The debate "Free market capitalism is the best form of economy for the growth of products. nWhy or why not" was started by
December 20, 2018, 4:13 pm.
90 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 64 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 22 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 33 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, tniromin posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
JDAWG9693, wilsoergel76, raze, DollarStoreDildo, WiseWords, shahriaralzubayer1, SMNR, Kronicle, castor, Syrkk, LucyTheDebatorQueen, lukeluckynuke123 and 78 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, Fowling, XpertHemant, mondelay, historybuff, tniromin, chrissurvivor, YaBoyPatches and 56 visitors disagree.
I believe so.
It entirely depends. I'd like to broaden products to commodities.
What can market provide efficiently and to high consumer satisfaction? Shoes? Probably. Food? Same. Cars? Same.
Healthcare? I'd argue, no. Elderly care? Nah. Education? No. Simple reason: they don't care about you being educated or feeling good, but about your money.
Longer explanation: how can you make a rational choice as a patron, without being fully informed? You'd argue being fully informed about shoes is a whole lot easier than elderly care, wouldn't you? Because I don't see how an ordinary working class person is supposed to compare these kinds of services.
Someone who finds it morally repulsive to profit off of kids and the sick n' week would already accept my proposition.
But an even more important question is, what the social effects are. If you want a society where de facto everyone get different chances, you should argue that these social services should be privatized. If you instead want a society of not only a level playing field, where health and prospects are not an issue of class, but also of less crime, more used potential in citizens, knowledge based economy, less societal division and world class healthcare, you should argue that heavily subsidized, taxpayer funded public education and healthcare systems are the way to go.
There are probably more sectors that aren't problematic being "produced" by the public sector. But these are in my opinion the most important exceptions to the market, where competition and consumerification are inappropriate.
im not 100% sure what your trying to say.
however it does sound rather black and white, and everything has side effects.
when the development is actually pushed it will as a by product cause side effects.
(john oliver latest episode about the wwe)
I wonder why pro wrestlers never unionized? this treatment of workers in the "greatest, richest nation" is embarassing.
a government that addresses this is not a "power hungry threat to human freedom", it is a defender of those freedoms and the promise of america.
The East India company didn't oversee the Industrial revolution, an influx of scholars fleeing the Islamic empire while it was being sacked by the Mongols did. Along with a sizeable tea trade.
Scientific research and caffeine cause technological progress, not some corporate busybodies making workers pay subscription fees in the form of "profits."
Just like with the airliners allowing themselves to renege on a contract, we no longer own most of the things we buy. we blindly agree to a lease agreement.
and just because the masses do not revolt, ME and YOU must live in this increasingly questionable environment with no say? blindly, like sheep? I would rather start a movement, and even if the masses dont act, when I declare my grievances they can vote for me, and say "me too". so that their voice, and my efforts actually count, and make a difference. democracy.
the traffic thing came from a comparison of how we regulate people vs companies. we make sure that people behave and can travel fairly and safely. why cant we make sure companies trade fairly and most importantly, safely?
with airlines, this wasnt an invitation. they sold a ticket, and you bought it with money you already paid them. this was a contract. companies are not people. they are things we invented to make our lives easier.
the reason people dont revolt is because life is difficult, and revolutions take communication. they revolt with their votes and have representatives handle it while they work to put food on their table and have a little bit of time for themselves after work. that doesnt mean companies can just take over! your consequences sound unacceptable.
And, if the people truly do have an issue with, say, Facebook and airlines, then they SHOULD be reacting and I don't know why nothing is happening other than the fact that the average person is lazy and stupid
Woah, what? Where did the traffic thing come from? I don't fully understand the Facebook thing, but I don't really care if they own my photos. I'm the one who put them there. If you want something to be private, then you shouldn't post it. And, as for airplanes: they're private companies. Just like how colleges can invite whoever they want to speak, air lines can invite whoever they want to ride, and that includes uninviting.
so why arent these things happening?
user agreements are already out of hand. facebook owns all your photos, no reaction. airlines can force boot you, no reaction. why can't we make laws to govern companies just like we make laws to govern people. or do you suggest we remove all traffic regulations too?
The robocalls would be considered harassment and the companies could be sued for such action by private citizens, not by the government. And, random surprises in user agreements would be bad for business after news of their actions caught up, so it would be unlikely for companies to do so. And, if they did, like I said, once news caught up their sales would most likely suffer.
I would suggest government regulations banning/fining commercial robocalls as unwanted solicitation. and limiting what can be in a user agreement, maybe making them standardized so we all know exactly what's in them while companies still get the protections these agreements were made to protect, but no ridiculous surprises like having your phone shut down cause you fixed your own screen yourself.
back to this people regulating things hypothesis, let's look at 2 modern day problems and see how you believe the people can solve them without government:
1. spam robocalls
2. endless user agreements
how can we as consumers address these issues?
so not only are their priorities twisted, their time is used entirely inefficiently focusing on reelection. your not wrong, but is it their fault?
let's imagine the ideal politician. smart, good, trying to improve the nation... he cant do any of that until he gets into office. and to get into office he needs to win the campaign. this makes my call to lower the NEED for expensive campaigns even more important. it will eliminate their conflict of interest and free up more time for them to govern.
I completely agree that career professionals and experts are ideal but if they arent elected they are hired or appointed, and that comes back to the politicians regardless. they are our representatives, we need to fix their situation so they can properly work for us.
my solution my not sit well with constitutionalists because it can be seen as a limit on speech, but I think we can sacrifice political advertising (useless, ineffective, misleading, and insanely expensive) without sacrificing our freedom. in fact I believe it will maintain our freedom. (I know you arent american, forgive the 1st person)
At this point elected officials are just call center employees. Their primary concern is getting enough donations to win the next election. I don't mean that as an exaggeration, it is literally their primary motivator. They spend hours on the phone every single day calling potential donors. Do you think they spend the same amount of time reading up on policy issues?
We are much better off having career officials with experience making these decisions than an elected official because the elected official is going to make the decision that increases his chances of being re-elected, not the one that is necessarily best for you or for america.
but it seems the key issue is the election campaign funds. our leaders become beholden to these donors not out of self greed but requirements in order to get the job. it's not like the money is going into their pockets.
contain the cost of campaigns, and this problem nearly vanishes.
The problem with elected officials being the ones to personally make all the rules is that they don't know what the rules should be. Who would you rather make rules about poison seeping into ground water, an expert on the subject with a career in the field or the son of some rich guy who got elected because he got the most donor funding?
While it is a great talking point to say "give the people a say", ultimately that is just spin. Certain segments of the political sphere like saying that because it allows them to remove rules that businesses don't like. Rules such as don't put poison into milk. Those businesses then donate to that politician's re-election campaign. Putting career officials who don't have to pander to the companies they are supposed to be policing is just good policy.
what is wrong with how regulations come about? most agencies, policies, and legislations are public knowledge open to outcry. we cant vote on everything. can you give an example? what is the power they have that's too strong? are they using it for ill?
can you name any point in history where this public power worked? I feel that the people of this country already have a union. our government isnt like the governments at the time of the framing, and neither is the world. In stead of neutering our government, we should increase safeguards, monitoring, and public control over it, much like the founding fathers did when they created this nation. steer it in the right direction.
the people didnt know because they added chalk and stuff to make it white, but they probably figured it out eventually. however this was the industrial revolution and there was no rules of any kind. their other choice was no milk at all.
do the people in that link deserve the consequences? what actions should they take? how long would it take? and is it really ok if it failed and this continued?
And, I was just saying that you shouldn't group my argument with a party or movement because that quickly can become fallacious.
I don't wanna start an argument over policies, but like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with the policies that originate from those agencies or ones like it, what I disagree with is how the regulation come about. No public vote was ever taken that gives those agencies the legal power that they now possess.
And, I believe that if government intervention was no longer an option, as it would not be in a free market capitalist economy, the public would be forced to use their power. And, if they did not, then they deserve the consequences. And, as I said, the only government imposed regulations should be complete company transparency. That way, people would be able to know that the milk companies, for example, were doing shady things and if it mattered to the people, then they would change it.
I didnt counter your argument, I actually agreed with that part of it. however it is worth pointing out that the same people who push for people to exercise their power also limit the ability of those same people to exercise that power.
can you name a single federal regulations, including from those agencies, that should be removed?
back to our people power discussion. apparently back in the day milk manufacturers had some really shady milk practices which was uncovered in 1858. once it was revealed many closed down or cleaned up their act, but others continued to operate and were not driven out by people boycotting them, but by states enforcing regulations that they couldnt meet 4 years later.
has this people power ever worked? it certainly didnt do much to stop leaded gasoline or toxic emissions from coal plants. they arent doing much about the false labels in GNC supplements currently. it certainly sounds logical (just like a flat stationary earth) but does it work in actual reality?
Firstly, don't counter my argument with statements of parties, that is very close to an ad hominem. I vote independent and identify with no party.
Secondly, I think that free market is, at the very least, better than what we have now. What we have now is unimaginable bureaucracy with too much legal power making decisions that the public does not confirm. The way our government is suppose to work is that if there should be anything legal to happen, it goes to congress and the people vote in the congressmen to represent us. But, what's happening is that a bunch of associations and such are editing laws and being unchecked (NIH, FCC, etc.). Free market capitalism would return that power to regulate to the people, rather than hand it over to groups like those. And, to clarify, I'm not saying that the groups are bad, only that they should not have the legal power that they do.
I believe free market works under the ideal condition of equal power of all parties... which ignores the fluctuations of reality and human psychology.
I don't think the free market is something stable or prefered, and there is nothing wrong with society giving a guiding hand. this can easily be done without total control or some sort of slippery slope fallacy.
im glad you think that way. I agree with everything you said. but dont you find it suspicious that the same party advocating people centric solutions also demonizes and fights against unions?
wouldnt a no government no union situation be the worst possible combination for the nation?
I feel that unions are often necessary because it gives the public (employees) power over the company. Unions are just a good example of how the public does have power if they show it and utilize it.
how do you feel about unions?
By expressing any self control and boycotting companies that the public believes to be acting improperly.
"And, in what way can the public not fix any issue that companies cause? The public gave the companies power, and they can take it away."
the ways are many. will you suggest something along the lines of "the people will simply stop shopping at amazon/walmart". very logical on a basic level, and very easy to say, those models never work in reality. how many other store options do the people have? how must they wait for effective competition to return?
please show me an example of how the public can realistically AND effectively regulate big corporations?.... and dont dismiss this question with a mirror question. walk me through it.
If they lie, that's breaking their transparency regulation and the company will be prosecuted.
Making sure that there is no laundering and such is part of process transparency. And, being transparent in your processes, if legally required, means that the companies will be prosecuted if they give money to criminals, etc.
And, in what way can the public not fix any issue that companies cause? The public gave the companies power, and they can take it away.
you said your ok with consumer transparency regulations but those can be amongst the most onerous. telling us what's in there is pretty useless without enforcement as the companies can simply lie. supplements, that are regulated far weaker then regular food or medicine have been found guilty of this repeatedly.
further weaken regulations and companies will further abuse our ignorance. how will the people address this issue?
there are also non ingredient concerns such as companies abusing licensing agreements so that you cant even fix your own items anymore. this was better explained in the video I posted earlier. I get the need to protect their software, but they are abusing that reason to put unnecessary regulations, like not being allowed to fix your own screen or change your own battery. how do the people address this issue? and why havent they?
the entire "the people will solve this" claim is simply a catchphrase that is very limited in reality.
I named 4 regulations I feel are necessary. consumer, worker, environmental, beaurocratic.
lets start with beaurocratic. they have to keep clear books, they cant be laundering illegal money for criminals, rich people, or anyone, and they cant be sponsoring terrorism or avoiding sanctions.
unfortunately I couldn't. you gave no introduction or argument, just plopped a 15min video on my lap and get to work.
also i posted my own source, which this video was the only reply to, should we just send links back and forth with no more words? lol
why dont you just say your favorite argument from that video in your own words and we can start there. or give me some time stamps. or we can just start with regulations which is probably in there.
One should not attack the source of the argument, only the argument itself. I also do not agree with a lot of their stuff, only used that one video to help explain my point.
However, as I've stated before, the only regulations that should be legally imposed to companies are transparency. Transparency in their processes and in their ingredients. The public should fix any issues, not the government.
What other regulation(s) should be forced and why?
Free Market Capitalism is dangerous, is actually regressive for a generational economy, and weakens our negotiating power on the international stage.
First off; free market capitalism is dangerous to the consumers and workers. We need food to be not-poisonous so we need to control ingredients (especially things like preservatives, colors, added flavors, stabilizers, binding agents, etc...). We also need to be able to impose cleanliness standards on restaurants, food manufacturers, drug manufacturers, etc... These standards don't just need to set, but also verified via inspections. Worker safety needs to be standardized as well. We need to verify the claims of certain products like medications or else return to the days of "snake oil". We need to regulate access to certain products: Alcohol, tobacco, drugs,firearms, etc.... We need to be able to regulate pricing for certain industries like utilities companies so customers aren't at their mercy alone. You get it; we need regulations. Some industries need to be heavily regulated (like healthcare, pharma, etc...) while others just need to be regulated to the extent that they affect the public at large.
Regressive for generational economies:
we need to be able to subsidize certain industries over others as new technologies emerge. New Technologies are often expensive at first, but if we want them to become commercially viable we need to able to help push them to the market or we'll be doomed to stagnating. Renewable vs fossil fuel for example. If we don't incentivise renewables, fossil fuels, because they're an established industry with large infrastructure and capital behind it, would crush renewables in a free market. In a regulated market however, we can create competition between the two somewhat artificially and thus drive price down on renewables and make it commercially viable to invest in further research and improvements to the technology. This kind of incentivising allows us to push our economy into new directions that are better aligned with the needs of the future. We also need to be able to build infrastructure for new technologies (like 5g in the near future).
We need to be able to tell corporations which countries they can and can't do business with, who they can and can't use in their supply chains, and where they can and can't get investors from. If we can't do that then we can't actually impose trade embargos, economic sanctions, etc....
I'm arguing for regulated capitalism. a version where government makes no demand of individual companies (unless they approach monopoly status) but makes industry wide rules that a play fairly and equally to all competitors giving noone an advantage.
as for your vision, buying up a company makes many jobs redundant and always causes a decreases in the total number of jobs as well as the employers competing for those jobs. lowering the number of people hired and the wages for those people. you didnt explain the effect on the consumers I mentioned at all.
btw, prager U is bullshit. it's very good bullshit that is hard to decipher, but given your position on another topic, this prager u video may help you see this bull:
Fair enough. When a smaller company is bought out, they make money. And, the bigger company gains employees; employees make money. Everyone makes money based on the work they do.
What form of economy do you argue for, might I ask?
that's nice but you didn't actually respond to anything I wrote
it can be winning for the creator, but how does that help provide competition for the consumer or the broader economy?
heres an episode of a show that demonstrates what I'm saying:
Being bought out can be considered a form of "winning," I think.
I'm sure there is a way to make monopolies impossible via regulation, but that would probably be extreme. what it does regularly do is that when a company becomes a monopoly or close to one. it takes it to court and forces it to break up into smaller companies.
anyone can open a business, but will they be competitive? how does one compete with walmart or amazon? how about Google? a few competitors showed up to Facebook...and facebook bought them out or copied them out of business.
the potential for competition is there and I understand the logic behind the idea, but does it work in reality?
No, companies usually want to have a complete monopoly. But, with a free market, anyone can open a business and there will always be some form of competition. And, if the public decides that they do not like a company, they can boycott.
And, in what way does the government regulate so that a monopoly is not possible, because as far as I know, they don't.
how will a free market guarantee competition?
that wouldnt prefer a massive monopoly?
can you name a single company that encourages competition?
Profit through competition is the point of capitalism, yes.
the point of capitalism is not competition. it is profit.
competition is a requirement, not a goal. most companies would love to eliminate their competition
Wait, what?? The main point of capitalism is that there IS competition and that everything thrives through competition. And, free market capitalism is just saying that there should be room for more competition, not more regulation.
Now, I'm pretty not for "pure" anything, including free market. But, like I said before, I think that company transparency should be the only aspect that the government should be involved in; the rest should be left to the public.
If you treat your employees like shit, other companies will hire and they'll "win."
I'm not advocating for the government to be a player in most markets, but every fair game comes with a rule book. theres nothing wrong with rules.
keeping order is very vague.
i get the appeal of having market forces work things out, but how will that look in reality? what if there is no competition for jobs, every one pays the minimum wage, and work feels like torture? expenses are on the rise, have you actually done the minimum wage math?
if a large portion of people cant afford to participate in the economy and barely cover rent and food... then what happens to the economy? to our order? if a monopoly is developing that is threatening the rights of the people and potentially the security of the nation... wouldnt that fall within the scope of keeping order?
Keeping the order of a society. I worded what I said before wrong, I just feel that the power would be better placed in the public than the government.
what is the government for?
And, it shouldn't be banned in any way other than slavery should be banned. But, if that's how the company wants to treat their employees, in a free market economy, other companies will compete for that workforce and the employees will move to better companies, ideally. The public will fix it.
I would say that as long as the only regulations were having companies be transparent about their ingredients and processes (not just how they make it but what they're doing), the public should take care of it, not the government. Government involvement in this aspect should be minimal because it is not what the government is for.
just looking at the food industry, disclosing and limiting ingredients is essential for the consumer but there are other facets.
I'm sure you would agree child labor, sweatshop hours, or exceptionally dangerous work conditions should be banned, leading to labor regulations.
we should ensure a business isnt just a front to launder money, so some bureaucracy is necessary.
we also wouldnt want them dumping their waste and scraps in the street, especially in big cities where there are many such shops creating an out of control insect/rodent problem and all around nasty conditions, thus sanitation and environmental regulations.
I would argue that all of those regulations are absolutely necessary and that pure free market liberitarianism is as foolish as pure communism, just in the opposite direction.
any regulation is no longer free market capitalism in its true form.
however rather then minimal or maximum regulation, I believe in appropriate regulation. take each regulation and ask yourself, is this regulation making things better or is it a waste?
it doesnt matter how many regulations there are in total as long as each regulation is itself useful.
Obviously everything has to be regulated to some degree, or else it could be anarchy. But, I'm advocating for minimal government regulation. Maybe simply requiring full disclosure on ingredients and processes, to solve your stated issue.
price isnt the only concern, especially in healthcare.
a simpler example is: would you prefer to have cheaper food if it meant unregulated (and undisclosed) preservatives, salt, and unpronouncable/untested chemicals?
pure free market capitalism is great when you have small time workers dealing with small time mom and pop shops that have similar power to the workers and dependence on a healthy local economy for both of their mutual survival. but it falls apart when the power balance is distorted.
as for lasik, I really doubt it is at all unregulated. the reason it was incredibly expensive is because it was a new technique, using new and expensive lasers, that few doctors were able to perform. over time more doctors learned the technique and the lasers improved, increased production, and got cheaper. that seems like a much more logical scenario
How would government regulated capitalism be better than free market capitalism?
You see this in the medical industry where it is incredibly government regulated an everything is expensive beyond reason, but when lasik eye surgery became unregulated, it got 4-5 times cheaper because companies had to compete for business.
capitalism thrives on competition, but
capitalists die because of competition
therefore capitalists try to kill competition, ruining the whole thing. capitalism often leads to goliaths thru mass consolidations, acquisitions, etc. which can create stagnation.
in conclusion, I agree that capitalism is the best at creating and growing new products, but free market capitalism is a disaster that won't last more than a century in any recognizable form.