Can the free market solve most problems better than government?

Asked by: Marshall-Abarca
  • Yes Yes Yes

    Government ruins everything. Government takeover of industries ruin everything. I won't deny the free market has its flaws, but in pretty much every case a more free market based economy is better off when compared to a more government run economy. This has been proven in history multiple times, when you allow the market to just adjust to situations the results will be better than anything gov't could provide. Now again gov't has its place in the economy and certain fields it provides overall a better service for, but if we want most problems solved then we should leave it to the free market.

  • Government is the problem

    Are you kidding? The federal government can't even get the mail delivered! Now, you think it can control the markets? Competition is good! The products and prices are better in a free market. Privatization and individual accountability make for a good market. There is more waste and fraud in government.

  • In most cases I'd say yes.

    I won't deny the free market has its flaws, but in pretty much every case a more free market based economy is better off when compared to a more government run economy. This has been proven in history multiple times, when you allow the market to just adjust to situations the results will be better than anything gov't could provide. Now again gov't has its place in the economy and certain fields it provides overall a better service for, but if we want most problems solved then we should leave it to the free market.

  • The Government is incompetent in everything it does and tends to ruin the industries it enters

    A free market system means that for the majority of products or services you consume you get a market-based process in which competition leads to lower prices and higher quality. Another important note is that the money the government has to spend isn't the "governments" in a sense that its money they earned themselves. The government obtains all of its money from taxing the people, so there's no incentive for them to do there best when approaching or trying to fix a problem because it's not "their" money. So they could care less about what happens to it because they're not worried about going out of business due to shitty decisions because they could just increase taxes for more money to spend.
    But don't get me wrong, the government is better than the free market in a few sectors like creating an army for public defense and policing.
    You can think about the government as the DMV, these lazy, incompetent, pencil pushing bureaucrats, could care less about you in determining how to run society.

  • Individual initiative over the bloated malaise of unionism

    Anecdotely, I have witnessed more sloth in persons members of unions than of persons who work independently. It is my core belief that persons work harder, more efficiently, and with greater concern for the results of their efforts if they receive the reward from their work. The guaranteed payment of wage and pension is the cause of greater sloth than any other influence.

  • Free market all the way.

    The free market has been proven time and time again to be far superior in efficiency and security to any government. Competition is good and a free market will always find a way to recover from any change because the free market depends on each individual contributing to the economy and society. As long as humans are creative, resourceful, and moral, we will never have problems with a free market economy.

  • Generally yes but there must be some oversight.

    We can't even talk about this though until we fix the problem with China stealing all of our manufacturing jobs. You cannot expect Americans to work for slave wages while corporations are raking in huge profits. The free market system will only work if it is fair to everyone. The federal government is hopelessly inept.

  • Yes, with limited government regulation.

    A sanction is the same thing as a tariff or a tax, except a sanction is a blockade done by one country to another as an act of war. The purpose of a sanction is to limit and eventually cause the collapse of a country's economy. Taxes and Tariffs do that same thing, except they're done on a note of legality by the state onto its own people. Any limitation is oppressing to a free market, but some limitations are required to keep real criminals from starting monopolies and gaining enough power to sway the worlds governments. A completely free market cannot solve our problems, but it would help more than what we have now.
    America does not have a free market or a limited free market for that matter. It's purchases and sales are taxed, small businesses are taxed and regulated beyond their capacity, only the big corporations can survive, and if those corporations were on the verge of failing their bureaucratic friends in Washington would just bail them out.
    This economy is controlled by lobbyists and the sinful greed of humanity.

  • Yes, No question about it

    Liberals have this idea that politicians are angels...They're just as power hungry and greedy as any business man...The difference is you can boycott the businessman's product or company you can sue them...Politicians never get in trouble,,,even if they do, the only thing that happens is they lose their job...Whoopti doo. They'll just get hired by a university. Free markets provide options and choices...It provides a robust marketplace which allows a robust job market with it..If everyone had a decent job, we wouldn't need government handouts...Which don't solve problems because of fraud and waste...PERIOD...The only government programs that work are the ones that don't exist. They perpetuate problems...

  • Hands Down, the Market Wins!

    Unlike the others, I do not attempt to qualify by statement by acknowledging the "flaws." Only a naive believer of utopia would argue otherwise. A system that allows the voluntary buying, selling, and trading of individuals is going to have problems with individuals making bad and reckless decisions whereas when statists makes these decisions everyone is impacted by it. Simple proof that the market is superior, we had a community "organizer" with two whole years of experience in the Senate declare that he would add 5 million "green" jobs to the economy, however, we know a) they can't even define such a job, b) for every so-called "green" job there is a loss of 2.1 jobs elsewhere, and c) we're nowhere near 5 million despite government mandates, subsidies, etc. So do you think a professional ideologue who's never run a hotdog stand is capable of dictating on economic matters that effect over 300 million people? Just read that essay Milton riedman used to urge 'I, Pencil'. As for the other side over there, if you think a the "police force" is an example of the government doing a better job than markets, you must live in Mayberry.

  • Not one I can think of

    Free-market capitalism categorically accomplishes these things: it promotes growth for growth's sake. Which is inherently contradictory to the purpose of an economy. And no, growth isn't a synonym for innovation, it's a synonym for more volume. More 'things' produced whether they are of real value or not. Capitalism promotes growth like a tumor. Next, it places supply *before* demand, which is the wrong order for things to be in. The consumer isn't in any power or position to determine what sorts of innovations and products they would like to see, then the system works to research and supply it. No, its backwards. The owning class has the onus of attempting to anticipate what people want (which is at best wasteful), or worse, deciding what people want. Consumers are only free to choose from what the owning class decides for them. In a communist structure, society could organize and determine what it wishes to pursuit and produce, then mandate it by its own resources. Then finally, it creates the ugly-beast that is 'profit-margin'. This has two implications itself. The first is that anything society would find worth-while that isn't profitable would never happen. The south would still be largely without electricity if not for FDR investing in something that wasn't viable for the free-market. Not to mention almost all actual technological and medical research. Then two, profit is an entirely wasteful and needless 'middle-man' and extra cost between the consumer and product. The idea is that this is the only way to promote innovation and risk, which history and facts prove wrong time and time again.

  • Basic macroeconomics tells us otherwise.

    When there are positive externalities for non-consumers, less people feel motives to pay since they would get the same bennifits without paying. Then there might also be a conflict of interest with certain, currently government owned groups. Such as the police force. I don't think the free market is the answer for everything.

  • No, there are more problems in life then just the exchange of goods and services.

    The free market usually just coordinates the exchange of goods and services. In that respect, the free market does a better job than the government. However, most problems are not related to the exchanging of goods and services. Most problems are personal because humans just have a lot of issues with each other.

  • Markets and governments do nothing.

    A free market and a government are environments; they are contexts within which people do things. The environment, or context, does nothing.

    People's actions are influenced by the context in which the actions occur, but it is the people who conduct the actions.

    A free market context and a government context allow for different actions to be conducted because there are different rules to be followed. The rules of a free market allow for more cooperation than the rules in government. This is why politics is much more divisive than free market activities. Therefore, people acting in a free market can more easily solve problems than people acting in government.

  • The government should be there to provide a fair playing field.

    Which they are currently not doing. I agree that a market should be mostly left alone. However some market players have been given extraordinary powers. For example the banks ability to print money out of thin air.

    We can't have a free market without government regulation. If the Government doesn't regulate then someone else will. Thats the way the law of the jungle works. Government policy should always aim to create the most freedom possible. A hands off approach will not achieve that goal.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.