to protect society from unethical practices.

Yes there is, they are called laws. You don't have to regulate markets of have central planning to avoid immorality. In fact central planning leads to corruption.

A largely free market with some select regulations.

What regulations?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:15:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 10:20:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?

For it, but I know that the free market needs regulations to protect consumers and businesses aike.

Why does business need to be protected?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:16:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 1:52:25 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
lol. I'm probably the most Anti-"Free Market" person here. Worker's collectivisation ftw! :D

For The Win of the corrupt party politicians, and for the poverty of everyone else.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:16:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 2:15:18 AM, regebro wrote:
Why does business need to be protected?

Why shouldn't it? Businesses are tossed around and abused unfairly by other businesses, and government, just like consumers can be.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:47:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that in markets dominated by only a couple of big players, inneficient anti-competitive practices should be watched for and regulated.

For example in the early 1900's when a steel giant would undercut local competitors to an unsustainable price, harming themselves, such that they could put the smaller player out of business and come to dominate that market.

I don't see how a Free market can maintain efficiency otherwise.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:51:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In my above example, the steel giant doesn't necessarily win the market because his overall business model is more efficient (economies of scale,etc), but rather because he has more capital to withstand self harm than his smaller competitor can take.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 8:25:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?

Loaded terms. I know you didn't mean to, but to say either brings with it a bandwagon of different implications that I don't necessarily agree with.

That being said, I'm against it, but I do not agree with a state-run economy. I'm for a socialistic mixed market.

Why?

Because pure economic philosophies don't work. There has never been a truely free market (in the modern sense) ever. If you look at some of the mixed markets that come closer to deregulation, you see systematic problems as a direct result.

Does it work?

On paper, sure. It really is a brilliant idea and I think that if the world were a mathematical formula, I would be free market all the way. The fact remains that neither end (free market or totally state-run) are correct. Free market-style economies don't work for the worker. There needs to be a system wherein someone can provide for themselves and make a living through a regulated market system, but the government provides essentials for its citizens that are to vital to be left to the market.

What is better?

Well in terms of the two extremes, I would say that a state-run economy is better because it either attempts, or attempts to put up the facade of mass social programs. Through this, people are usually destitute and poor but do not starve in the streets (e.g. Cuba) whereas anarcho-capitalist societies (that provide free markets) would let people starve in the streets (e.g. Depression-era America)

Is america so far away from it?

America is closer to a fascist economy. That is not to imply anything else beyond the economy. That is not a comparison to anything Hitler did outside of the economic sphere. That being said, I think the state-sponsored corporatization of America has led to an oligopoly of conglomerates that are very close to a very corrupt government and have an excess of control over American life. Now it could be argued that that is the eventual outcome of any free-market, but I wouldn't hasten to agree.

Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?

Yes and no. If you look at it in a purely economic sphere; sure. If, tomorrow, the government completely left the economy; stop subsidization, taxation, regulation, etc. the economy would certainly pick up in a hurry. However, the social costs would be enormous. The environmental degradation would be horrifying, the number of jobs within America would simply drop off and the lower class in America would be fighting to stay alive. However, and I believe I am vindicated in this belief, Keynesian-style economic can provide sustainable, social-conscious and fast recovery. It seeks to build the economy from the base-up, giving workers new jobs with the hope that they will spend. Given that the American propensity to spend is generally larger than their propensity to save, I believe that this is a no-brainer.

Looking at the news today, it is quite obvious that the latter worked, at least to some degree;

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 9:29:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 7:16:31 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/29/2009 2:15:18 AM, regebro wrote:
Why does business need to be protected?

Why shouldn't it? Businesses are tossed around and abused unfairly by other businesses

How?

and government

Oh, yeah, that's true, typically by some other business being "protected".
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 9:32:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 7:47:05 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think that in markets dominated by only a couple of big players, inneficient anti-competitive practices should be watched for and regulated.

If they are ineffiecient, they don't need to be regulated.

For example in the early 1900's when a steel giant would undercut local competitors to an unsustainable price, harming themselves, such that they could put the smaller player out of business and come to dominate that market.

And the result of that is..... cheaper steel! Consumer win!

The market is there for the benefit of the consumer (that is all of us), not the business (which are only some of us).
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 9:40:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 8:25:20 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Because pure economic philosophies don't work. There has never been a truely free market (in the modern sense) ever.

True. But the more free markets have been, the better they have worked. That's a pretty fat hint on what works and what doesn't. Nobody has regulated because it works better. Economies usually start out as extremely regulated, and then deregulate, because the regulation doesn't work.

If you look at some of the mixed markets that come closer to deregulation, you see systematic problems as a direct result.

Like what?

Free market-style economies don't work for the worker.

Yes they do. Proof:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

There needs to be a system wherein someone can provide for themselves and make a living through a regulated market system

Why does it need to be regulated?

but the government provides essentials for its citizens that are to vital to be left to the market.

That's like saying that childrens wellbeing is too important to be left to non-pedofiles.

Well in terms of the two extremes, I would say that a state-run economy is better because it either attempts, or attempts to put up the facade of mass social programs.

They attempt, yes. But they always, in every variation that has been conceived failed in this attempt. State-run economies consistently have *more* poverty than economies that are less state-run.

Through this, people are usually destitute and poor but do not starve in the streets (e.g. Cuba) whereas anarcho-capitalist societies (that provide free markets) would let people starve in the streets (e.g. Depression-era America)

Depression era America was highly regulated and more protectionist that todays America.
So prove me wrong, then.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 11:04:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 9:40:12 AM, regebro wrote:
At 10/29/2009 8:25:20 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Because pure economic philosophies don't work. There has never been a truely free market (in the modern sense) ever.

True. But the more free markets have been, the better they have worked. That's a pretty fat hint on what works and what doesn't. Nobody has regulated because it works better. Economies usually start out as extremely regulated, and then deregulate, because the regulation doesn't work.

Show me some examples. I can show you plenty to the contrary.

If you look at some of the mixed markets that come closer to deregulation, you see systematic problems as a direct result.

Like what?

Both the great depression and current (well..recently over) recession were caused by deregulation of the stock market. Japan's economy, although very strong, is completely reliant on the ebb and flow of worldwide trade. Their economy very speculative and has been hit by several slowdowns due to deregulation. Most other deregulated economies, like the UAE, are dependent on natural resources and generally sacrifice the good of their workers for the sake of production.

Free market-style economies don't work for the worker.

Yes they do. Proof:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Uh...huh. These graphs don't show anything. They're just points with -very- arbitrary axises. Either give us the site where they're located in context, or explain them thoroughly. Also keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation. It the people in a country are free economically, it generally means the count is prosperous already, not as a result of the freedom. Therefore things like unemployment would be low anyway.

I can't say more unless you give me more than just little squares on a graph. I don't even know if they represent countries, or states, or phylums or what.

There needs to be a system wherein someone can provide for themselves and make a living through a regulated market system

Why does it need to be regulated?

I don't even know where to begin. Let me answer your question with a question;

How else do you propose that we ensure workers have rights and corporations do not overstep their bounds in the economy?

I'll expand more once I understand where you're coming from.

but the government provides essentials for its citizens that are to vital to be left to the market.

That's like saying that childrens wellbeing is too important to be left to non-pedofiles.

That is quite possibly one of the most flagrant examples of a fallacious metaphor that I have ever seen. Regardless, I agree.

If pedophiles have the most vested interest in the well being, safety and security of the kids; why not let them take care of the children? Of course they would be closely watched, regulated and made to follow the law verbatim, but I see no problem with this.

So I ask you; why do you think these pedophiles should not be regulated by law and thereby allowed to do what they will with our children?

Well in terms of the two extremes, I would say that a state-run economy is better because it either attempts, or attempts to put up the facade of mass social programs.

They attempt, yes. But they always, in every variation that has been conceived failed in this attempt. State-run economies consistently have *more* poverty than economies that are less state-run.

Yes, they do, however they provide a semblance of economic security for -everyone.- Cuba is poorer now, in terms of GDP, than the United States was during the Great Depression. However Cuba does not allow its citizens to starve in the streets, while a quasi-free market economy does. Cuba, for example, provides adequate healthcare to all citizens, which the U.S still does not.

Depression era America was highly regulated and more protectionist that todays America.

Sure, trade was tightly regulated, but as a whole the economy was far too new to actually have any regulation. For example, the federal reserve and the FDA were only a decade old. There was no federal minimum wage and most luxuries afforded to workers now, which cost companies a lot of money, were mere day dreams.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 2:16:14 AM, regebro wrote:

For The Win of the corrupt party politicians, and for the poverty of everyone else.

Erm...no. There's loads of poverty now. If I had more time today I would certainly discuss this with you.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 2:51:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?
For it.
Why?
It's the most efficient, productive type of market there is. The only government intervention really needed is the enforcement of contracts, and then the protection of people's rights to life, liberty, and their own property.
Does it work?
Of course, when applied correctly.
What is better?
Nothing.
Is america so far away from it?
We're getting further from it every day.
Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?
Yes.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:06:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 9:29:59 AM, regebro wrote:
How?

I know I shouldn't dignify this naivety with a response, but I will anyways.

Businesses are just as prone to abuse from other businesses as consumers are. It happens everyday. I don't mean competition, where some company moves in to compete with another. What I mean is when companies through the use of subterfuge, intimidation, monopolization and other not-playing-by-the-rules tactics break down a rival company. Instead of getting them out of the way by actually competing for consumers, they instead use underhanded strategies to get rid of them. It is unfair, not only to businesses that properly conduct themselves, but to consumers who get caught in the crossfire.

Oh, yeah, that's true, typically by some other business being "protected".

What you're suggesting with this sentence is something I'm against. I don't like monopolization (though I have my exceptions) especially when it is the government causing that monopoly. Governments are there to enforce the rules, protect all businesses from abuse - not favour one company over another.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:41:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Volkov, what regulations do you have in mind?

Well, I don't know, really. I'm not really an economics guy, but I give it thought sometimes.

I guess the major point of any regulation would be to protect consumers/businesses, and to ensure fair competition. That would mean creating regulatory oversight in order to ensure those things.

Things like the Security and Exchanges Commission, which protect investors and consumers from unlawful practices and abuse by those that would circumvent proper conduct, are good ideas. Other ideas like the enforcement of net neutrality, or the FDA which checks and approves products as safe for consumers, and the guaranteed ability of individuals, companies and the government to take abusers to court over losses and possible criminal charges, are things I support generally. Its hard to get into specifics because I don't really know about specifics, lol.

But, just because I love competition so, I believe a government needs to have regulations and laws in place to make sure companies cannot gain a stranglehold on an industry without fair competition, and that the government cannot favour industries over others - meaning that government jobs that can include private business should exist, but there must always be the ability for any company to bid on that work.

But I do have contradictions. One is that while competition is important, there are times when the government intervening in a situation to save a major company from falling is good, simply because of the possible effects on not only the workers, but the economy attached to those businesses. I think that those companies must be forced to pay back the money they received, but if there is the ability for reform available that can make that important industry work again, the government should take steps to enable it.

Another contradiction is that some monopolies from the government are OK. Healthcare is one, because a government-provided healthcare to me seems to be the best option. While private health care should certain exist, not only to allow others that option but to guarantee some competition, the government exercise of a monopoly in this regard is fine by me.

I guess its all about a certain balancing of regulation that, instead of really controlling a market, just shapes it to make it fairer, and makes sure those that abuse people are dealt with.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:23:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:56:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/29/2009 3:41:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Volkov, what regulations do you have in mind?

Well, I don't know, really. I'm not really an economics guy
I stopped reading there.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:26:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 12:45:07 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 10/29/2009 2:16:14 AM, regebro wrote:

For The Win of the corrupt party politicians, and for the poverty of everyone else.

Erm...no. There's loads of poverty now.

regebro's scenario is not a dystopian future, but a past we are already living in.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:14:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The free market is a wonderful concept, but it has been abused in far too many ways, particularly in third world countries where only the rich have any ability to achieve basic civil rights. Clean water, for example, is not something you want on the "free market". Every free market ends up becoming abusive until you put regulations on it...
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:17:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:55:47 PM, comoncents wrote:
Who here is for it and who is against it?
Kinda...
Why?
Well, the idea is fine but a few corporations would inevitably take control of the whole market if allowed to run free.
Does it work?
With VERY little government regulation.
What is better?
Not sure what you mean.
Is america so far away from it?
Nah, we had it pretty good. We needed to implement some changes here and there. Although, I do disagree with the direction we are currently taking.
Can the free market be the answer to our economic down fall?
Well, the market will be the answer to our economic downfall.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:18:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:14:34 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
The free market is a wonderful concept, but it has been abused in far too many ways, particularly in third world countries where only the rich have any ability to achieve basic civil rights. Clean water, for example, is not something you want on the "free market". Every free market ends up becoming abusive until you put regulations on it...

Quite to the contrary. The individual will buy cleaner water given a selection, and only a cartel could do something like pollute the water it sells and expect to still make a profit.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:21:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:18:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 10/29/2009 5:14:34 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
The free market is a wonderful concept, but it has been abused in far too many ways, particularly in third world countries where only the rich have any ability to achieve basic civil rights. Clean water, for example, is not something you want on the "free market". Every free market ends up becoming abusive until you put regulations on it...

Quite to the contrary. The individual will buy cleaner water given a selection, and only a cartel could do something like pollute the water it sells and expect to still make a profit.

Right, but only in countries where capital is readily available, and last time I checked Developing countries lacked that.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.