Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/3/13 08:27 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: This is a fallacy in capitalist argumenting. You present the "free market" as the natural way of things. As if intervention was un-natural. Neoliberalism in an ideology. There is no such thing as a neutral, normal or natural system. The free market is a policital intervention on the market in itself. Otherwise, your lecture of human history is incorrect. Because there was no perfect balance ever, doesn't mean that there never was a control on the economical system. Economical system that neoliberals often tend to perceive as naturaly separated from the political market. Which is also man-made and not "natural". Political power and economical power are intertwined.

No, the free market is the opposite of political power.

economics is meant to be the perfect balance, because free market economics is reliant on compromise. In order to gain, you must give up something. In order for one to gain/maintain power, they must give up something. The government should have no involvement in said transactions, because it's unnecessary and not to mention immoral, because it forces people's hand.

The only way balance can be maintained, power that is, is a free market. in a free market, there is no govt to protect the corrupt, or give handouts. You earn what you earn by your own power.

Compromise is the only equalizer that can actually work. We've seen what happens when you take freedom and fairness out of the equation. You get robber barons and rockefellars. You get housing market collapses. you get unfair taxation. you get crushing debt and inflation. We are living in the consequences of restricting the free market.

You see the free market as a "compromise" and cannot seem to understand that there is no equal-to-equal relationship. You can with your ressources influence someone in a direction. These ressources are of all kind. Money, militay, information, etc.

there is an equal-equal relationship. One cannot gain, without giving. unless, of course, the government creates blocks to keep this from happening (see rockefellar)

Please explain me that human nature you keep talking about. Humans are mostly if not completely social-products. If you are taught something that is wrong, how is it your fault ?

Power and an imbalance of it is vital to our evolutionary biology. if not for imbalace of powers, you would not eat. You may not even exist because your father may not have slept with your mother.

Evolution, our natural biology, society, the world you live in now, is a product of an imbalance of power. You exist because you were the fastest sperm. You have a job because you're more qualified than other. We won World War 2 because of an imbalance of power. The computer, car, airplane, modern medicine, all due to the imbalance of human power and society.

Except inequalities have grown and kept growing since the end of the 80's. Governments have drifter down that neoliberal approach for the past 30 years, and yet they still can't manage to make huge deficits...

That's exactly my point. The inequalities we see now, are not natural imbalances that make the world go around. They're imbalances caused by an enforced by those with power and money. They are protected from the natural checks and balances that humans are subject to. Now we have banks and a govt power structure that is untouchable, and basically immune. They don't have to give, they don't have to compromise. They just take, take, take, and crush whoever they can to get it.

Car company going under? fuck it, just take from those who have less than you, so you can stay afloat.

How was the mother's lover not forced in the transaction?

What are you even talking about?

No. When poverty is rising and when there is an high level of unemployment, there is a competition between lower-classes for employment. So the working conditions usually drop, and the salary two. When looking for a job, if you've been unemployed for a while, you don't have high-education or a formation to hope for a better job and you don't have the money to study, you are stuck dealing with the rules of the market. Rule you didn't decide of. You are then forced, because you need to eat, pay the bills, pay the appartment, to accept a deal. You might end up with a shitty job, with piss-poor working conditions, no insurance and an high-risk of injuries, but you still take it cause that's your only fucking option.

Poverty and unemployment run rampant because the government and the monarchy of this country take from you. They take from business owners, they make college too expensive, the encourage and protect prise fixing on labor, education, goods, etc.

in a free market, your shitty job and lack of education are your own fault and a result of your own actions. In the current system, you are a grain of sand in the tide-pool of what the monarchy decides for you. You deal with the consequences of the hand you're dealt. You get what jobs the government keeps open. You get to keep what money they allow you to keep. You pay what they say you pay for food, fuel, energy, etc.

They have power, which is natural of course. The problem is, there's no way to keep them in check.

False. Free market is plutocracy. It is in no way an equalizer. If I give you a choice between a fist to the face and dildo to the butt. You might be under the impression that I'm giving you a choice and that this is a compromise. But if you have not eated anything for the last three days and that I offer you a hundred bucks for it, you might accept it. Based on your analysis, that would be a compromise and an equal-to-equal relationship. Sorry but that's not what it is...

It IS an equalizer because in a free market, you don't gain anything unless you give something up. You face/dildo analogy isn't exactly apt in the first place. You are exerting false power over me, in the first place.

---

At 3/3/13 09:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote: there is an equal-equal relationship. One cannot gain, without giving. unless, of course, the government creates blocks to keep this from happening (see rockefellar)

The mere existence of mutual consideration in a contract in no way makes that contract equal to equal. The slumlord who charges his felon residents 2000/mo for a rat trap studio still gives something, although because of the other party's miniscule amount of bargaining power, what the slumloird gets for what he gives is miles away from the actual value. Both parties gave consideration there, but it sure as hell is not equal.

Power and an imbalance of it is vital to our evolutionary biology. if not for imbalace of powers, you would not eat. You may not even exist because your father may not have slept with your mother.

How does this help your point at all? If anything, this reinforces that humans are looking to gain the most out of everyone they meet whilst giving up the least, and if they can gain far more than they give, they're even happier. This blows the whole basic theory of capitalism out the window.

That's exactly my point. The inequalities we see now, are not natural imbalances that make the world go around. They're imbalances caused by an enforced by those with power and money. They are protected from the natural checks and balances that humans are subject to.

Wait, what natural checks? Last time we had lasseiz faire economics competition all but fizzled and no one but a very small few got ahead. Capitalism had pretty much turned inside out on itself, and the free market lost most of its freedom.

Car company going under? fuck it, just take from those who have less than you, so you can stay afloat.

Poverty and unemployment run rampant because the government and the monarchy of this country take from you. They take from business owners, they make college too expensive, the encourage and protect prise fixing on labor, education, goods, etc.

Again, the only reason wages are as good as they are is because the government forced the free market to raise them. Remember back when we had a lassiez faire government? The average worker got paid the equivalent to pennies a day (in today's money). That's free market for you. Exploit the massive power differential to get a ton of work for far less than the work is actually worth.

It IS an equalizer because in a free market, you don't gain anything unless you give something up. You face/dildo analogy isn't exactly apt in the first place. You are exerting false power over me, in the first place.

It's not about mutual consideration (both parties giving up something) it's about the relationship between the value of each party's consideration. Getting majorly assfucked on a deal still involves (barring criminal conduct) mutual consideration, regardless if you ended up buying an item worth $5 for $40, or if you got $40 for an item worth $5.

---

At 3/3/13 09:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, the free market is the opposite of political power.

You have a terrible understanding of political power. Political doesn't mean politics. Administrative politics isn't what I'm talking about. In English this notion doesn't exist I believe. There is a difference in french between la politique and le politique. La politique is the administrative aspect, while le politique touches all that is philosophical politic. Every relationship involves le politique.

economics is meant to be the perfect balance, because free market economics is reliant on compromise. In order to gain, you must give up something. In order for one to gain/maintain power, they must give up something. The government should have no involvement in said transactions, because it's unnecessary and not to mention immoral, because it forces people's hand.

No. There is no compromise. Just a bunch of people using whatever edge they have on others to stay on top. There is no such thing as "meant to be". Economics are complex. Try to understand this.

The only way balance can be maintained, power that is, is a free market. in a free market, there is no govt to protect the corrupt, or give handouts. You earn what you earn by your own power.

Or because your daddy is rich. Life isn't a monopoly game you all start at the beginning. Where you are born, in which family, in which country, under which political situation, in which community will affect you in many ways. There is no equal-to-equal relationship in life. It is a misconception that we live in some kind of meritocracy or whatever. For this to be true, everybody would need to have the same education, the same food to eat, the same parenting, the same information, the same books to read, the same games to play, etc. Out of this, an individual with only his own effort, own will could come out on top. Otherwise, inequality affects the way you grow up, the way you face life.

Compromise is the only equalizer that can actually work. We've seen what happens when you take freedom and fairness out of the equation. You get robber barons and rockefellars. You get housing market collapses. you get unfair taxation. you get crushing debt and inflation. We are living in the consequences of restricting the free market.

Freedom and fairness? You mean, giving a natural ressource generator to your kid in heritage? Yeah, that's definitely fair.

I can't believe this missunderstanding of socialization in neoliberal theory. What do you not understand about inequalities ? And I'm talking acquired at birth inequalities.

There is no compromise.

there is an equal-equal relationship. One cannot gain, without giving. unless, of course, the government creates blocks to keep this from happening (see rockefellar)

There is a trade, but like I demonstrated earlier, the trade isn't "fair" just because you believe some kind of magic resolves everything in a free market. You can be forced to get into a commercial relationship. I have also demonstrated this before with examples. If you are not a specialist of any kind, facing unemployment and your society is facing a bad economical situation, you are basicaly fighting for a job with others in your situation. Being poor, hungry and close to losing your house, you will accept the shitty job with bad conditions and a terrible salary. Yeah, there is a trade. You get paid a salary, so one gains while giving. But the employment director of the company has quite a huge edge over the worker who's looking for a job in the situation depicted.

Do you understand ?

Power and an imbalance of it is vital to our evolutionary biology. if not for imbalace of powers, you would not eat. You may not even exist because your father may not have slept with your mother.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Evolution, our natural biology, society, the world you live in now, is a product of an imbalance of power. You exist because you were the fastest sperm. You have a job because you're more qualified than other. We won World War 2 because of an imbalance of power. The computer, car, airplane, modern medicine, all due to the imbalance of human power and society.

Common misconception about nature here. No, I do not exist because I was the fastest sperm. Sperms work as a group to get to the ovula. The ones behind are there to push those in front so they can reach. The one sperm alone cannot do it alone. A common misconception for those who defend the social-darwinist theories... So basically, your whole argument is against you, rather proving that teamwork is necessary for kids to be born.

Otherwise, there is no proof whatsoever that humanity needs competition to develop. Arguing on nature while we still have heritage is the greatest joke ever.

That's exactly my point. The inequalities we see now, are not natural imbalances that make the world go around. They're imbalances caused by an enforced by those with power and money. They are protected from the natural checks and balances that humans are subject to. Now we have banks and a govt power structure that is untouchable, and basically immune. They don't have to give, they don't have to compromise. They just take, take, take, and crush whoever they can to get it.

The government isn't immune, it is subject to the power of corporations and banks. Stop pretending there is a "natural situation". It never existed. There is no natural check and balance. The sole fact that monopoly and oligopoly exist just proves it.

What are you even talking about?

I gave an example... read it...

Poverty and unemployment run rampant because the government and the monarchy of this country take from you. They take from business owners, they make college too expensive, the encourage and protect prise fixing on labor, education, goods, etc.

Governement takes from business owners? You better check the big corporations tax percentage. You might get surprised. If education fell to a the capital, school would serve one purpose and one purpose only, training workers. Critical judgement, reflection, thinking would be destroyed if not needed by your free market.

in a free market, your shitty job and lack of education are your own fault and a result of your own actions. In the current system, you are a grain of sand in the tide-pool of what the monarchy decides for you. You deal with the consequences of the hand you're dealt. You get what jobs the government keeps open. You get to keep what money they allow you to keep. You pay what they say you pay for food, fuel, energy, etc.

If you are born in a poor family and cannot afford good school and education, you cannot hope for a good salary and a good income. Try again.

---

At 3/4/13 12:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The mere existence of mutual consideration in a contract in no way makes that contract equal to equal. The slumlord who charges his felon residents 2000/mo for a rat trap studio still gives something, although because of the other party's miniscule amount of bargaining power, what the slumloird gets for what he gives is miles away from the actual value. Both parties gave consideration there, but it sure as hell is not equal.

They can leave. It's their choice to stay with the slumlord. There is nothing forcing them to do business with him. As for their felony charges, who's fault is that?

Of course, a price gouger, since he's violating people's rights in such a way, would be arrested.

How does this help your point at all? If anything, this reinforces that humans are looking to gain the most out of everyone they meet whilst giving up the least, and if they can gain far more than they give, they're even happier. This blows the whole basic theory of capitalism out the window.

Of course humans are always looking to gain power and advantage. That's inherent in being human. The difference is, in a free market style system, one would not be able to maintain power or gain an advantage without working for it. In a free market there are no monarchies, no class is favored over another, no groups are given special treatment. In order to maintain power, it must be earned, and if you don't earn it, someone will (figuratively) knock you on your ass.

Of course this cannot happen when you're favored by the government, and you're propped up by money taken from the have-nots.

Wait, what natural checks? Last time we had lasseiz faire economics competition all but fizzled and no one but a very small few got ahead. Capitalism had pretty much turned inside out on itself, and the free market lost most of its freedom.

the free market only lost it's freedom, and capitalism went corrupt, because of government intervention. It's pretty widely known that Rockefellar was deeply involved in various governmental bodies. Had the government not helped him, he wouldn't have been an issue at all. Hell, Rockefellar (and JP Morgan, actually) was personally involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve Act. Don't tell me that a corporatist having hand in legislation is a "free market".

The whole lassez faire things is a myth. it never happened. what you call lasseiz faire, was aided by the government. There has NEVER, ever been a free market in the United States in it's entire history.

Again, the only reason wages are as good as they are is because the government forced the free market to raise them. Remember back when we had a lassiez faire government? The average worker got paid the equivalent to pennies a day (in today's money). That's free market for you. Exploit the massive power differential to get a ton of work for far less than the work is actually worth.

The average worker got paid pennies because the government took away power from workers, and handed it over to corporations and billionaires who ran them. Had we not had a government that protected the robber barons, workers could have easily fixed things.

It's not about mutual consideration (both parties giving up something) it's about the relationship between the value of each party's consideration. Getting majorly assfucked on a deal still involves (barring criminal conduct) mutual consideration, regardless if you ended up buying an item worth $5 for $40, or if you got $40 for an item worth $5.

don't do deals where you get assfucked. Don't pay $5 for hormone infested milk. Don't get raped on your loans. Oh wait, you don't have a choice. The govt. says you have to buy that milk. govt says you have to pay that percentage on your loan.

---

At 3/4/13 12:27 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: You have a terrible understanding of political power. Political doesn't mean politics. Administrative politics isn't what I'm talking about. In English this notion doesn't exist I believe. There is a difference in french between la politique and le politique. La politique is the administrative aspect, while le politique touches all that is philosophical politic. Every relationship involves le politique.

Fair enough

No. There is no compromise. Just a bunch of people using whatever edge they have on others to stay on top. There is no such thing as "meant to be". Economics are complex. Try to understand this.

No you're wrong. There is not an economic transaction anywhere in the world where something was not exchanged. A farmer gives up crop for money. A Best buy gives up inventory for money. This is universally how economics works.

Except the govt of course. Who just takes without giving up anything.

Or because your daddy is rich. Life isn't a monopoly game you all start at the beginning. Where you are born, in which family, in which country, under which political situation, in which community will affect you in many ways. There is no equal-to-equal relationship in life. It is a misconception that we live in some kind of meritocracy or whatever. For this to be true, everybody would need to have the same education, the same food to eat, the same parenting, the same information, the same books to read, the same games to play, etc. Out of this, an individual with only his own effort, own will could come out on top. Otherwise, inequality affects the way you grow up, the way you face life.

Exactly, in a free market, your birth status, or political situation does not matter. Those things only matter when they're institutionalized by government. In a free society, you make your own way, and everyone is given an equal opportunity at success. This is not the system we have now. The way the federal government functions now, is one where they pick the winners and losers. They bind people into where they're born. They make college too expensive. They make medicine too expensive. they create the handicaps we have in life.

Freedom and fairness? You mean, giving a natural ressource generator to your kid in heritage? Yeah, that's definitely fair.

It is fair. what isn't fair the the government protecting the monopoly on it. What isn't fair is the government destroying any and all competitors.

I can't believe this missunderstanding of socialization in neoliberal theory. What do you not understand about inequalities ? And I'm talking acquired at birth inequalities.

in a free society, people are not bound by the circumstances of their birth. In a free society, you can become anything if you work for it. for that to happen now is almost impossible.

There is a trade, but like I demonstrated earlier, the trade isn't "fair" just because you believe some kind of magic resolves everything in a free market. You can be forced to get into a commercial relationship. I have also demonstrated this before with examples. If you are not a specialist of any kind, facing unemployment and your society is facing a bad economical situation, you are basicaly fighting for a job with others in your situation. Being poor, hungry and close to losing your house, you will accept the shitty job with bad conditions and a terrible salary. Yeah, there is a trade. You get paid a salary, so one gains while giving. But the employment director of the company has quite a huge edge over the worker who's looking for a job in the situation depicted.

if you are not a specialist of any kind, it is a result of your choice to not attended extra schooling. Or, in some cases, you may not be able to attend schooling because of it's pricing, which is decided by the government.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

it absolutely does. You exist because you were the fastest sperm. You exist because you parents were biologically desirable.

Common misconception about nature here. No, I do not exist because I was the fastest sperm. Sperms work as a group to get to the ovula. The ones behind are there to push those in front so they can reach. The one sperm alone cannot do it alone. A common misconception for those who defend the social-darwinist theories... So basically, your whole argument is against you, rather proving that teamwork is necessary for kids to be born.

No, you are wrong. it takes one sperm and one egg. The womb is a brutal place for sperm to exist. The fact that the one that made you survived, is a testament to it's strength.

Otherwise, there is no proof whatsoever that humanity needs competition to develop. Arguing on nature while we still have heritage is the greatest joke ever.

Yes there is. Cavemen, did not work as a team. They KiLLED each other in the name of food and mating rights. Hell, wars exist purely because of what? Territory and money. Why do people want territory and money? Because they are integral to your survival as a human.

The government isn't immune, it is subject to the power of corporations and banks. Stop pretending there is a "natural situation". It never existed. There is no natural check and balance. The sole fact that monopoly and oligopoly exist just proves it.

The government isn't immune? Try to sue them. Try to sue them for taking your money without consent. It is not subject to corporations and banks, they ARE corporations and banks. Or did you miss when the government gave BILLIONS of YOUR and my money, to them? Oligopolies and monopolies are a creation of government.

Governement takes from business owners? You better check the big corporations tax percentage. You might get surprised. If education fell to a the capital, school would serve one purpose and one purpose only, training workers. Critical judgement, reflection, thinking would be destroyed if not needed by your free market.

No, it takes from SOME business owners, and gives to others. Big corporations get a break in the name of being "too big to fail". Small buisnesses get raped. BTW, free thinking, knowledge, etc. is what makes a free market go 'round. They breed innovation, which keeps things balanced.

If you are born in a poor family and cannot afford good school and education, you cannot hope for a good salary and a good income. Try again.

And who, in the current system, makes even community colleges unaffordable? The government and their price fixing on student loans. the government and their protection of banks who rape people.

---

At 3/4/13 01:17 AM, LemonCrush wrote: They can leave.

And be homeless? That's a whopper of a choice.

Of course, a price gouger, since he's violating people's rights in such a way, would be arrested.

No they wouldn't. They have free reign to charge whatever they want for the rooms they rent. (except in the very few rent control jurisdictions, but there aren;t that many of those)

Of course humans are always looking to gain power and advantage. That's inherent in being human. The difference is, in a free market style system, one would not be able to maintain power or gain an advantage without working for it. In a free market there are no monarchies, no class is favored over another, no groups are given special treatment. In order to maintain power, it must be earned, and if you don't earn it, someone will (figuratively) knock you on your ass.

Nope, nope, and nope.

Are you telling me that the sons of tycoons earned their wealth? Are you telling me that the poor student who had to drop out of school to feed his family and thus gave up college had no outside influences on his inability to go somewhere? Are you telling me that the wealthy are not favored over all else? Are you telling me the wealthy don;t form a de fecto oligarchy? Are you telling me that those with money don;t get special treatment? Are you telling me that neoptism would die? Are you serious?

the free market only lost it's freedom, and capitalism went corrupt, because of government intervention.

What intervention? The lack thereof?

It's pretty widely known that Rockefellar was deeply involved in various governmental bodies. Had the government not helped him, he wouldn't have been an issue at all. Hell, Rockefellar (and JP Morgan, actually) was personally involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve Act. Don't tell me that a corporatist having hand in legislation is a "free market".

But the Federal Reserve Act was passed over 20 years AFTER anti-monopoly legislation had taken hold in the US. Doesn't fit your timeline. Their involvement in the Fed Act was an attempt to get the newly intervening government to work for them.

The average worker got paid pennies because the government took away power from workers, and handed it over to corporations and billionaires who ran them. Had we not had a government that protected the robber barons, workers could have easily fixed things.

What power did the workers have that was taken away? You act as if the 18th Century was a worker's utopia, when it wasn't, and neither was the 19th Century. Workers didn't the very late 19th Century and even then it was weak. Not until the 1910 and 1920s with the real boom of unions did the US worker have ANY notable power whatsoever.

don't do deals where you get assfucked. Don't pay $5 for hormone infested milk. Don't get raped on your loans. Oh wait, you don't have a choice. The govt. says you have to buy that milk. govt says you have to pay that percentage on your loan.

Would you rent an apartment that you only plan to live in for a year with $10/mo pet rent and a $100 deposit for the pets, or would you rent and apartment with a $700 deposit and no pet rent?

---

At 3/4/13 11:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

And be homeless? That's a whopper of a choice.

Ho, you're talking about an imaginary town/place where there is only one apartment/housing complex in the whole city. Right.

No they wouldn't. They have free reign to charge whatever they want for the rooms they rent. (except in the very few rent control jurisdictions, but there aren;t that many of those)

Which is an infringment of rights to his renter's hence would be arrested.,

Are you telling me that the sons of tycoons earned their wealth? Are you telling me that the poor student who had to drop out of school to feed his family and thus gave up college had no outside influences on his inability to go somewhere? Are you telling me that the wealthy are not favored over all else? Are you telling me the wealthy don;t form a de fecto oligarchy? Are you telling me that those with money don;t get special treatment? Are you telling me that neoptism would die? Are you serious?

No, I'm saying they didn't earn their wealth. That's my entire point. I'm saying the wealthy do form a de facto oligarchy. That's the entire point of what I'm saying.

What intervention? The lack thereof?

The intervention that gave Rockefellar free reign to destroy his competition. It still exists to this day, when the government protects and grants patents on DNA for food crops.

:Their involvement in the Fed Act was an attempt to get the newly intervening government to work for them.

Exactly. Not free market. It was JP Morgan and pals buying and influencing govt. power. Opposite of free market ideas.

What power did the workers have that was taken away? You act as if the 18th Century was a worker's utopia, when it wasn't, and neither was the 19th Century. Workers didn't the very late 19th Century and even then it was weak. Not until the 1910 and 1920s with the real boom of unions did the US worker have ANY notable power whatsoever.

Exactly. They had no power, why? because the government restricted their rights as human beings in general. Much like slavery. The 3/5 compromise was created by the government. The slavery was institutionalized. The government defended and protected the slave masters and took away the rights of some people, to legal recourse. Slavery was only feasible then because the govt protected it.

It's similar to this day. They allow corporations to have monopolies and prevent competition. In a free society, it would be in a corporations best interest to keep workers happy? But now? why should they give a fuck? Their workers have no value. Skilled workers are nothing, because you can make up for your lack of decent, competitive products, with government favoritism and bailout/tarp money.

Would you rent an apartment that you only plan to live in for a year with $10/mo pet rent and a $100 deposit for the pets, or would you rent and apartment with a $700 deposit and no pet rent?

What is the relevancy of the question here?

---

At 3/4/13 02:02 AM, LemonCrush wrote: No you're wrong. There is not an economic transaction anywhere in the world where something was not exchanged. A farmer gives up crop for money. A Best buy gives up inventory for money. This is universally how economics works.

I previously stated that I do not disagree with you here. The trade isn't fair by definition though. And that's what I'm killing myself to explain.

Exactly, in a free market, your birth status, or political situation does not matter. Those things only matter when they're institutionalized by government. In a free society, you make your own way, and everyone is given an equal opportunity at success. This is not the system we have now. The way the federal government functions now, is one where they pick the winners and losers. They bind people into where they're born. They make college too expensive. They make medicine too expensive. they create the handicaps we have in life.

Yes it does matter. Females and African-Americans in the USA still have lower salary working the same job as men and they even have lower opportunities to find these jobs based on the same criteria. Why do you believe that economical leaders would stop discrimininating in a free market ?

Also, having a bad situation also means you are transfering by birth this situation to your kid. You seem to forget that having to pay for a service isn't being free to use it. Having a right doesn't come with a pricetag. If you are born poor and cannot afford education not just to find a job, but to have better knowledge and critical sense, how are you supposed to get out of your problems ?

And don't give me that "free market" gives you freedom. It's not true, especially considering that this free market you are describing is imaginary. Never once in the history of humanity have we had this. What it implies is a free of all political influence market on world-wide scale. Borders need to fall, and all discimination toward any group, any language (because you do know that not speaking English right now affects your possibilities in life, right?), any gender, ANYTHING needs to stop.

It is fair. what isn't fair the the government protecting the monopoly on it. What isn't fair is the government destroying any and all competitors.

When there is a monopoly, there is no competition. And even if there was any kind of competition, it is based on what your father gave you a birht and where you were born. This is not equality of chance.

in a free society, people are not bound by the circumstances of their birth. In a free society, you can become anything if you work for it. for that to happen now is almost impossible.

Yes they are, damnit!

if you are not a specialist of any kind, it is a result of your choice to not attended extra schooling. Or, in some cases, you may not be able to attend schooling because of it's pricing, which is decided by the government.

The sole fact that you are born with an heritage, with educated parents, in an non-violent city, raised reading books, being thought by the best teachers affects IN ALL WAYS your opportunies.

it absolutely does. You exist because you were the fastest sperm. You exist because you parents were biologically desirable.

Are you even reading? It's not the fastest spem that wins. It alone cannot reach the ovula, it needs to be pushed by the others behind to reach it. Your example is based on a misconception of how reproduction works. And humans use reasoning and therefore aren't submitted to this social-darwinism you are talking about. Have you ever seen fat couples with their fat kids in a cheap car? Whats so "biologically desirable" about this?

Maybe monkeys have an alpha male that fucks and impregnate all females, but that's not how humans work for we have a reasoning and a capacity to look toward the future. The end result is that we are all different human beings looking for something different in our sexual partners or lovers. Something I find attractive, you might dislike it. There is no natural selection when it comes to humans.

No, you are wrong. it takes one sperm and one egg. The womb is a brutal place for sperm to exist. The fact that the one that made you survived, is a testament to it's strength.

False. It was pushed by others behind it to be able to reach the ovula. The first sperm to reach is one of those that was in front of the pack. Just imagine the exact same situation, but with the same sperm getting own the testicules behind the pack. It wouldn't pass all the others an reach anyway. You apply your misconceptions of economics to all spheres of life. No, the sperms do not have all the same chance to reach. If one of "those strong ones" you are talking about comes out at the end of the load, he won't get there first. He will end up pushing the others for THEM to reach instead.

Yes there is. Cavemen, did not work as a team. They KiLLED each other in the name of food and mating rights. Hell, wars exist purely because of what? Territory and money. Why do people want territory and money? Because they are integral to your survival as a human.

We aren't primitve cavemen anymore. However, there were societies since the dawn of man, two. Just proving furthermore that if there was violence, there was also teamwork.

The government isn't immune? Try to sue them. Try to sue them for taking your money without consent. It is not subject to corporations and banks, they ARE corporations and banks. Or did you miss when the government gave BILLIONS of YOUR and my money, to them? Oligopolies and monopolies are a creation of government.

You can sue the government and win. It happenned before. The government isn't the corporations and banks. It depends highly on private financing and lobbies. Look at who financed the presidential campaign of both Obama and Romney. Look who gives money to whom to get advantages.

Son, oligopolies are not creations of the government. If you want to keep your edge on the production of whatever, get together with the other big guns to destroy smaller corporations. One of the strategies for compagnies with industrial means of production is to target smaller business with a traditionnal production system and destroy them by lowering your prices with the rest of the oligopolie until these small businesses go bankrupt.

No, it takes from SOME business owners, and gives to others. Big corporations get a break in the name of being "too big to fail". Small buisnesses get raped. BTW, free thinking, knowledge, etc. is what makes a free market go 'round. They breed innovation, which keeps things balanced.

It takes more from individuals than it takes from corporations. And your free market doesn't create free thinking. It creates COMMERCIAL CREATIVITY. Destroying anything else that doesn't have a commercial purpose.

---

Lemoncrush: here's an example of where free market fails: pollution laws. It's cheaper and more efficient for companies just to dump their waste somewhere, even in nature. Without government laws, companies will begin to do so once again. You don't need Einstein to tell you that polluting the planet is going to destroy it faster. In this sense, "efficient" does not necessarily mean "socially optimal"-even over the long run.

---

At 3/4/13 03:46 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I previously stated that I do not disagree with you here. The trade isn't fair by definition though. And that's what I'm killing myself to explain.

What makes it fair is the volunteerism of the transaction.

Yes it does matter. Females and African-Americans in the USA still have lower salary working the same job as men and they even have lower opportunities to find these jobs based on the same criteria. Why do you believe that economical leaders would stop discrimininating in a free market ?

Because they're workforce or employees would quit, and consumers would take business else where. Currently, you can't really take your labor or money elsewhere, because it's probably owned by the same parent company you just left.

The power of employees (and consumers) would be much greater in the free market because there would be no safety nets for the corporations.

Also, having a bad situation also means you are transfering by birth this situation to your kid. You seem to forget that having to pay for a service isn't being free to use it. Having a right doesn't come with a pricetag. If you are born poor and cannot afford education not just to find a job, but to have better knowledge and critical sense, how are you supposed to get out of your problems ?

In a free society, higher education would be much cheaper. Colleges, even "cheap" ones are still damn expensive, because student loan rates are price fixed by the government.

The government keeps people bound and poor, not just by their price fixing of damn near everything, but also their favoritism of their financial contributors over the people.

And don't give me that "free market" gives you freedom. It's not true, especially considering that this free market you are describing is imaginary. Never once in the history of humanity have we had this. What it implies is a free of all political influence market on world-wide scale. Borders need to fall, and all discimination toward any group, any language (because you do know that not speaking English right now affects your possibilities in life, right?), any gender, ANYTHING needs to stop.

I agree, never in history have we had a free market. And because of that, the United States, and by extension, the world, is a shittier place than it needs to be. I agree that restrictions and discrimination needs to end. If/when that happens, we will have a free market.

There are discriminations because the government keeps it that way. Social engineering. You WILL eat, do and commerce in what the government says, when they do.

Look at social security. That's discrimination based on age. Look at affirmative action. That's discrimination based on race.

When there is a monopoly, there is no competition. And even if there was any kind of competition, it is based on what your father gave you a birht and where you were born. This is not equality of chance.

The government prevents competition. In order for a priveledged child to stay in his position he would need to provide or do something for society in order to keep it. Otherwise, people won't give them money.

Yes they are, damnit!

No they aren't because in a free society we would not have institutionalized discrimination and monopolies. Everyone would have equal opportuinity.

The sole fact that you are born with an heritage, with educated parents, in an non-violent city, raised reading books, being thought by the best teachers affects IN ALL WAYS your opportunies.

I agree. But there are such things as public schools, you know. People in poverty are kept there because opportuinities are put out of their reach.

Are you even reading? It's not the fastest spem that wins. It alone cannot reach the ovula, it needs to be pushed by the others behind to reach it. Your example is based on a misconception of how reproduction works. And humans use reasoning and therefore aren't submitted to this social-darwinism you are talking about. Have you ever seen fat couples with their fat kids in a cheap car? Whats so "biologically desirable" about this?

Fat people aren't (always) born fat.

Maybe monkeys have an alpha male that fucks and impregnate all females, but that's not how humans work for we have a reasoning and a capacity to look toward the future. The end result is that we are all different human beings looking for something different in our sexual partners or lovers. Something I find attractive, you might dislike it. There is no natural selection when it comes to humans.

No, in order for a proper genetic offspring, couples need to have health, financial security, etc. i don't think there's any guy on earth who says "dude, I wanna have a kid with a drug addict with no money!"

False. It was pushed by others behind it to be able to reach the ovula. The first sperm to reach is one of those that was in front of the pack. Just imagine the exact same situation, but with the same sperm getting own the testicules behind the pack. It wouldn't pass all the others an reach anyway. You apply your misconceptions of economics to all spheres of life. No, the sperms do not have all the same chance to reach. If one of "those strong ones" you are talking about comes out at the end of the load, he won't get there first. He will end up pushing the others for THEM to reach instead.

Right, but the strongest still survive because of the womb's near inhospitably

We aren't primitve cavemen anymore. However, there were societies since the dawn of man, two. Just proving furthermore that if there was violence, there was also teamwork.

There is very little that sets us apart from a caveman. our primary thought process all stem from the need to reproduce, eat/drink, and survive. EVERYTHING you do, stems from those things. humans are animals. sophisticated ones, but animals nonetheless.

You can sue the government and win. It happenned before. The government isn't the corporations and banks. It depends highly on private financing and lobbies. Look at who financed the presidential campaign of both Obama and Romney. Look who gives money to whom to get advantages.

I have. Goldman Sachs backed romney and obama. Food CEOs sit on the FDA. Corporations run the government. Look at the treatment of a billion dollar corporation vs. an actual small business who doesn't have lobbyists to steal taxpayer money.

Son, oligopolies are not creations of the government. If you want to keep your edge on the production of whatever, get together with the other big guns to destroy smaller corporations. One of the strategies for compagnies with industrial means of production is to target smaller business with a traditionnal production system and destroy them by lowering your prices with the rest of the oligopolie until these small businesses go bankrupt.

And those oligopolies are protected by the government. They buy government seats and outlaw competitors. See: rockefeller, or in this century, a company like monsanto.

It takes more from individuals than it takes from corporations. And your free market doesn't create free thinking. It creates COMMERCIAL CREATIVITY. Destroying anything else that doesn't have a commercial purpose.

I agree it does take more. That's my point. Furthermore, COMMERCIAL CREATIVITY is what we owe our modern standard of living to. Now, for what purpose would a free market society "destroy" anything that doesn't have commercial purpose? What would be the motivation for doing so?

---

At 3/4/13 04:24 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Lemoncrush: here's an example of where free market fails: pollution laws. It's cheaper and more efficient for companies just to dump their waste somewhere, even in nature. Without government laws, companies will begin to do so once again. You don't need Einstein to tell you that polluting the planet is going to destroy it faster. In this sense, "efficient" does not necessarily mean "socially optimal"-even over the long run.

Pollution is an infringment on a free society. The "Dump where you want" infringes on the rights of others, therefore would be a punishable offense in a free society, just as it is now.

this is where the common misconception comes in. Free market does not mean "everyone just does whatever the fuck they want". FWIW, in a free society, you could easily sue a polluter. good luck doing that now.

---

At 3/5/13 01:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Pollution is an infringment on a free society. The "Dump where you want" infringes on the rights of others, therefore would be a punishable offense in a free society, just as it is now.

this is where the common misconception comes in. Free market does not mean "everyone just does whatever the fuck they want". FWIW, in a free society, you could easily sue a polluter. good luck doing that now.

That's a terrible idea. The courts would fail without an aggressive government to back it up. If you think Congress is corrupt, the courts will be x10 worse without a supporting power structure. It will be a feeding frenzy of those that have the most influence and wealth. 1 judge and 12-14 random people are easier to manipulate than the separate powers of the legislative and executive powers. Like most libertarians, you fail to understand power structures. Watching you whine about the government is like watching someone whine that a load-bearing wall is in their way.

---

At 3/4/13 03:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Ho, you're talking about an imaginary town/place where there is only one apartment/housing complex in the whole city. Right.

First off, there are numerous towns with only one complex willing to take in such people. Second, what if that slum lord used his cunning negotiaton skills and adept business prowess to own all of such establishments in an area? What then?

Which is an infringment of rights to his renter's hence would be arrested.,

No it's not. There is no right (save for few rent control areas) to have cheap or affordable rent. And also, in talking about infrongement of rights, you are talking about government interference having to step in and make the system work.

No, I'm saying they didn't earn their wealth. That's my entire point. I'm saying the wealthy do form a de facto oligarchy. That's the entire point of what I'm saying.

Then how the hell does a free market make all equal? How does a free market make everyone better off when it naturally forms an oligarchy who can, and most likely will, use their power to keep themselves in power?

The intervention that gave Rockefellar free reign to destroy his competition. It still exists to this day, when the government protects and grants patents on DNA for food crops.

Wait. What? Are you seriously saying that the LACK of government intervention was government intervention? Are you advocating a free market or not?

Exactly. Not free market. It was JP Morgan and pals buying and influencing govt. power. Opposite of free market ideas.

Your timeline is off. They only went forward with the Fed AFTER the US government started getting involved. They decided, well, if they can't keep the government out, they might as well try to work it in their favor. Their involvement in the Fed Act is NOT an example of government intervention in the lassiez faire market, as the market wasn't lasseiz faire anymore.

Exactly. They had no power, why? because the government restricted their rights as human beings in general.

You kidding? When have the workers EVER had rights? Roman times? NO. Medieval? NO. Rennaissance? NO. Enlightenment? NO. Industrial Revolution? NO. SO where the hell are you getting this "the governmet did it" shit? Workers never had rights until the government GAVE rights to them.

What is the relevancy of the question here?

Just answer the question.

---

At 3/5/13 01:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Pollution is an infringment on a free society. The "Dump where you want" infringes on the rights of others, therefore would be a punishable offense in a free society, just as it is now.

What rights? We haven't talked a single bit about rights. They don't exist here, they're a social construct to keep people happy, and happy doesn't mean efficient, and it's not about efficiency, then people don't give a damn.

Btw, who would be the people enforcing the offense? It couldn't be the government, otherwise it's not a free market. So then who then? Possibly corrupt 3rd party security enforcers.

this is where the common misconception comes in. Free market does not mean "everyone just does whatever the fuck they want". FWIW, in a free society, you could easily sue a polluter. good luck doing that now.

How could you sue a polluter if there is no pollution laws? In a free market, there is 0 government regulation-which also means 0 are enforced as well.

I didn't say people will do the fuck they want, but look at it this way: for firms, it's all about profit maximization. How do you do that? Simple: maximize revenue and minimize costs. From the demand side consumers want to maximize their surplus. In a vaccum, this "equilibrium" is "free market". However, this system is only optimized for two groups we've been looking at and not a) society as a whole b) the planet (realize a lot of models assume infinite resources) c) even other consumers who may not be in that particular market. Thus, just by math, you can clearly see that a "free market" isn't optimal because it doesn't include everybody in its model.

Furthermore: whenever you produce something, anything, there's a cost and part of that cost is externality. These externalities can be good or bad, and bad ones are taxes or outlawed by the government. Negative externalities taxes or outlawed by the government? Pollution, child labor laws, safety standards, etc.

But hey, I've always wanted to experience Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as much as you, so lets go for it!

---

At 3/5/13 11:38 AM, MOSFET wrote: That's a terrible idea. The courts would fail without an aggressive government to back it up. If you think Congress is corrupt, the courts will be x10 worse without a supporting power structure. It will be a feeding frenzy of those that have the most influence and wealth. 1 judge and 12-14 random people are easier to manipulate than the separate powers of the legislative and executive powers. Like most libertarians, you fail to understand power structures. Watching you whine about the government is like watching someone whine that a load-bearing wall is in their way.

Congress (and the hypothetical courts) are corrupt because it's nearly impossible for the citizenry to hold them accountable. They get away with murder (literally), because they forgot that they work for us. There are no consequences for their actions.

---

At 3/5/13 12:44 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: What rights? We haven't talked a single bit about rights. They don't exist here, they're a social construct to keep people happy, and happy doesn't mean efficient, and it's not about efficiency, then people don't give a damn.

Well, that's where we differ. You, along with most statists, believe that rights are granted by governments or kings or people. I happen to believe that all humans are equal, and rights are inherent to being human.

Btw, who would be the people enforcing the offense? It couldn't be the government, otherwise it's not a free market. So then who then? Possibly corrupt 3rd party security enforcers.

Free market doesn't mean "no government". Free society promotes the concept of the government's role being limited to what is prescribed by the constitution (or state/city/etc laws). That includes the government protecting people.

How could you sue a polluter if there is no pollution laws? In a free market, there is 0 government regulation-which also means 0 are enforced as well.

There would be laws. Again, free society is not anarchy. It's the concept of limiting the powers of the government. FWIW, we have laws, and they seem to be mostly useless, as the government allows pollution of the water, despite laws against it.

Having said that, laws woulds still exist. But the government would be forced to serve the people, not special interests of corporations who line their pockets.

I didn't say people will do the fuck they want, but look at it this way: for firms, it's all about profit maximization. How do you do that? Simple: maximize revenue and minimize costs. From the demand side consumers want to maximize their surplus. In a vaccum, this "equilibrium" is "free market". However, this system is only optimized for two groups we've been looking at and not a) society as a whole b) the planet (realize a lot of models assume infinite resources) c) even other consumers who may not be in that particular market. Thus, just by math, you can clearly see that a "free market" isn't optimal because it doesn't include everybody in its model.

It CAN'T include everyone in it's model. What it does do, is create opportuinity. Special interest, corporatists, etc are not favored at the cost of the people. There is nothing wrong with a "max profit minimum cost" mindset. The problem only arises when you water down the power of the people to keep it in check.

Furthermore: whenever you produce something, anything, there's a cost and part of that cost is externality. These externalities can be good or bad, and bad ones are taxes or outlawed by the government. Negative externalities taxes or outlawed by the government? Pollution, child labor laws, safety standards, etc.

No, pollution, child labor laws, safety standards, etc, are only outlawed if you don't have the money for the government to look the other way.

Child labor laws are outlawed? Why is almost everything you own the product of child labor?

But hey, I've always wanted to experience Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as much as you, so lets go for it!

You've never read the Jungle, have you?

---

At 3/5/13 12:44 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: How could you sue a polluter if there is no pollution laws? In a free market, there is 0 government regulation-which also means 0 are enforced as well.

I didn't say people will do the fuck they want, but look at it this way: for firms, it's all about profit maximization. How do you do that? Simple: maximize revenue and minimize costs. From the demand side consumers want to maximize their surplus. In a vaccum, this "equilibrium" is "free market". However, this system is only optimized for two groups we've been looking at and not a) society as a whole b) the planet (realize a lot of models assume infinite resources) c) even other consumers who may not be in that particular market. Thus, just by math, you can clearly see that a "free market" isn't optimal because it doesn't include everybody in its model.

I doesn't include most of the people. Well... it forces them into itself, but it surely doesn't "include them". Assimilation isn't exactly like receiving someone for dinner...

Very good post, btw :)

---

At 3/5/13 12:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, there are numerous towns with only one complex willing to take in such people. Second, what if that slum lord used his cunning negotiaton skills and adept business prowess to own all of such establishments in an area? What then?

Wouldn't be possible. There will always be someone who will offer better quality, at a more reasonable price. Always. That is, when they are actually allowed to do business. The slumlord would be outdone by competition who will maintain his buildings better, for example.

No it's not. There is no right (save for few rent control areas) to have cheap or affordable rent. And also, in talking about infrongement of rights, you are talking about government interference having to step in and make the system work.

So, you don't think people have the right to not be price gouged?

Then how the hell does a free market make all equal? How does a free market make everyone better off when it naturally forms an oligarchy who can, and most likely will, use their power to keep themselves in power?

Because a free market gives the CEO equal power/rights as a normal citizen. It doesn't naturally form an oligarchy, because competition will be unlimited. They can't use their power to keep themselves in power, because anyone can come into the market, and offer something better.

Wait. What? Are you seriously saying that the LACK of government intervention was government intervention? Are you advocating a free market or not?

It was NOT a lack of govt. intervention. you seem to not understand the actual history of what was going on in the robber baron era. Rockefellar was heavily involved in the government. He used and wrote state legislation to get away with what he got away with. that particular era had nothing to do with the free market, whatsoever.

Your timeline is off. They only went forward with the Fed AFTER the US government started getting involved. They decided, well, if they can't keep the government out, they might as well try to work it in their favor. Their involvement in the Fed Act is NOT an example of government intervention in the lassiez faire market, as the market wasn't lasseiz faire anymore.

And who made it not "lasseiz faire". Government. Fact is, the american economy has never been "laissez faire". That's a bunch of bullshit that statists teach to try to demonize capitalism. in reality, the rockefellars, the JP morgans, the Carnegies of the world, used the government to their advantage.

You kidding? When have the workers EVER had rights? Roman times? NO. Medieval? NO. Rennaissance? NO. Enlightenment? NO. Industrial Revolution? NO. SO where the hell are you getting this "the governmet did it" shit? Workers never had rights until the government GAVE rights to them.

Oh, you mean era's where government power literally ruled men? BTW, all humans have rights. They are not granted by your government, they are not granted by anyone. You have rights because you're a human. In all the instances you name above, people's/workers right were taken AWAY by the government. People, like blacks, for example, didn't have rights, because the government OUTLAWED rights for them.

Just answer the question.

Why?

---

At 3/10/13 12:59 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Wouldn't be possible. There will always be someone who will offer better quality,

No there won't. Not everyone is in life just for the money. There are many industries people avoid like the pluge, which is why certain trashy (not low-brow, but truly knee deep in refuse) jobs get paid so well.

So, you don't think people have the right to not be price gouged?

They have the right should they choose to be. They should have the right to a fair price, not warped by the massive power differential.

Because a free market gives the CEO equal power/rights as a normal citizen. It doesn't naturally form an oligarchy, because competition will be unlimited. They can't use their power to keep themselves in power, because anyone can come into the market, and offer something better.

What? The major amount of cash and size of a company can give an owner so much power. If a company passes a certan thershold, they an easily destroy competition. The use of the practices was extremely common in the late 19th Century before the government intervened.

And who made it not "lasseiz faire". Government. Fact is, the american economy has never been "laissez faire". That's a bunch of bullshit that statists teach to try to demonize capitalism. in reality, the rockefellars, the JP morgans, the Carnegies of the world, used the government to their advantage.

Exactly how, and post sources. Reputable ones.

Oh, you mean era's where government power literally ruled men? BTW, all humans have rights. They are not granted by your government, they are not granted by anyone. You have rights because you're a human. In all the instances you name above, people's/workers right were taken AWAY by the government. People, like blacks, for example, didn't have rights, because the government OUTLAWED rights for them.

No. Rights are granted by the government. If the government has never granted them the government hasn't taken anything away, BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER THERE BEFORE. Workers never had rights until the 20th Century.

Why?

To see if you're smart enough to not get gouged by a landlord.

---

You can call me lazy if you want, but I read the first few posts and honestly I can't handle much more than that. As the thread title is "Free Market Fallacy" I think I'll reply to a few choice comments and try and stay mainly on topic.

At 2/14/13 12:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, except it doesn't because in a free market, the wealthy would be kept in check by their consumers and their competition. Only when the government offers protection from consumers and competition, do you have a problem, as we are currently living.

The issue here is that it's not just the quality of a product that causes a corporation to be successful. Better marketing, commercialization, and monopolization play a massive role in how successful a business is, and in a lot of cases advertising, and in the worst cases, corporately funded safety studies, flat-out lie to customers. In other cases, companies hide their existence entirely and sell things to people who don't even know what they're buying. A great example of this would be Monsanto lobbying against having genetically modified vegetables labelled. Isn't it the consumer's choice to know what they're buying and where it comes from? Isn't that how a free market is supposed to operate?

Also, a company that has already amassed an amount of money can solidify its lead. If you move jobs to China and pay people a tenth of what you would pay them in America, you're going to be able to sell products cheaper than competing brands.

Well, no, because in a free market, there is no protectionism and in order to actually stay "at the top" you must actually earn it instead of being kept there because the government gives you a bailout.

Except that four out of ten of the richest people in America are Waltons. Did they earn any of that money? No, it was only inheritance... Which is closer to a monarchy than any other form of government.

---

At 2/15/13 07:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well damn, I guess we should try to fuck people over when they try to start businesses in America then? It's got nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the fact that it's impossible to get a fair shake in America because the government favors some more than others.

You've got part of that right. The income disparity in America is borderline disgusting. How can you even say that businesses are suffering when it's the working class that's in poverty? CEOs are doing just fine.

Also, nearly 80% of Walmart workers are on food stamps or are otherwise receiving some kind of government aid. When Walmart won't pay its employees a decent wage and the government has to make up the difference, who is the government really favoring?

Well, the monopolies are formed by govt. protectionism. IE corporations lobbying for legislation that favors them, and hurt there competition (IE Rockefeller, or Obama's green initiatives). Corporations would NEVER be able to gain the foothold they have (monopolies, or near-monopolies/oligopolies) without favorable legislation and welfare (like TARP money, and tax loopholes)

I don't get it. It sounds like you've completely switched sides.

And that's their CHOICE to be so. If they don't care that much about it, then they can keep participating. That's kind of what freedom is about. Having and making your own CHOICES. It's hardly a corporation's fault if people don't give enough of a shit to boycott, or buy locally, or whatever other means of protest.

Apathy is one reason people aren't protesting, but fear is another. When even TALKING to a union worker can get you fired, it's hard for people to get organized. Peoples' jobs are in a very precarious position right now. In many cases people are simply UNABLE to protest.

Also, have you seen the charts that show the strength of unions side by side with the size of the middle class? Or are you just going to say that poor people deserve to be poor?

Exactly. So, make monopolies impossible by removing corporate safety nets and welfare. Maybe, instead, to stay afloat, the actually make a decent product to gain an edge over their competition. Apple is far from a monopoly, btw.

I don't get it. Big corporations don't NEED safety nets; smaller, competing corporations do. How is eliminating safety nets going to prevent monopolies?

At 3/3/13 09:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, the free market is the opposite of political power.

Keep in mind that corporations exercise immense power over their workers, and in many cases, their consumers as well. Is it right for them to be firing workers just before they retire so they don't have to pay out retirement benefits? No, but they do it because they hold POWER.

Also remember that to protect profits, most if not all corporations will do whatever it takes. If a company advertises on television, they have a measure of say into what is covered on the news. They can instigate a scandal if they want, and put people out of a job. Scientists who find their product unsafe, or whistleblowers who try to do their job. I would not be surprised if corporations have threatened peoples' lives if the situation called for it.

Power and an imbalance of it is vital to our evolutionary biology. if not for imbalace of powers, you would not eat. You may not even exist because your father may not have slept with your mother.

Are you saying that a relationship can't exist if one person is not dominant and their partner is not submissive? Are you saying that without an imbalance of power, I can't pluck an apple off a tree and eat it? You're confusing me.

Evolution, our natural biology, society, the world you live in now, is a product of an imbalance of power. You exist because you were the fastest sperm. You have a job because you're more qualified than other. We won World War 2 because of an imbalance of power. The computer, car, airplane, modern medicine, all due to the imbalance of human power and society.

Evolution also favors power above anything you may consider moral. If I had enough power, I could come to your house and torture you until you posted whatever I wanted you to. Democracies exist to counteract the natural order of power, to prevent power from being abused and to present an equal opportunity to people. At least, that's the idea.

Poverty and unemployment run rampant because the government and the monarchy of this country take from you. They take from business owners, they make college too expensive, the encourage and protect prise fixing on labor, education, goods, etc.

The richest 1% were taxed for 80% of their income 30 years ago. And you know what? College was cheap. People had safety nets. And the best part? The rich people were still rich! They didn't have to suffer a damned bit to make the rest of the world a better place.

in a free market, your shitty job and lack of education are your own fault and a result of your own actions. In the current system, you are a grain of sand in the tide-pool of what the monarchy decides for you. You deal with the consequences of the hand you're dealt. You get what jobs the government keeps open. You get to keep what money they allow you to keep. You pay what they say you pay for food, fuel, energy, etc.

The federal government only pays for 8% of public education. If I live in a poor state in a poor neighborhood with poorly trained teachers, textbooks that are outdated and falling apart, and a poor environment, is it my fault that I have a poor education?

At 3/4/13 01:17 AM, LemonCrush wrote: They can leave. It's their choice to stay with the slumlord. There is nothing forcing them to do business with him. As for their felony charges, who's fault is that?

The lower class always has a choice.

Of course, a price gouger, since he's violating people's rights in such a way, would be arrested.

Justice is always served.

Gosh, you're naive.

There has NEVER, ever been a free market in the United States in it's entire history.

That's true, because corporations always use their money to lobby, change the laws, and use the government to their advantage. You keep saying people act in their own interest? The government is made up of people, and those people are susceptible to bribes.

Perhaps a true free market would be paradise, just like a true anarchy would be paradise. However, the less regulation you have in any situation, the more vulnerable your system becomes. If anarchy were instated right now, people would take what they wanted by force and your anarchy would crumble instantly, because people with power would hold authority. The same is true for your 'free markets'.

The average worker got paid pennies because the government took away power from workers, and handed it over to corporations and billionaires who ran them. Had we not had a government that protected the robber barons, workers could have easily fixed things.

So the government should or should not be involved? By the way, it was corporations who crushed the unions.

don't do deals where you get assfucked. Don't pay $5 for hormone infested milk. Don't get raped on your loans. Oh wait, you don't have a choice. The govt. says you have to buy that milk. govt says you have to pay that percentage on your loan.

If Monsanto's lobbyists made it illegal for genetically modified organisms to be labelled, how are you supposed to know what you're buying?

Except the govt of course. Who just takes without giving up anything.

You should try living a day without driving on roads, without national defense, without a police station or fire department. See how long you last.

They bind people into where they're born. They make college too expensive. They make medicine too expensive

Banking, college, and pharmaceuticals are all separate entities from the government. How can you blame the government for any of this?

---

The government isn't immune? Try to sue them. Try to sue them for taking your money without consent. It is not subject to corporations and banks, they ARE corporations and banks. Or did you miss when the government gave BILLIONS of YOUR and my money, to them? Oligopolies and monopolies are a creation of government.

So the government just decides to subsidize and bail out corporations spontaneously? I think corporations are partially responsible for those decisions, don't you?

And who, in the current system, makes even community colleges unaffordable? The government and their price fixing on student loans. the government and their protection of banks who rape people.

The government can't just be abolished, though. What the government does is supposed to be determined by the people, by the way we vote and by communicating with our local politicians. But over the past handful of presidencies, it's been republican businessmen who have cut funding to education.

At 3/10/13 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, that's where we differ. You, along with most statists, believe that rights are granted by governments or kings or people. I happen to believe that all humans are equal, and rights are inherent to being human.

Rights don't exist, and people are neither given anything nor do they deserve anything. I have been responding to this thread under the hypothetical imperative that we want equal rights for all people, but equality is impossible in life and inevitable in death. Anyone with the slightest hint of idealism in them should kill themselves.

Also, to summarize this entire thread, I'm kind of confused. You acknowledge that corporations use lobbying and manipulate the government to change legislation, you seem to recognize that this is counterproductive, yet you support free markets? What exactly is your definition of a free market?

---

At 3/10/13 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, that's where we differ. You, along with most statists, believe that rights are granted by governments or kings or people. I happen to believe that all humans are equal, and rights are inherent to being human.

You're not born with rights. You just happen to get them bestowed upon you by society. If society didn't exist, there wouldn't be any rights because there wouldn't be a concept of rights.

Free market doesn't mean "no government". Free society promotes the concept of the government's role being limited to what is prescribed by the constitution (or state/city/etc laws). That includes the government protecting people.

"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by governmentor monopolies."

Murder is a market. We "outlaw" that market. So is mass terrorism. Etc. etc.

At this point, I can see you've never read about externalities, which is funny, considering it's one of the most crucial part of economics. So do me a solid and read this and then come back, will you?

---

At 3/12/13 05:59 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You're not born with rights. You just happen to get them bestowed upon you by society. If society didn't exist, there wouldn't be any rights because there wouldn't be a concept of rights.

I disagree entirely. You're telling me if there was no government, you would see minorities as less than human, for example?

"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by governmentor monopolies."

Exactly. In no way is that related to out and out anarchy.

At this point, I can see you've never read about externalities, which is funny, considering it's one of the most crucial part of economics. So do me a solid and read this and then come back, will you?

The difference is, those "markets" deprive or infringe the lives of others. Therefore, would not be supported by a free market society.

---

At 3/12/13 04:56 AM, Kwing wrote: So the government just decides to subsidize and bail out corporations spontaneously? I think corporations are partially responsible for those decisions, don't you?

of course they are. however, the government disables the ability of competition as well as consumers, to keep it in check. Tired of run away corporatism? Tell the govt to stop enabling it.

The government can't just be abolished, though. What the government does is supposed to be determined by the people, by the way we vote and by communicating with our local politicians. But over the past handful of presidencies, it's been republican businessmen who have cut funding to education.

No one is saying abolish government. What people are asking for, is the government serving it's sole purpose to protect the people, and it's borders. The government is supposed to be an arbiter of sorts. It's not meant to be something that can be manipulated by special interests.

What the government does should be determined by the constitution, not the people. The government is not supposed to be run by mob rule. The government is supposed to be bound by the law.

Rights don't exist, and people are neither given anything nor do they deserve anything. I have been responding to this thread under the hypothetical imperative that we want equal rights for all people, but equality is impossible in life and inevitable in death. Anyone with the slightest hint of idealism in them should kill themselves.

Equality, in some aspects is impossible. but basic human rights, like a right to fair trial, or right to free speech, is not impossible. that's the entire point of the bill of rights. Even though equality is impossible, equal rights, when protected by the government, is possible.

Also, to summarize this entire thread, I'm kind of confused. You acknowledge that corporations use lobbying and manipulate the government to change legislation, you seem to recognize that this is counterproductive, yet you support free markets? What exactly is your definition of a free market?

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies

now, in the context of this discussion, I suppose I'd say it has to do with the government not favoring any group over the other.

---

At 3/12/13 04:41 AM, Kwing wrote: You've got part of that right. The income disparity in America is borderline disgusting. How can you even say that businesses are suffering when it's the working class that's in poverty? CEOs are doing just fine.

Buisnesses ARE the working class. I'm talking about REAL business, not government run/subsidized entities masquerading as business.

this is what people who have never owned a business never grasp. CEO's are not businesses. Giant corporations, are not businesses. There is a huge disconnect with the american perception of what an actual business is and what capitalism actually is.

Corporatists are doing just fine. The working class, and the REAL life blood of the economy is not.

Also, nearly 80% of Walmart workers are on food stamps or are otherwise receiving some kind of government aid. When Walmart won't pay its employees a decent wage and the government has to make up the difference, who is the government really favoring?

Both. Govt prevents competition for wal-mart and is doling out free money to it's employees.

I don't get it. It sounds like you've completely switched sides.

How so?

I've been pretty consistent in my view that the govt shouldn't be involved in the business realm.

Apathy is one reason people aren't protesting, but fear is another. When even TALKING to a union worker can get you fired, it's hard for people to get organized. Peoples' jobs are in a very precarious position right now. In many cases people are simply UNABLE to protest.

I agree. And it's bullshit because there's actually a very big, law that says everyone has the right to protest.

govt backed unions are bullshit to, and should be abolished as well.

Also, have you seen the charts that show the strength of unions side by side with the size of the middle class? Or are you just going to say that poor people deserve to be poor?

no one "deserves" to be poor. however, in this country, people are bound to poverty. it's is nearly impossible to get out of it. The government squashes opportunities to escape it.

I don't get it. Big corporations don't NEED safety nets; smaller, competing corporations do. How is eliminating safety nets going to prevent monopolies?

Big companies do need safety nets because they make shit, and can't compete. remember when the government gave automakers hundreds of billions of dollars because they couldn't compete?

Elimintating safety nets will force a company to make competitive products or go under. you wouldn't be able to just go to DC and say "hey, we fucked up. Can we have some tax dollars?"

Keep in mind that corporations exercise immense power over their workers, and in many cases, their consumers as well

And in a free society, the corporation would not have power OVER anyone. The CEO and the employee would have euqal power, because the CEO would NEED those employees in order to make money. They would bend over backwards to make employees happy.

Also remember that to protect profits, most if not all corporations will do whatever it takes..

I agree. in a free market though, the employees and more importantly, consumers, would keep the greed in check.

Are you saying that a relationship can't exist if one person is not dominant and their partner is not submissive? Are you saying that without an imbalance of power, I can't pluck an apple off a tree and eat it? You're confusing me.

No, i'm saying your dad got your mom (and vice versa) because they were mutually attractive, biologically. And yes, you picking an apple off a tree is an imbalance of power over an animal who, say, isn't 6 feet tall with opposable thumbs.

Evolution also favors power above anything you may consider moral. If I had enough power, I could come to your house and torture you until you posted whatever I wanted you to. Democracies exist to counteract the natural order of power, to prevent power from being abused and to present an equal opportunity to people. At least, that's the idea.

Evolution does not favor murder.

As for the government preventing the natural order of power...how many people has obama killed since his presidency? The government doesn't exert power?

The richest 1% were taxed for 80% of their income 30 years ago. And you know what? College was cheap. People had safety nets. And the best part? The rich people were still rich! They didn't have to suffer a damned bit to make the rest of the world a better place.

People only need safety nets because the govt fixes prices on things essential to life (food, fuel, etc). FWIW, the US of 30 years ago was a dramatically different place.

The federal government only pays for 8% of public education. If I live in a poor state in a poor neighborhood with poorly trained teachers, textbooks that are outdated and falling apart, and a poor environment, is it my fault that I have a poor education?

No, that's my point. The govt doesn't spend on what it should spend on like public schools, or hospitals, or law enforcement. They take the money they should use for that, and use it for killing brown children.

Gosh, you're naive.

i was speaking in a hypothetical manner.

That's true, because corporations always use their money to lobby, change the laws, and use the government to their advantage. You keep saying people act in their own interest? The government is made up of people, and those people are susceptible to bribes.

Exactly, which is why we have the Constitution to prevent the corruption. The founders weren't retarded, they knew how shit worked, historically. They knew people were corruptible. Which is why they gave the PEOPLE the rights and means to hold them accountable.

The problems we're seeing in America now is nothing new. This shit has been happening since the beginning of time. That's why the great thinkers of the enlightenment era devised a system to try to prevent it.

Perhaps a true free market would be paradise, just like a true anarchy would be paradise. However, the less regulation you have in any situation, the more vulnerable your system becomes. If anarchy were instated right now, people would take what they wanted by force and your anarchy would crumble instantly, because people with power would hold authority. The same is true for your 'free markets'.

No, anarchy is total lack of government. I'm calling for the government to be bound by the law, and the government to treat everyone equally.

So the government should or should not be involved? By the way, it was corporations who crushed the unions.

Should not. Corporations crushed unions? You're saying unions don't exist? Really?

If Monsanto's lobbyists made it illegal for genetically modified organisms to be labelled, how are you supposed to know what you're buying?

That's EXACTLY my point. The government favors Monsanto, and infringes on my right (or rather, ability) to know what the fuck i'm eating. Instead of having a law that protects the people, like full disclosure about what is being sold to eat, they write laws to favor corporations who want to hide it, because if GMO's were labeled, they'd lose money.

You should try living a day without driving on roads, without national defense, without a police station or fire department. See how long you last.

How much federal tax revenue do you think goes to roads? you think it's more than goes to bombing afghani kids?

Banking, college, and pharmaceuticals are all separate entities from the government. How can you blame the government for any of this?

Are you serious? Banking is separate from government? The banking industry IS the government. the Federal Reserve, is a private bank, who determines everything about the US dollar.

College isn't separate either. ever heard of the Dept. of Education?

As for pharmeceutcals...the entire industry is run by the FDA

---

At 3/12/13 03:53 AM, Kwing wrote: The issue here is that it's not just the quality of a product that causes a corporation to be successful. Better marketing, commercialization, and monopolization play a massive role in how successful a business is, and in a lot of cases advertising, and in the worst cases, corporately funded safety studies, flat-out lie to customers. In other cases, companies hide their existence entirely and sell things to people who don't even know what they're buying. A great example of this would be Monsanto lobbying against having genetically modified vegetables labelled. Isn't it the consumer's choice to know what they're buying and where it comes from? Isn't that how a free market is supposed to operate?

Marketing doesn't mean shit if you're product doesn't back it up. Only when you monopolize the industry (through govt favoritism), does quality not matter.

No, the monsanto example is the exact opposite of how a free market is supposed to operate, because the government is favoring them over the people, by exempting them from basic food/agriculture laws.

Also, a company that has already amassed an amount of money can solidify its lead. If you move jobs to China and pay people a tenth of what you would pay them in America, you're going to be able to sell products cheaper than competing brands.

And if the government made it possible to start a business or open a factory here, China wouldn't even be an issue, because American technology and quality will blow it away. You think Wal Mart would even exist if the Clintons weren't creating legislation to keep it afloat (because they're shareholders), and an American company was actually allowed to open factories. Companies export jobs and production because the government has made it nearly impossible to, say, open a factory.

Except that four out of ten of the richest people in America are Waltons. Did they earn any of that money? No, it was only inheritance... Which is closer to a monarchy than any other form of government.

No it's not. it is Walton's choice to do what they want with the money (give it to family, burn it, whatever).

---

At 3/10/13 11:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No there won't. Not everyone is in life just for the money. There are many industries people avoid like the pluge, which is why certain trashy (not low-brow, but truly knee deep in refuse) jobs get paid so well.

Not everyone is in life for money. But plenty of people are.

They have the right should they choose to be. They should have the right to a fair price, not warped by the massive power differential.

Exactly. So, let market and supply/demand control prices, not the government and corporations.

What? The major amount of cash and size of a company can give an owner so much power. If a company passes a certan thershold, they an easily destroy competition. The use of the practices was extremely common in the late 19th Century before the government intervened.

It can give them power....that they earn. if they can earn to be at the top, then great. But you have to earn it by actually providing something. And there was never an era "before government intervened"

Exactly how, and post sources. Reputable ones.

By buying government power

Here's just the first thing google nabbed. I didn't read the whole thing, but there are numerous other articles supporting what i'm saying

But let's be honest, no matter how reputable the source, you will dismiss it, as "conspiracy theory" or something, because it doesn't match up with the statist indoctrination you suffer.

No. Rights are granted by the government. If the government has never granted them the government hasn't taken anything away, BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER THERE BEFORE. Workers never had rights until the 20th Century.

So, if not for government, then slavery or murder would be a-ok?

To see if you're smart enough to not get gouged by a landlord.

And why exactly does that matter? It's a moot point because slimey landlords can only get away with shit because the government enforces it.

---

At 3/12/13 09:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I disagree entirely. You're telling me if there was no government, you would see minorities as less than human, for example?

What does our personal view have to do with rights? Rights are merely a construct given to other by those with the power to control others. Workers did not have any universal rights until the government gave it to them.

Exactly. In no way is that related to out and out anarchy.

But you keep on saying that the government should step in and REGULATE in your idea of a free market. That goes 100% against the definition.

The difference is, those "markets" deprive or infringe the lives of others. Therefore, would not be supported by a free market society.

What? Pollution was heavily supported prior to any real government mental involvement in business. Without governmental support for education, it would exist at a minute fraction of the level it is today. Bad externalities are only limited because of government and good externalities are only propogated as much as they are because of government. The free market, by its very nature doesn't limit bad externalities and doesn;t promote good ones.

---

At 3/12/13 10:33 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Buisnesses ARE the working class. I'm talking about REAL business, not government run/subsidized entities masquerading as business.

All businesses are businesses.

this is what people who have never owned a business never grasp. CEO's are not businesses. Giant corporations, are not businesses. There is a huge disconnect with the american perception of what an actual business is and what capitalism actually is.

That's what we're all getting at. Mega businesses in a free market gain enough power to completely destroy any small business that competes with them. It is the natural end to a completely free market.

Both. Govt prevents competition for wal-mart and is doling out free money to it's employees.

No. WalMart's size prevents free competition. Among other big stores, there is competition, such as Target, KMart, and regional superstores (see Fred Meyer, wich has the backing of national company Kroger.)

But small businesses cnnot get their prices as low as WalMarts'because they cannot provide the volume so they lose out on bulk discounts, and because they don;t have the bargaining power of national WalMart. So WalMart can essentially go into any town and undercut the local store thus destroying competition. No government involvement needed.

I've been pretty consistent in my view that the govt shouldn't be involved in the business realm.

Except to stop bad things. Except to enforce legal duties. Except to promote competition. Except to punish bad acts. And so on. Sounds pretty involved to me.

no one "deserves" to be poor. however, in this country, people are bound to poverty. it's is nearly impossible to get out of it. The government squashes opportunities to escape it.

How?

Big companies do need safety nets because they make shit, and can't compete. remember when the government gave automakers hundreds of billions of dollars because they couldn't compete?

That was not symbolic for all large businesses. In fact that only represented a very small minority of big businesses.

Elimintating safety nets will force a company to make competitive products or go under. you wouldn't be able to just go to DC and say "hey, we fucked up. Can we have some tax dollars?"

Mind you, this was after the country had hit the biggest recession since the 1930s and the government was desperate to do everything it could to keep the recession just a recession, even if it meant helping out bad companies who were only down because of their own mistakes.

And in a free society, the corporation would not have power OVER anyone. The CEO and the employee would have euqal power, because the CEO would NEED those employees in order to make money. They would bend over backwards to make employees happy.

No. The CEO can find employees anywhere, especially in an economic situation like today. The employees need the jobs at the company far more than the CEO needs the specific workers to stay. This especially rings true where the job and the workers have little unqiue skills and can be easily replaced.

I agree. in a free market though, the employees and more importantly, consumers, would keep the greed in check.

You're trying to say the same consumers who kept the PT Cruiser alive for 15 odd years, the ones who hoarded Beanie Babies, and the ones who will buy anything with an apple logo on it bypassing better products for half the price will keep a corporation who has ALL of the information and ALL of the control in check? Are you high? The average consumer is a fucking retard. They can;t even leep their own checkbook balanced, let alone a business in check.

No, i'm saying your dad got your mom (and vice versa) because they were mutually attractive, biologically. And yes, you picking an apple off a tree is an imbalance of power over an animal who, say, isn't 6 feet tall with opposable thumbs.

But in the world of economics, some people are giants and others are mere insects. Some have the power to do almost anything while many others barely have the power to control their own lives.

Evolution does not favor murder.

Actually, those humans more prone to killing to protect their territory were more likely to surive and propogate, thus murder IS favored by evolution.

As for the government preventing the natural order of power...how many people has obama killed since his presidency? The government doesn't exert power?

The governmetn exerts power, that's why it's there. But the government at least has SOME (even though it should be A GREAT DEAL) of responsibility to the people of the nation, where as private parties have no responsibility but to themselves.

People only need safety nets because the govt fixes prices on things essential to life (food, fuel, etc). FWIW, the US of 30 years ago was a dramatically different place.

Fixes the prices to lower than the market rate.

No, anarchy is total lack of government. I'm calling for the government to be bound by the law, and the government to treat everyone equally.

You're calling for a regulated market then.

How much federal tax revenue do you think goes to roads? you think it's more than goes to bombing afghani kids?

Seeing as $1 billion is going to a local bridge, YES.