Victory in a sporting event would be without merit, and would not advance the sport, if the organizers intervened to ensure that particular outcome. The same is true in business. Government intervention may benefit a few people in the short-view but, in the long run, cripples the rest.
Free market all the way. American Government is designed to keep people safe and preserve freedom. Why do liberals constantly try to change this?
Overall, free market economics will work better than excessive government intervention. However, a 100% free market is subject to certain failures. The better system is the one that allows the market to function but intervenes in those rare circumstances in which it is necessary.
corrupt bussiness bribe or coerce corrupt gov to give them to big to fail to big to jail status, unfair tax breaks, subsidies,bailouts, law exempt status, a monopoly, and supress compeition by enforceing supressive laws/regs/taxes to supress the economy, good jobs, independence, trade, and chairty to make forced dependent customers. its counterproductive because they waste time and resources supressing, $value goes down, when they buy something price is up quality is down, crime taxes and poverty go up, their more likley to be abused or robbed, customers go down cuz less people can afford to be a customer. competition/more consumer choice lowers costs, increases quality and quantity. pvt sector- not gov-subsidized no unfair tax breaks. not law exempt. not allowed to steal to fund its operation. goes out of business if it doesnt provide an affordable quality product/service. gov-sector- steals to fund its operation, often because its a failed fraudulent criminal inefficient unnecessary operation that no one wants. gov-sector steals from prvt sector=reduces competition, reduces quality and quantity, increases costs. rewarding failure caused by risky behavior w bailouts and subsidies encourages more failure. you must allow people to be healthy and produce so their will be something to steal/tax and something to buy to become wealthier. exsessivly punishing people for produceing wealth, trying to be independent, or small things that shouldnt be punished, is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent produceing wealth. happy healthy strong workers are more productive.
Leave a comment (optional)!
No thanks, I like my taxes to be much lower. Thank you.
The 100% free market is the best way.
Only during market failures should a government intervene.
The best one. Ever
It is farcical to compare the economy to anything other than an economy. It is far too complicated for that, and far too complicated to be left to its own devices. Private tyranny is worse than government tyranny, as they are unaccountable.
The concept of a free market is absurd. The basic function of government is to provide the rules of fair play between corporate exchanges due to the inherent asymmetry of information between buyer and seller. Even more basic than this, the purpose of government is to provide the infrastructure for companies to even have a market to compete in. Let's follow the logic: if you are a corporation, do you have more of an incentive to compete or to buy out your competitor/ win by cheating? Clearly the latter. If you win perpetually, then you have a monopoly. (History attests to why the anti-trust laws were necessary during the turn of the century - think Standard Oil). Let's continue. If you are a monopoly, what becomes your incentive to innovate? None. Further still, what becomes your incentive to lower prices? None. Free markets do not tend towards competition and fair play; they tend towards winning by any means and hoarding. Consider equality during the "great compression" as compared to inequality since the neoliberal regime changes since Reagan. Pretty big difference.
Universal health care, education, and equal access to food, water, shelter, and transportation are all things that should be ensured (but not necessarily provided by) via a public system. Think about it this way: Many can't afford health care coverage/insurance, private education, food, or a safe shelter. To assume that a free market would lower prices and make better products based on competition does not account for many factors. It doesn't come to quality products. It comes to consumers. Most consumers don't know what's in their product, they just use it. Most consumers wouldn't want to research it. That's why we need a public entity to regulate the markets.
Government intervention is what keeps millions of the poor and elderly alive. Imagine working your entire life and one day realizing that although you are too old and sick to go to work, you have to anyway because there is no social security. Imagine losing your job for a few months and not being able to collect unemployment. You would have to cut into your savings, emergency funds, retirement funds, or your children's college funds. Taxes may seem like a heartbreak now, but they will not when you are eighty-eight and unable to work. With absolutely no governmental intervention, hundreds of businesses would go under because big businesses would completely import from other, cheaper countries and cut out American suppliers.
If there was a truly free market there would be no government, therefore if there was a recession and no-one was buying therefore no one would produce leading to increasing unemployment, a never ending cycle without some government intervention. Therefore there must be some form of government to take action such as quantitative easing, lowering interest rates and spending on infrastructure projects to ease the economy out of a recession. A free market is great until it collapses but when it does (and it will, due the corporate responsibility to its shareholders who just look for a quick return) it will be a deep long recession.
A well regulated economy ideally looks out for the consumers, it's why your child's toy doesn't have lead in it. It's why deregulation of the banking sector in the 1970's slowly created the mess we are in today.
I don't want to be subjective, and even less act like a 'fan' of one or another (some have this despicable attitude). I just want to look at the important data. How well are countries with one or the other doing, in terms of: 1. POVERTY (you might not care that people live like animals, I do) 2. Everything else (Education, well being, etc.) I frankly don't care about 'Growth' since it has a very random impact on population (most of the time, growth benefits the richer folks) So let's take a look at poverty rating for developed countries (IPH-2), BEFORE the crisis. Here is the data from UNDP (UN development program): http://www.inegalites.fr/article.php3?id_article=292 (in French, sorry, easily translated). The (developed) countries that are worst off are (bottom 5 over 20): Spain, UK, United States, Ireland, Italy. Hmm... find anything odd in there? I don't. The three countries that have the 'most free market' (US, UK, Ireland) have nothing to brag about, if it isn't their number of rich folks. Great, now let's look at chances to get out of poverty. Please confirm this yourself as I do not have the exact source anymore. Countries like the US and Ireland have a much more stagnant 5th quintile (20% poorest) than 'socialist' developed countries. This means that a poor person in the US, UK, Ireland has a much lower chance of getting out of poverty than in other developed countries. There goes the "American Dream" (what a long running joke that was..). So, how can you be for free market when it generates poverty and inequality? I can't.
free market is a fairy tale