new.morning wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> They're the ONLY thing that works, Barfitu.
>>>
>> Free market definition:
>>
>> "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no
>> government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a
>> market economy where buyers and sells are allowed to transact freely
>> (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without
>>
> state
>
>> intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."
>>
>>
>> What we've seen of "free market economics" so far has been a disaster.
>> It's only good for the asshole who wants to become the next Napoleon on
>> their block.
>>
>>
>
> Why are you fighting strawmen?
>
> What markets in the US, or other developed countries, do not have some
> form of regulation, taxes and subsidies? Name some industries in the
> US economy that don't have any of those three things? Other than
> perhaps the underground economy -- selling pot perhaps. And maybe
> some hookers.
>
> And while many may debate the appropriate level of taxes, no
> majority, not anyone of any stature, is promoting no taxes on
> anything. And few, only a few fringe extreme radicals, no one who is
> making or influencing serious policy, is advocating no regulation. No
> one is advocating, of any stature an end to regulation pf
> pharmacuticals, the food industry, licensing of doctors, lawyers, and
> teachers, regulation of financial markets and banks, airlines, public
> utilities, international, interstate and "fair" trade, currency,
> copyrights and patents, public safety, etc.
>
> You are arguing against something that does not currently exist, and
> has not since about 1740 or before. Certainly the early US, with
> Hamilton etc, envisioned an implemented lots of regulation and state
> intervention. Though clearly a lot less then than now. Currently,
> some may call for less, some for more. No one but a few nuts are
> calling of nothing -- no taxes, no regulation, no subsidies for
> education across the entire spectrum of the economy.
That is what you would get if you let a lot of big business have its
way. So I rally against the talk a "free markets" because if you give
big business an inch they'll take a mile. And soon things would be
worse than they are now in Amerika the land of corporatism.
There are basically two kinds of government regulation: one to protect
consumers against fraud and unsafe products and the other "pull the
ladder up" regulation put in place so a big corporation can keep
competitors off it's turf. The latter is patently unfair and should
not be allowed but they swoon legislators into passing them.
Here's what Thom Hartmann has to say on "free markets":
"The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic
Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System
in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those
who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.
In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are
the creation of government.
Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They
provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the
contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces
through public education, and those workers show up at their places of
business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by
government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by
police and fire departments provided by government, and send their
communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow
public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.
And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by
government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or
hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business
without rules won't work."
More here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0312-08.htm
