Governments always redistribute wealth, or more exactly they redistribute financial leverage; that is a function of all governments. How they redistribute it is the only difference between one political persuasion in power over others. I don’t see how a free market has existed in this country. Please explain to me how one can have a ‘free market’ if it is subject to any artificial advantages given to anyone by government? Especially when the ideal is to have the government provide minimum regulation?
If the government was to minimize all regulation wouldn’t giving artificial advantages a bribe? It can’t police the markets but it’s OK to infuse certain parties with cash? May I suggest that since government will always need to be creating the economic environment for business to exist, that it will always effect markets deeply and indelibly? It seems that if government needs to keep one hand off on regulation why should it be expected to to add any additional aid or incentives with the other hand to anyone? Shouldn’t a free market actually have little to no incentives outside of itself and the other market it interacts with? Yet the government nevertheless does business in the market all the time. Buying desks and cars and bridges and whatnot. In a sense, the less business the government does in the market, the greater market devalues itself.
And what about government creating jobs for needed infrastructure? Is that interference? Shouldn’t it be discouraged by free market ideals? Despite the need arising when industry cannot do it. Actually where is the market for it now? Supposedly the need for infrastructure repair and energy conservation work in homes and buildings is high but the problem with markets is that they cannot get ahead of the curve. Who is buying any of that now, in bulk? Markets can only, by nature, react. By the time emergency needs can be met on the marketplace’s terms, we are in crisis and it can be far too late. On the other hand, governments can and do create special markets when the need arises.
Secondly, how is it possible to have a free market and yet give tax credits to anyone? Aren’t you compromising on someone else’s equally good chance to succeed despite having less money? Should a free market allow at all for tax breaks, incentives, or subsidies? Shouldn’t only one’s net worth be their single advantage? Instead they have unfair advantages of financial leverage in the way of subsidies. Artificial tax loopholes not available to 98% of everyone else in the country. Laws that can be written in their favor. How is a free market possible if a even a single subsidy is given? Even zoning might be looked upon as artificial largess.
I work hard, pay my taxes and play by the rules. My debt load is small so why shouldn’t I have loan privileges similar to a well run solvent business? I’m reasonably liquid and in decent economic health. Why shouldn’t I be able to have something closer to the 17% megacorp tax rate scaled equally to my relative net worth? Can I get off-shore loop holes?
We have now for a long time had an unfair distribution of financial leverage in place at the top as I see it. We do give, we do need certain tax loopholes. And subsidies. These things have to be done sometimes, we all know it. Yet a distribution of economic leverage grows exponentially with the few business endeavors that succeed greatly. Why isn’t Wall Street’s growth kept much closer to Main Street’s by the free market? Our economic crisis is based on not knowing the true values of chopped up items on paper. Yes, exponential leverage for mega-wealthy in the short run created more capital quickly. Yet unrealistic artificial values also arose as we see nowadays. In this way, if financial leverage at the top is only 10 times greater than the rest of the country rather than 1000 times greater, wouldn’t we have a more stable and hearty economy despite slower growth?
Why wouldn’t a fair market be the closest thing to a free market? I posit that you must have government involved sometimes as an economic starter engine, sometimes as an enforcer. Sometimes as the overall architect to level the playing field as much as possible without removing incentives that move the market forward. And thus a fair market would be closer in the real world to the spirit of a free market.