KM4RT Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Without going into detail, my main issues with some of the arguments presented in this thread are: - the assumption that people are motivated by greed - the absence of any discussion on altruism in relation to charity - that the free market system is based on greed. If you really understand the free market theory you would understand that it basically relates to the absence of regulation of markets by government. People are free to set up enterprises in order to make profit, just as they are free to set up enterprises to help others. Its central argument is that government purely collects taxes and enforces laws/contracts. The greed thing is particularly annoying. You can't say that 6 billion (or whatever it is) on this planet are motivated by greed. It's also completely false to say that a free market system would turn 6 billion people into greedy monsters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Business doesn't do much to disprove the theory though. The same that most people are out for themselves. Maybe I just don't have enough faith in the human race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 All it would take to ruin a real free market is a few people not playing fairly. Free market advocates assume that no one would cheat, but that assumption is exactly why the free market will not work. All it would take is a small number of greedy people to cheat and manipulate a market, for that market to be ruined in the free market environment, because all the people playing fairly, will not be able to compete in it. The free market has no feature to stop the inherent greed of man to cheat and I am not talking about 6 billion people, because it will only require a few to tear that system down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM4RT Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 All it would take to ruin a real free market is a few people not playing fairly. Free market advocates assume that no one would cheat, but that assumption is exactly why the free market will not work. All it would take is a small number of greedy people to cheat and manipulate a market, for that market to be ruined in the free market environment, because all the people playing fairly, will not be able to compete in it. There is no such assumption. The assumption is that there will be legislation in place to stop collusion, coercion, manipulation, etc. of the markets, as administered by the state. The free market has no feature to stop the inherent greed of man to cheat and I am not talking about 6 billion people, because it will only require a few to tear that system down. By the same token, it will only take a few good people to stand up and prevent the system from being torn down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 But in a real "free market", there will be no legislation. The markets are suppose to sort themselves out on their own. If someone is cheating, that will not happen, because the market will be manipulated and those "few good people" will not be in the market anymore and will require legislation to fix that, and then it will not be a free market anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM4RT Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 But in a real "free market", there will be no legislation. The markets are suppose to sort themselves out on their own. If someone is cheating, that will not happen, because the market will be manipulated and those "few good people" will not be in the market anymore and will require legislation to fix that, and then it will not be a free market anymore. Actually, there needs to be legislation. And this is an understood and accepted requirement for the operation of free markets. Laws need to exist. Property rights need to be protected. Contracts need to be enforced. And so on. Hence why I said I though you had misconceptions about free markets... The state essentially needs to take the role of an umpire to enforce these laws. The state however does not control markets - i.e. it does not control supply/demand, prices, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Then it will not be a free market. The states are easily manipulated, more so then the fed, because they are more local. One politician that is bribed will be able to allow one person to cheat through legislation and there goes your free market. Also, any legislation in a free market will make it not much different then we have now. Because there barely is anything holding back big business now, they do what they want. My point is that a free market with none or minimal legislation is to easily manipulated to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Can you explain better? I am not quite getting you. What I am hearing from you is that it is better to allow the markets to correct themselves without any government interference, because governments can be corrupted to easily. Is that what you are saying? My question is, how will they do that without manipulation from the free market side, which would make a free market, null and void if it is manipulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 The relative size of the portion of people who would switch from public to private is not able to be determined so easily, thus Decys rebutting point is valid;there may be a shortfall. I have written half of a post which I will get to finishing later on how efficiencies would reduce, or perhaps completely negate, this potential shortfall. I know you havent posted your response and this is a small portion of the point you will probably be making. I certainly understand the jist of what you mean, smaller charities are more effective so with less waste there will need to be fewer donations to match the equivilent through a wasteful government programme. However a point I wiwll make is that a large number of charities are only focussed on certain thing i.e Africa, Cancer research, Childrens charities or save the animals. You would need to take out all of those charities donations, because they are not charitites that focus on the people within their own country. I still don't think even with the effectiveness of small charities it would pick up the shortfall, especially if you take out the donations that have nothing to do with helping the poor within one's own country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 ^I am with Decy on this 100%. I have not heard a viewpoint yet that can dispute this and show that private charity can do the same or better then what the government is doing now. At least in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I do understand a lot of what you're saying, especially because I have family that work in this very area, while donations from the public are fantastic they are not sufficient to keep most smaller charitable organisations running, even with their increased efficiency. The vast bulk of their funding comes from government sources, whether it us a tender for consultancy work or delivering workshops etc. Hell the people my mum work with apply for tenders and funding all throughout Europe just to get the funding needed to keep their organisation running. I take these real world experience and scenarios over any kind of theoretical discussion having seen this all first hand. Charity alone will not be able to replace the welfare state, it simply doesnt have enough money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I think it is something that we just won't agree on, I wish we lived in a society where we as a society could care for the poor out of the goodness of our heart, but I just don't see it. I agree I can't build my whole view solely on first hand experience so I do read up on stuff etc. But to be honest we have gone way off the thread subject haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 A company will only outsource if it is cheaper for them to do so, foreign labour may be cheaper, less regulations in that country might make it easier for them to turn a profit, however if that company wants anything to do in my country then they will be paying a hefty tax bill because they have taken money out of the job market purely to make themselves more money. I agree. Outsourcing had as much to do with irrational decisions as rational ones. Some irrational decisions are: 1. Everyone else is doing it, so it must be the best way. 2. The numbers seem to add up (without accounting for the effect on the consumer's buying power of fewer high paying jobs), so therefore we will save money. 3. We save money, and there is no monetary value to good will, except at the consumer to producer direct interaction point at the sale. 4. Environmental costs are not a direct factor. They think they are saving money, at least in the short term, but they may actually not be saving money in the long term, or when more costs are taken into account. Having worked for large companies, I can assure you that number 1 is a factor more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yingchun Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I actually agree with pretty much everything you have said, the abuse of the welfare system (both in the US and UK) is just stupid. I know I am currently getting welfare etc but you bet your life I have paid in more in tax than I will take out and as soon as I get a job I will come off it, I hate being on it. But people do abuse the system, especially child welfare payments. I see people over here just knocking kids out and getting £100s a month just in child tax credits and child benefit. I agree there needs to be reform to the welfare system, I just dont think it should be gotten rid of completely due to some people will always be in a position that they need help and charity may not be able to provide for them so there needs to be that back up. coach handbagsoutlet online stores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie.fiver Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Damn, all my posts deleted. Brutal moderation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 ^don't you spend all your time trolling one of our best members? or do you just have an extreme man-crush? we're going to keep doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slopargerse Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Social networking on the Internet S2H is the best network for dating among people Promote your site on a social network S2H.RU In the social network S2H.RU advertise their sites. Rating and attendance of your websites will be great. Earn money with social network S2H.RU http://s2h.ru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.