The rich get richer under Obama

Originally posted by normbenign
How about more free market opportunity for all, including especially the lower skill workers. Motivate them instead of making excuses for them.

How would you implement "more free market"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How would you implement "more free market"?

Reduce regulation.

Edit:

Although technically you do not 'implement freedom', you can only implement control.

Edit 2:

To clarify, people have freedom you can only take it away.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Reduce regulation.

Edit:

Although technically you do not 'implement freedom', you can only implement control.

Edit 2:

To clarify, people have freedom you can only take it away.

Ah I see, so an anarchist society (least possible regulation) has the "freest" market?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah I see, so an anarchist society (least possible regulation) has the "freest" market?

The confusion may have come about because English is a second language for you, as you have mentioned on occasion.

You see freedom is not something that is 'implemented' it is something that is there until controls are 'implemented.'

Thus your original question:

How would you implement "more free market"?

Was perhaps incorrectly phrased, which may lead to confusion.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Reduce regulation.

Edit:

Although technically you do not 'implement freedom', you can only implement control.

Edit 2:

To clarify, people have freedom you can only take it away.

Reducing regulation only results in a wealthier wealthy and a more endangered poor. If that's your agenda at least you could come out with it up front.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Reducing regulation only results in a wealthier wealthy and a more endangered poor. If that's your agenda at least you could come out with it up front.

I do not believe that is the result but I would definitely prefer to live in a community with at least some wealthy people as opposed to one where everyone is poor.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The confusion may have come about because English is a second language for you, as you have mentioned on occasion.

You see freedom is not something that is 'implemented' it is something that is there until controls are 'implemented.'

Thus your original question:

How would you implement "more free market"?

Was perhaps incorrectly phrased, which may lead to confusion.

That's a nice little story, but it doesn't relate to the matter at hand. Does or does not "reducing regulation" lead to "freer markets"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's a nice little story, but it doesn't relate to the matter at hand. Does or does not "reducing regulation" lead to "freer markets"?

Reduce regulation.

PS, thanks for the complement, they are few from your quarter, appreciated.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I do not believe that is the result but I would definitely prefer to live in a community with at least some wealthy people as opposed to one where everyone is poor.

There's enough empiri to prove that it does. A free market and the benefits to society hereof only exists in theory.
Yeah, I'm sure you would have loved living as a peasant in a Feudal system or as a factory worker in the early 1900s.

Originally posted by Lundos
There's enough empiri to prove that it does. A free market and the benefits to society hereof only exists in theory.
Yeah, I'm sure you would have loved living as a peasant in a Feudal system or as a factory worker in the early 1900s.

In a free society (free markets and a free society are co-dependent) people are free to form groups and collectively purchase whatever they wish, they just would not be able to force ownership on others. In the internet age this is easier than ever.

Are you citing feudalism as an example of a free market?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Reducing regulation only results in a wealthier wealthy and a more endangered poor. If that's your agenda at least you could come out with it up front.

You talk as if any regulation is "good".

First of all, regulations are essentially laws that have been passed by the Executive branch via an Unconstitutional process by unelected bureaucrats. Do you consider every law ever made "good"? We can all come up with laws in the past or laws we have now that are not good. Second of all, regulations cost the US trillions of dollars every year in decreased productivity and taxpayer money to keep the armies of bureaucrats.

With every law/regulations, freedoms wane. That is why passing either should be done with great trepidation. Also know that the safest place in the world is prison. The prison provides your meals, food, shelter, cloths, and everyone gets treated the same. It is the most regulated place on earth but it comes at a price. What is the price of our freedoms?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Reducing regulation only results in a wealthier wealthy and a more endangered poor. If that's your agenda at least you could come out with it up front.

The US passes thousands of regulations a year, yet the wealthy keep getting wealthier. As a result, I could easily make the counter argument that regulations are the cause.

Originally posted by whodey
The US passes thousands of regulations a year, yet the wealthy keep getting wealthier. As a result, I could easily make the counter argument that regulations are the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I don't respond to web sites.

IF you can't verbalize an argument, don't bother.

Copy and paste if you have to do so.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't respond to web sites.

IF you can't verbalize an argument, don't bother.

Copy and paste if you have to do so.

You don't respond to anything.

I don't need to reinvent the wheel, if you don't know what a "post hoc ergo propter hoc"-fallacy is, I suggest you look it up. Maybe you can find it on Wikipedia or something.