Free markets.

[Sum Dum Gai]

They're the foundation of capitalist societies. The whole idea of capitalism can't function without them. So, why is there almost no push whatsoever to actually have free markets in this country? You have one political party that constantly tries to remove regulation in the name of having free markets, but they never want to talk about corporate subsidies which distort the market just as much as regulation does. You have the other party that does occasionally talk about subsidies, but they've seemingly never seen a regulation they didn't like. Is there nobody in government who remembers their business 101 courses?

Now, I'm not advocating for anarchy. I'm really not. A certain amount of regulation is necessary, otherwise companies wouldn't even bother trying to build cars for example since the investment needed is huge, the profit margins are tiny, and it's so much easier to just make and sell crack. I'm a realist. I get that we'll never have completely free and open markets. We should be striving for as close as possible though, with just enough regulation to protect consumers and the planet. However, that to me also means that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to corporate welfare too. If a business can't survive without a check from uncle Sam maybe we don't need it.

Why is there nobody in power who seems balanced on this anymore? Seems like they've all picked a side and given up on free markets, but at the same time say they support capitalism which needs those free markets they're screwing up.

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2011 13:14:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

A certain amount of regulation is necessary

There is your answer. The problem is that there are 300million+ people in this country and probably 350million ideas about where that line should be.

[Sum Dum Gai]

That's the thing though. Why do we only talk about regulation? Where's the debate on the subsidy side? They both distort the market equally.

[phil5185]

They both distort the market equally.

Yes. A completely Free Market is a harsh place to live in, the market

eventually

sorts things out but it takes time. Meanwhile, people starve in the streets, children die - in 1929 before Relief, before SS, before SSI, before WIC, before Section 8, people died. Eventually, the survivors got jobs and the not-so-productive people died - not such a good solution. So the Safety Nets were invented.

Subsidies are government's way of engineering trends that they favor - subsidize solar panels to encourage their use even tho they aren't efficient yet, subsidize wind turbines, subsidize hybrid cars, subsidize corn to assure full production, subsidize oil exploration to increase supply & lower prices, etc. Often they are misguided at the outset, and then they run forever (we subsidize tobacco farmers and we penalize cigarette makers at the same time, and have for decades).

But regulation of a non-engineering type is needed to maintain order in the market place - such as rules to guide stock short sales, derivatives, etc - not to stop speculation but to make it happen orderly.

[illinicheme]

Mar 17, 2011 13:14:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Why is there nobody in power who seems balanced on this anymore? Seems like they've all picked a side and given up on free markets, but at the same time say they support capitalism which needs those free markets they're screwing up.

Probably some shade of absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Angel!]

Why is there nobody in power who seems balanced on this anymore?

We were having this discussion at work just the other day. I think in the general public there are more moderates than anything. But, when it comes to elections, standing up & announcing you are moderate on big issues doesn't get attention, doesn't get votes, & appears wishy-washy. People seem to want to elect people with strong beliefs, but then you have two groups running the country with very opposing beliefs who are unwilling to compromise.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Exactly Horatio, it seems like both parties want a big government interfering in the markets. One side wants it to happen through lots of regulation that redistributes wealth or protects people from every conceivable danger, including fatty food or soda. The other side wants every penny they can beg, borrow, or steal to give as corporate hand outs, including paying for military projects the military has said repeatedly they don't want or won't use. Usually with the idea that it will create jobs.

Is it too much to ask for one national level politician who will tell both sides to stop being stupid and take a truly comprehensive look at minimizing government interference in the markets on both the regulation and subsidy side? Do it to lower government spending. Do it to promote business fairness. Do it to end social engineering by our government. I don't care why said person decides to do it, or how they sell it to the people, just stand up and do it already.

[qofcc]

We were having this discussion at work just the other day. I think in the general public there are more moderates than anything. But, when it comes to elections, standing up & announcing you are moderate on big issues doesn't get attention, doesn't get votes, & appears wishy-washy. People seem to want to elect people with strong beliefs, but then you have two groups running the country with very opposing beliefs who are unwilling to compromise.


Doesn't it seem silly in this day & age that instead of electing these people to cast their votes for us on these issues that we can't just vote ourselves on the big issues? Yes, I get that we need representation looking out for us and that the average person doesn't have the time or inclination to vote on every single little issue, but the big stuff? Why shouldn't we all have voter IDs to be able to use the phone or internet to vote on things that we care about. Some politician is worried about how to vote? No problem, vote the way the people who elected you are telling you to vote.

[illinicheme]

My favorite is that recently in California, the Republicans did their darndest to block cuts to welfare. "We can't take this out on our most vulnerable citizens." Say what?!? The parties were all backwards in the new articles I was reading this morning.