Originally posted by KazetNagorraMight have veered just a tad toward pompous there. If you are indeed enlightened as far as this topic is concerned then surely you would want to illuminate us laymen on the subject.
Fortunately there are a few enlightened ones who frown upon laymen discussing semantics.
Originally posted by kevcvs57I am a layman with respect to this particular topic. In any case, my point is that there is no point to discussing definitions of these heavily loaded terms.
Might have veered just a tad toward pompous there. If you are indeed enlightened as far as this topic is concerned then surely you would want to illuminate us laymen on the subject.
Originally posted by WoodPushThe debate is that some people don't agree with me, and I want to talk to them about it.
No, but this is the debates forum, and this seems to be a question and answer. What's the debate?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24015
The actual meaning of “free market” is: the economic system of laissez-faire capitalism.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you agree with the ridiculous argument at the end of the link?
The debate is that some people don't agree with me, and I want to talk to them about it.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24015
The actual meaning of “free market” is: the economic system of laissez-faire capitalism.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Is this the unnamed argument referred to?
Damn! but I bet somebody will.
Unquestionably, today’s crisis is complex, and to identify its cause is not easy. But the opponents of the free market are not interested in identifying the cause. Their aim since day one has been to silence the debate and declare the matter settled: we had a free market, we had a financial crisis, and therefore, the free market was to blame. The only question, they would have us believe, is how, not whether, the government should intervene.
But they are wrong. There was no free market. And when you look across the American economy, what you see is that the freer parts, like the high-tech industry, are the most productive, and the more controlled parts, like the automotive, banking and housing industries, are in crisis.
Is this evidence that we need more government intervention or more freedom?
What part of this do you find wrong or irrational?
Originally posted by normbenignYes that's it the pro 'free market' polemic by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, the one whereby they attribute anything good to the free market, and anything negative to govt regulation or intervention. If your life experience does not flag up that it is suffering from a lack of grey areas then you have led a very sheltered life.
Is this the unnamed argument referred to?
Unquestionably, today’s crisis is complex, and to identify its cause is not easy. But the opponents of the free market are not interested in identifying the cause. Their aim since day one has been to silence the debate and declare the matter settled: we had a free market, we had a financial crisis, and therefor ...[text shortened]... e government intervention or more freedom?
What part of this do you find wrong or irrational?
I understand that they feel they are defending the the market place from a similar partisan attack from the opposition but two wrongs do not a right, or much sense.
Originally posted by normbenignIt's not so much wrong as it is childish. Viewing the world or the economy in such overly simplistic dichotomies is a form of intellectual masochism.
Is this the unnamed argument referred to?
Unquestionably, today’s crisis is complex, and to identify its cause is not easy. But the opponents of the free market are not interested in identifying the cause. Their aim since day one has been to silence the debate and declare the matter settled: we had a free market, we had a financial crisis, and therefor ...[text shortened]... e government intervention or more freedom?
What part of this do you find wrong or irrational?
Originally posted by normbenignIt is irrational to be so simplistic that your argument lacks any meaningful content.
Is this the unnamed argument referred to?
Unquestionably, today’s crisis is complex, and to identify its cause is not easy. But the opponents of the free market are not interested in identifying the cause. Their aim since day one has been to silence the debate and declare the matter settled: we had a free market, we had a financial crisis, and therefor ...[text shortened]... e government intervention or more freedom?
What part of this do you find wrong or irrational?
Two terms might help you.
One is "regulation." Without regulation, some of the consequences are undesirable from the perspective of a capitalist. So the question becomes what types of regulation have what types of impact. Your assertion that banking was "one of the more controlled parts of the American economy" is so laughable it hardly merits debate. Deregulation of banking has proceeded in a headlong rush for several decades and produced a series of crises from which little has been learned.
The other is "competition." Unfair competition is not healthy. Without doubt, some big organisations are hoovering up their market share by unfair means. Lots of examples. For example, Amazon has its European base for tax purposes in little Luzembourg, and is wiping out independent booksellers across Europe by selling stock at huge discounts, primarily made possible through tax evasion. Play.Com has already destroyed independent music shops by posting out cut price music and DVDs from Jersey free of most taxes. Tesco and its big rivals are eating up British high street shopping by the same dishonest means. This is not innovation and creativity from the unfettered free market. This is just monopoly capitalism allowed to run riot.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Ok, but they concede in the first sentence that the causes are complex. If the free market being immune to blame in their view, why isn't it equally as silly not to question the adverse effects of market interference?
Yes that's it the pro 'free market' polemic by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, the one whereby they attribute anything good to the free market, and anything negative to govt regulation or intervention. If your life experience does not flag up that it is suffering from a lack of grey areas then you have led a very sheltered life.
I understand that they feel ...[text shortened]... m a similar partisan attack from the opposition but two wrongs do not a right, or much sense.
They are not arguing for a free pass to market forces, but that regulation and control must get an equally critical look.
Originally posted by finneganThey argue first that the market isn't truly free. Is that disputable?
It is irrational to be so simplistic that your argument lacks any meaningful content.
Two terms might help you.
One is "regulation." Without regulation, some of the consequences are undesirable from the perspective of a capitalist. So the question becomes what types of regulation have what types of impact. Your assertion that banking was "one of th ...[text shortened]... ity from the unfettered free market. This is just monopoly capitalism allowed to run riot.
"Without regulation, some of the consequences are undesirable from the perspective of a capitalist. So the question becomes what types of regulation have what types of impact. Your assertion that banking was "one of the more controlled parts of the American economy" is so laughable it hardly merits debate."
First the assertions aren't mine but those of the Rand Institute identified in the posted link. You may laugh at banking being highly regulated, but in comparison to what? The writers compare high tech industry (building computers, networks, etc.) with automotive and banking. It is not asserted that one or the other has enough, but that the lesser regulated tend to be prosperous, progressive and give us better value in their products.
Competition is fostered under free markets. What are the benefits of competitive markets? They are what you seem to fear, lower prices and better quality. Unfair means? We no longer get to buy Studebakers or Hudsons. They failed competitively, and fairly.