said by Titus Pullo :

There's no such thing as a 'free' market. When are people going to realize this and quit throwing the phrase around as if it means something? Neo-liberal trade policies promote anything BUT a market that inspires free trade. Getting 'govt off the back of business' is simple code for giving away the farm to business interests, period.

said by Ahrenl :

Oh, how enlightening. I guess we'll have to go and rewrite The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Thank god we have you..

said by Titus Pullo :

Don't thank God; explain to us the oxymoron that is the "free market" and make your case.

said by Ahrenl :

Pay for a college education and learn it for yourself. There are reams of books written about it, although most of it is common sense. I have better things to do with my life than educate you on base theories of society. Just saying something that is accepted by 99.9% of the world isn't true, isn't a basis for a discussion.

said by Ahrenl :

Yes, you're debating skills are unparalleled. Again, simply stating something that's greatly accepted is a fallacy is not a discussion or debate.

said by Old Buzzard :

Sorry, but I just can't take economic advice from someone with a Che avatar seriously.

Especially when it's mostly buzzwords with little backing.

said by broadbander :

The freer the market, the cheaper the price (so long as cross-subidization is not involved).

Illegal markets are the best example.

Witness pirated technologies, stolen clothing goods or squater-farmed land and witness theory becoming reality.

said by Titus Pullo :

Something as simple as the U.S. sugar market is a pretty good example of a 'free' market in action.

said by broadbander :

Describe what/when you're referring too and what governments are involved in the process. If governments are involved in the supply or demand side, then the market isn't free in ANY way. Any labor force being exploited by "capitalism" is probably being exploited primarily by their own government. Fascism works with particular pieces of a market to help form state-sanctioned monopoly (hardly a free market function). Communism, rather than give profit to the workers, simply cuts the labor part of the cost of production out entirely, essentially creating a capitalist society with a serf class (that has no hope of breaking that distinction).

---
From: »www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_05···cle.html

"The sugar industry in America has never really operated in a free market. Cane sugar in Florida wouldn’t exist if the state government hadn’t drained the Everglades. It would disappear if the Army Corps of Engineers didn’t permanently alter the landscape and manage it at taxpayer expense to expose the muck soil and keep the water level just right for the growers.

Washington also provides subsidies to all sugar farmers in the form of loans collateralized by sugar—about 18 cents per pound. The world price of sugar is usually around 10 cents per pound or less, but the federal government also drastically limits sugar imports, ensuring a domestic price of about twice that. Uncle Sam also subsidizes private sugar storage facilities."

There's but one example of your 'free market' in action.
---

The history of "exploited peoples" is a history of corrupted persons, not corrupt economies. An evil person in charge of a government is 100X more dangerous than an evil person in charge of a corporation (which is oxymoron, it is impossible to completely "be in charge" of a corporation in a theoretical sense, because of supply and demand).

---

Most of history IS "exploited peoples" -- exploited by the powerful for more power. It continues today in every form imaginable. We just witnessed 'free' elections in Mexico where the US had its hands all over the process. Nothing like this 'freedom' thing in the whole world. Someone accused me of using buzzwords. Sh*t, the US govt is the marketing capital of buzzwords -- freedom being the biggest chainsaw on the block.

---
As for Che, well, any fellow who wanted primarily to destroy the existence of myself and those around me is not okay in my book or anyone to follow.

Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Douglass ... these are history's heroes regardless of their political/religious affiliations. Militant ideologists of any stripe are not(read Che's comments on the Cuban missile crisis and try to earnestly support him or what he represents in anyway).

---
I won't EVEN take the religious bait; I've been down that dark road before, and I've explained the 'Che' thing before, and it isn't what you think, and I don't want to digress down that path.

---

Certainly, in particular markets, regulation can help ensure safety and bring about competitive behavior that protects consumers in some way. However, I contend that over-regulation (i.e. government control of important industries) is far more disastrous than the converse (a completely free market). And centralizing wealth (a.k.a. high federal taxes) is an invitation for just that.

---

Then which of the two do you think is occurring now if not the centralization of wealth? Have you looked at the numbers? And how is it that we have one tax CUT after another yet the income gap is growing at a rate not seen since the gilded age? I'll say it again: textbook economics reads like junk science and the lingua franca of the ruling class when juxtaposed with the reality of human greed and ITS influence on all we know and experience day to day.

There's but one example of your 'free market' in action.

Sh*t, the US govt is the marketing capital of buzzwords

I won't EVEN take the religious bait; I've been down that dark road before, and I've explained the 'Che' thing before, and it isn't what you think, and I don't want to digress down that path.

Then which of the two do you think is occurring now if not the centralization of wealth? Have you looked at the numbers? And how is it that we have one tax CUT after another yet the income gap is growing at a rate not seen since the gilded age? I'll say it again: textbook economics reads like junk science and the lingua franca of the ruling class when juxtaposed with the reality of human greed and ITS influence on all we know and experience day to day.

A. My example of the sugar industry was sarcasm meant to expose one facet of the lie that is our own 'Free Market'.

Not to mention they'll wage war as economic stimulus. And BTW, this is a mixed economy riding on the hairy behind of a nearly-shot republic, not a democracy. But that's another issue

C. I'm not a follow of Che, but you *appear* to know little of his history other than the popular elitist version.

D. I didn't mention the poor; I said the wage gap. There's a huge difference, check into it.

said by broadbander :

I'm aware, but the difference is irrelevant to the efficiency of capitalism. A growing wage gap is not a negative thing if the growth of median GDP can maintain for it. The alternative is a system in which wealth grows very slowly or doesn't grow at all, so the wage gap may be less, but everyone is poorer (including the poor).