Is the 'free market' concept always a good thing?

Great Debates
21

[quote]
Posted by Hazel
But how much real competition is going on in the American marketplace of today? If every conveience store (or every hardware store, or every grocery store, etc.)in the NY Metro area sells pretty much the same stuff, at pretty close to the same prices, are they really competing with each other?

[quote]
This is one of those funny things: if the market is really competitive, this is exactly what you would expect. But it’s also what you’d expect if there was collusion. I don’t know your country, but I’m confident that the convenience store industry is highly competitive.

On the question of “affordable housing”: no-one mentions the problems of the market for “affordable sportscars”. Of course there’s “lots of demand” for affordable (ie cheap) housing, but land is in fixed supply. The large demand bids up the price of housing. If you want cheap housing, go to somewhere where no-one else wants to live: then you’ll just have to pay for building upkeep. In other places, if lots of people want to live there, something’s going to reflect that fact and equilibrate demand and supply. If the rationing device isn’t price, then it will be shortages or quality reduction (which is exactly what happens if governments try rent control). High housing costs may be a bummer (unless you got in before the area became popular), but they’re no failure of the market.

22

Sorry, that second quote tag should have been a close quote tag.

23

Then you are correct sir. I present no dichotomy. Just asking what makes him think the free market doesn’t provide the things he think it should provide, and—more importantly—offering a smart-alec hypothesis as to why one would “remain unconvinced” about free market abilities.

:slight_smile:

The market can only be as good as the people in it. I think the people who actively frown upon the free market are saying more about humanity than economics. :wink:

24

So I’m a ladder now? :slight_smile:

Well, the ideal of government is in aiding the public, by passing and enforcing antitrust laws (along with other related laws).

The actuality of the government’s actions is another thing all together, especially in this day and age, unfortunately. Theory and practice seldom align perfectly.

25

erisolver: “The market can only be as good as the people in it. I think the people who actively frown upon the free market are saying more about humanity than economics.” :wink:

eris, come out from behind your smiley. I promise to be nice ;). I can’t tell (b/c of the smiley) whether you mean for us to take this straight (as I think you do), or whether you mean it as a big joke (as I suspect you do not).

Assuming for the moment that you’re straight: I for one don’t “frown” at the free market; rather I dispute its existence. It is a myth. My problem with “free market” enthusiasts is that their myth functions to obscure a process whereby certain laws get passed and policies get implemented which benefit corporations at the expense of individuals. Were he alive today, Adam Smith would not stop puking at the way in which his ideas have been perverted to mask corporate welfare and monopolistic and oligopolistic tendencies that he would have hated.

I want the same kind of market that Hazel wants: one that empowers individual consumers, respects their citizenship, values the environment, cultivates human (and economic) diversity. For the market to do that (and here I agree with rjung, the state (or perhaps local government) has to play a regulatory role of some kind. But in doing so it should represent the collective interest, not the special interests of corporations or the rich. And for that to happen our democracy has to function better than it does right now.

26

I agree with Mandelstam that the ideal market would be “…one that empowers individual consumers, respects their citizenship, values the environment, cultivates human (and economic) diversity.” I also agree with Mandelstam’s statement that, “For the market to do that… the state (or perhaps local government) has to play a regulatory role of some kind. But in doing so it should represent the collective interest, not the special interests of corporations or the rich. And for that to happen our democracy has to function better than it does right now.”

I despare of changing the current situation. It seems hopeless.

Another problem with govt regulating the marketplace is the extent to which the regulations, licensing laws, etc. are crafted by the industry being regulated. They draw up rules whose purpose is to make it difficult for newcomers to enter the industry.

27

I would say regulations, taxes, and fees. And govt does this because govt does what the rich and powerful want, not what the poor and weak want. Not that there are sharp dividing lines, but the richer/more powerful an individual or organization is, the more ability it has to cause govt to do its bidding.

As Puddleglum pointed out, housing construction is very heavily regulated. It is quite possible to completely regulate low cost housing out of existance in a given community just by requiring that all new housing built must be single family homes or duplexes on lots with a minimum size of such and such for single family, so and so for duplexes. Just outlaw apartment builings and require large lots for houses. I think there are also usually a laundry list of regulations governing the houses themselves, many of which no doubt have the effect of making sure the houses built will be high cost. In suburbia, most citizens would be most distressed if local govt changed the laws and regulations to permit low cost housing in their town. They don’t want “undesirables” (that is, poor people) moving in.

28

You want to take a long term or a short term viewpoint?

In the long-term, free markets will eventually strike an equilibrium and everything (including quality, safety, etc.) will sort itself out.

Example – the oil companies. In the beginning there were small, entrepreneurial companies. Then Rockefeller came along, drove them into bankruptcy and consolidated into a classic monopoly. Then Standard Oil was broken up (I know, that was govt. intervention, but bear with me) allowing smaller, niche companies to develop. Then some of them consolidated leading to what could probably be described as an oligopoly today. In another few years/decades, maybe they’ll form a monopoly, or maybe new niche companies will develop. Either way, it’s part of a contintuum.

However, in the short run, it’s clear free makrets can be manipulated during any one of the sections of the continuum. Most government regulations (e.g. “fair trade” laws) are a response to the abuses of the previous cycle.

So, do you want to look at the big picture over, say, 150 years, or a portion of the cycle, say 10 years.

29

The point I was making when I said ‘look around you’ at what the free market creates is that we focus too much on the market’s failures, or the big spectacular issues that government focuses on. So of course Mandelstam tries to distort my point into a critique of the very things I was not talking about - airlines, broadcast networks, etc.

If you want proof that the market works, look smaller. Look at the quality of the pencil sitting on your desk. Look at the quality of the chair you are sitting on. Look at the melamine finishes, the high-tech adhesives, the low-cost tempered glass in your coffee pot, the plastic on the keycaps on your keyboard. You are surrounded by thousands upon thousands of extremely high-quality, low cost products that the government had absolutely nothing to do with.

The fact that you can take it all for granted is proof that it’s working. Go to a country sometime that doesn’t have the kind of low-cost, high quality goods that we enjoy, and you’ll start to realize just how great our market system is. There are people out there who would treasure your bleemin’ dinner forks and knives if you gave it to them, because the crap they are forced to use bends and breaks, and the knives won’t hold an edge, etc. Hell, just look at your blue jeans - not a government regulation in sight, and they represent a quality of manufacture that is simply unknown in many countries. In the heyday of the Soviet Union, American Blue Jeans were a very expensive black market item.

Government focuses on the failures, so that’s all you hear about. And government has to promote itself because the politicians need to win elections. So we are bombarded with constant propaganda about how wonderful the government is. But the government is only one small factor in a very large, very complex economy.

By far, the vast majority of human affairs in the U.S. are regulated not by government, but by the choices of free people.

30

Sam Stone: “The point I was making when I said ‘look around you’ at what the free market creates is that we focus too much on the market’s failures, or the big spectacular issues that government focuses on.”

First, my point has been that the so-called “free market” doesn’t exist and never has existed. As to the “big spectacular issues that government focuses on,” I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. If what you mean is that goverment is what we turn to when some sector is in big trouble–I’d have to agree. Which is why one of the many things I’d like about free market ideologists is their pretense that government does nothing of value. Poppycock!

“If you want proof that the market works, look smaller…”

Sam, let me make this as plain as I can. I never said that we don’t have a market that produces things. What I said–in response to the OP–is that I don’t believe that we have a free market. Perhaps you should re-read my posts.

“Look at the quality of the pencil sitting on your desk. Look at the quality of the chair you are sitting on. Look at the melamine finishes, the high-tech adhesives, the low-cost tempered glass in your coffee pot, the plastic on the keycaps on your keyboard.”

Do you secretly work for Office Depot or K-Mart? :wink: Sam, my pencil is fine (and so is my nice pencil sharpener from Radio Shack). My chair is a piece of crap in comparison to my oak desk which belonged to my grandfather. But it’s fine and it cost less than $100. I’m not quite sure what I’m supposed to realize that I never did before.

“You are surrounded by thousands upon thousands of extremely high-quality, low cost products that the government had absolutely nothing to do with.”

Are you implying that I (and other posters) don’t realize that the government isn’t in the business of making (what my economics professors used to call) widgets and standprods? I’m surprised that you would want to make so elementary a point. Yes, indeed: outside of a strictly socialist government, governments rarely get directly involved in the production process.

Second, your point is incorrect. The government doesn’t have “absolutely nothing to do with” all kinds of products. At the most obvious level, government subsidizes research: government research gave us the Internet, gives us all kinds of new medicines (the patents for which it then turns over to private pharmaceutical compnies at no charge), it provides grants for research to businesses small and large, small business loans, etc. I’m willing to bet that at least 50% of Dopers have benefited from a government-subsidized student loan, which some may have used to acquire skills to help provide us with better goods and services (even those lovely melamine surfaces you’re so fond of!). Government insures banks so that they don’t default on all the producers of those lovely products. Government regulates the workplace for safety so that you don’t find a finger in that delicious bacon you’re loving as you might have done in the days when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle. Government provides and maintains the highways to transport all those wonderful goods. That’s just a small part of it and that’s just for your favorite domestic products. If I had time, I could create another mini-list of the thousands of things government does that makes it possible for you and me to purchase foreign goods at our local shopping malls (often by taking the bus or the train that local government has provided for our use, usually with federal subsidies).

“Go to a country sometime that doesn’t have the kind of low-cost, high quality goods that we enjoy, and you’ll start to realize just how great our market system is.”

Just out of curiosity, what country do you have in mind? Many if not most of those low-cost goods you’re describing are now manufactured in China, a country which, so far as I know, is delighted to export its goods to any country with consumers to buy them.

“Hell, just look at your blue jeans - not a government regulation in sight, and they represent a quality of manufacture that is simply unknown in many countries.”

Check the label Sam. Most “American” blue jeans are now made offshore, usually in Mexico; I happen to know someone in the industry. That’s because our government gave us the delightful NAFTA that Ross Perot likened to a “giant sucking sound.” Insofar as they’re still produced in the US (usually down South where unions are weak), government is still regulating those factories, educating the workers, etc. etc. Even if they are imported, government regulates their sale just like any other item: e.g., if one of those factories accidentally uses a poisonous dye that makes your skin peel off (sorry for the painful suggestion), you can sue and, thanks to your government, you’ll have a court of law for your case.

“Government focuses on the failures, so that’s all you hear about. And government has to promote itself because the politicians need to win elections. So we are bombarded with constant propaganda about how wonderful the government is.”

First, no one is this thread has spoken about failures; they’ve spoken about their frustration with various aspects of the status quo. Is government responsible for my spending half my life on a phone tree trying to get through to my bank, my cable company, or an airline? Second, I can’t remember the last time I was “bombarded with constant propaganda” about the goverment’s wonders. Can you name a single instance of such propaganda? Is it perhaps on the Fox News channel that I rigorously avoid? ;). Quite the contrary, everywhere I look I see people dissing the government, and blaming it for every woe. This too can play into the hands of powerful interests, alienating individuals from public institutions that, when they function properly, should represent their interests.

“By far, the vast majority of human affairs in the U.S. are regulated not by government, but by the choices of free people.”

I don’t think many people doubt that most of their choices are not made by the government. Speaking for myself, I neither want the government interfering in every aspect of my life, nor believe that it does so. What I do believe is that a democratic society with a capitalist economy needs good government and, indeed, couldn’t function without some kind of government. Our government, like our economy has its strengths and weaknesses. We can and perhaps should discuss what works and what doesn’t, but there’s simply no point in drawing facile distinctions: as though government and market were antitheses. They just aint.

31

Wow, my Discordian powers are growing! :smiley: I am serious.

Well, I am not exactly what you mean by the free market being a “myth.” It is as much of a myth, to me as government is.

Any legal action impedes the free market. That that law is done in the name of the free market should stain the lawmaker, wouldn’t you agree?

To me, the market, like governments, businesses, Chutes and Ladders™, and physics are just a construct used to understand interaction. The market is a myth, to be sure; it exists only in our minds. That you would feel the government is somehow more real than market forces makes me wonder… well, many things.

I think he’d hate corporations most; didn’t he say as much? I as well don’t like the idea of giving property its own legal existence to begin with, though removing personal accountability from the economics of big business certainly aided growth, and I do like that.

In other words, you don’t want a market. Markets don’t serve your values. As far as I can tell they don’t serve values whatsoever.

So you say. If everyone had equal economic power this would happen. But to create equal economic power all persons involved in the market need equal abilities and understanding.

I, for one, take comfort that people who can do things better than me are rewarded for that effort. No man exists to serve my interests, and no man’s construct does either, as I believe that equality of action is good (that is, if each man had the ability to do a thing nothing stood in their way apart from their own morality).

It is unfortunate that the construct of the free market also serves to reward those who act unscrupulously (that is, act in ways not befitting a free market in the first place). The drive for power is about as implicit as one can get in understanding human motivations. To shift power from the economic realm to the political one doesn’t really solve the core problem of behavior antithetical to the construct in which the person exists.
Free country, free market—each serve to aid those who would act against it.

32

Ah…another market thread! And where would we be without Sam Stone’s and erislover’s eloquent essays reminding us how phenomenal the market is and all the groovy things it provides, and Mandelstam’s and jshore’s missives [I’ll let other less biased voices choose the appropriate adjectives to describe these :wink: ] pointing out some of the problems of markets.

And, no doubt we can all look around us and see lots of wonderful things the market has provided us with. But, we don’t have to look much further to see problems too: Look at all the monsterous SUVs clogging our streets and lungs; look at all the heavy metals accumulating here in the Great Lakes and in the blubber of the mighty whales in the oceans; look at the epidemic of obesity brought on by a culture in which we drive two tons of machinery to go down the block and supersize-everything; look at a media culture financed by huge conglomerates who feed us mindless entertainment rather than true educational pieces and brainwash us into believing that we will only be happy if we buy, buy, and buy somemore; look at the neighborhoods of people left behind major American cities, like West Philly (Sam, you may have to travel to see this, as I could never find anything comparable in the less-market-extremist country that you live in).

Of course, the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between the extremes of “the market is all wonderful” and “the market is all evil”. One of the problems I have with the picture that Sam Stone paints is that, while it may be true that the market-oriented countries look great compared to, say, the Soviet-bloc countries, his description of the virtues of a market society could equally apply to Denmark for example and yet I think those toward the libertarian end of the spectrum would not be happy to see us moving in the direction of the Scandinavian model. So, in the end, it doesn’t really tell us in what direction we should be moving.

And, I just find bizarre the view that the market is unfairly maligned and the government unfairly given credit. It seems these days that markets invoke the sort of reverence reserved usually for motherhood and apple pie. In fact, people use the concept of “free market” with a reverence that goes well beyond its applicability. For example, the Cato Institute (and even more mainstream politicians) will argue that doing something about global warming, including pushing toward greater use of renewable energy sources, is interfering with the free market when in fact it is the failure of the market to properly account for the damage done by non-renewable energy sources that necessitates some sort of action to correct this. (Admittedly, what sort of action can be open to debate and I would favor actions, such as a carbon tax, that use market mechanisms to correct the problems.)

By the way, a good recent book on markets is “Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets” by Robert Kuttner. I am told by kimstu that another good book is “One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy” by Thomas Frank.

33

…And for the opposing viewpoint, let me recommend “Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman.

34

erislover: “Well, I am not exactly what you mean by the free market being a “myth.” It is as much of a myth, to me as government is.”

Well, the problem with that analogy is that government is an abstract term that has many empirical referents: e.g., Congress, the judiciary, the Constitution, the IRS, the local Department of Motor Vehicle in your town. Now the market is also an abstraction with many empiral referents (e.g., stores, the stock exchange); but the “free market” adds a dimension of unreality. Here “freedom” would stand for completely unregulated markets; and that simply doesn’t exist and never has. Also the “free” market–for those who eulogize it–stands for the unfettered influence of individuals. And this relation is also mythical; not only because of government influence but also because of excessive corporate and monopoly power. For example, I can’t choose the kind of television programs I want to watch because with very few exceptions they are not broadcast. The same is even more true for radio stations which, since the putative liberating effect of deregulation have become consolidated and homogenized to such a degree that most average Americans agree that music radio totally sucks. (Do you disagreee?)

["Any legal action impedes the free market. That that law is done in the name of the free market should stain the lawmaker, wouldn’t you agree?*

Possibly. I’d actually appreciate if you’d restate that.

“To me, the market, like governments, businesses, Chutes and Ladders™, and physics are just a construct used to understand interaction. The market is a myth, to be sure; it exists only in our minds. That you would feel the government is somehow more real than market forces makes me wonder… well, many things.”

Here you speak with forked tongue erislover. On the one hand you say that you think both government and markets are myths; on the other hand you seem to question my holding that free markets are a myth. In any case, I hope I’ve already made it clear that I don’t actually doubt the reality of market forces at all. In fact, I think market forces are all too real; so very real that I am eager to dispense with the myth that they somehow constitute a realm of individual freedom.

I had said: “I want the same kind of market that Hazel wants: one that empowers individual consumers, respects their citizenship, values the environment, cultivates human (and economic) diversity. For the market to do that (and here I agree with rjung, the state (or perhaps local government) has to play a regulatory role of some kind.”

“In other words, you don’t want a market. Markets don’t serve your values. As far as I can tell they don’t serve values whatsoever.”

I’m afraid my answer here must be, no, to a degree, and no. Without a market I could not consume goods and services; and I very much wish to consume goods and services as I am far too busy posting on the SDSM to grow my own wheat, bake my own bread, etc. Markets as they now stand sometimes serve my values and sometimes don’t. Insofar as they fulfill human needs they satisfy my values; insofar as they manipulate human desire, margainalize non-market relations, and commodify everything they do not serve my values. I don’t see how you can say that markets “don’t serve values whatsoever”–but perhaps you can tell me about it. If you mean they are value-neutral that’s just not so (at least not with today’s market). As jshore has indicated, today’s markets place a premium on some things (e.g., promoting a sense of almost decadent luxuriousness), while ignoring others (e.g., conserving energy to preserve the environment).

I had said: “But in doing so it should represent the collective interest, not the special interests of corporations or the rich.”

“So you say. If everyone had equal economic power this would happen.”

I agree that we’d need greater socio-economic equality than the abysmal inequalities we now have. But I don’t think we’d need absolute economic equality. And measures such as campaign finance reform, free advertising in political election based on signature drives and proportional representation would improve our democracy without direct interference in economic matters.

“But to create equal economic power all persons involved in the market need equal abilities and understanding.”

As well as equal opportunities! Let us also not forget that not everyone chooses a profession to maximize economic opportunity (which is itself a kind of market dictate). Should people who become teachers, even though could make talented stock brokers, be penalized not only financially but also politically? At present that is very often the case.

“I, for one, take comfort that people who can do things better than me are rewarded for that effort.”

I have no problem with that idea. But I would like to see people rewarded for all kinds of abilities: not just those that create profit.

“No man exists to serve my interests…”

Really? No teacher, no doctor, no police officer, no tour guide, no burger flipper, no porn director [[;)], ever served your interests? That’s a rather odd belief coming from you since the whole idea of the market, as it’s currently promoted, is that through its mechanisms we all serve each other’s interests…

“and no man’s construct does either…”

Well, I am a woman. Will that help? :wink:

“as I believe that equality of action is good (that is, if each man had the ability to do a thing nothing stood in their way apart from their own morality).”

Well, equality of action requires equality of oppportunity and equality of income, doesn’t it?

“The drive for power is about as implicit as one can get in understanding human motivations. To shift power from the economic realm to the political one doesn’t really solve the core problem of behavior antithetical to the construct in which the person exists.”

I don’t see any need to shift power from one sphere to another; I’d like to see a more equitable distribution of both economic and political power. And I agree that, to a certain extent, the drive for power is part of human nature. But I think that our own society, b/c of its excessive materialism, exacerbates competitiveness, and exacerbates the extent to which power is perceived and actuated in material terms. That is, is possible to imagine a society where people invest their productive energies in becoming more powerful poets, more powerful citizens, more powerful humanitarians, more powerful thinkers. Our doesn’t do that.

jshore and others: Thomas Frank’s One Market under God was excerpted as a feature story for The Nation. You can plug his name into their archive and read it on line. I’m too lazy to post it myself. It’s truly awesome. As to the adjective for our missives (as well as grimpixie’s and some others) what do you say to “heretical” ;).

35

For those of you wondering about the “SDSM”–what it is, and where you can read it–your guess is as good as mine…

36

Thanks…It’s here: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001030&s=frank

I like it! Always wanted to be a heretic!

37

This is tangentially relevant, but I can never help but bring it up whenever someone mentions One Market Under God: Thomas Frank also edited a book of Baffler essays entitled Commodify Your Dissent: The Business of Culture in the New Gilded Age. It’s utterly fantastic, as I believe Kimstu and Maeglin would agree. :slight_smile:

38

Since Frank’s work is getting a lot of press here, I will try to summarize his basic thesis for the benefit of those who haven’t read any of his stuff. (I’m speaking as someone who has only read a limited amount of his and other Baffler essays so others can feel free to correct and embellish.)

Basically, Frank argues that the market has gained its rule of utter primacy in the current age by co-opting the culture of dissent and using it for its own ends. I.e., whereas in the 60s “the [business] establishment” fought against the counterculture hippies, now companies market their products so that buying their products is portrayed as a means of expressing dissent, individualism, … (And, if you don’t believe that this is in fact the case, you clearly have never seen an SUV commercial, for example!)

A similar phenomenon, it is argued, is played out in the current “new culture” fad in business management. This is in fact extremely true where I work…There are these posters up which compare the “old culture” and the “new culture” and which just read like a litany of the sort of “question authority” attitudes of dissent. (E.g., the old way was to do what you are told whereas the new way is to question if there is a better way to do things, the old way was communication from the top down whereas the new way is communication in all directions…)

Finally, the same thing is played out in the political/economic arena as “market populism”. I.e., the “evil elite” are those who are in any way trying to regulate or control the market, which is thought of as being the ultimate democratic expression of the people.

I find that it is hard to read Frank’s stuff without coming up in my mind with lots of examples of exactly what he is talking about!

39

Getting exciting already! :slight_smile:

jshore stepped up first and said things like:

Or we simply don’t ascribe a moral value to it in the first place. Wouldn’t you agree that any market is simply a tool? If so, do you place values on other tools? (seriously, if I ever sound condescending I’m not trying to be). If not, what is a realized market that we can place moral valuations on it?

I think it is pretty clear, actually. We need to move towards fostering people who can interact in freedom withough needing excessive regulations on either their personal life or their economic life. Market failures are (mostly) human failures, to me. If you cheat at blackjack I surely don’t say that the game is corrupt; just the player.

Well, jshore, we do stand on pretty different sides of the fence, I think. And from that quote I think we also seem to hear very different things. Dunno what else to say about that.

And onwards to Mandelstam!

hah! Adds unreality to a myth? :slight_smile: “Free Market” adds the same level of unreality as “representative democracy” IMO. Are you trying to say that governments are somehow less of an abstraction (let’s use that instead of ‘myth’, ok by you?) than markets?

I agree that the very presence of government makes a free markets impossible, and the converse would be true as well: a completely free market renders governments impossible. But monopolies don’t render free markets impossible. They don’t even necessarily render it unlikable. I don’t understand what you mean by “excessive” corporate power; how much more excessive can they be than our government is now? what (roughly outlined) level of power would be tolerable for corporations?

Restate it? Hmm. I don’t know that I can. Would you say what you think I should mean by that? I cannot see that the existence of laws would ever not hinder a totally free market, except possibly in the bizarre scenario where all people who interacted with the market agreed on a few moral precepts and those moral precepts were outlawed. Then, I suppose, the market would be just as practically free as it was without them (since people weren’t going to behave in that manner anyway).

Oh, no forked tongue. You were quick to state that the free market was a myth. I agreed, and say that all markets are a myth, just like governments. But I wondered what you meant by myth-- just “free” markets? All markets? Whether you would agree that governments are mythical, too?

Oh, i think market forces are real, too. They just come from people or their unconscious decisions which affect the environment (meaning “there is no more oil” or “shoe prices have skyrocketed”— so both in a ‘nature’ sense and a societal one).

Market aren’t value-neutral, they simply don’t exist to serve values. They just are. They are abstractions. We may quantify behavior that can be seen from the influences of thinking inside the construct of the abstraction. We may say something like “the market is currently set up to promote the destruction of the environment” because we see a trend of the environment being damaged. does that mean people who interact in the market value the destruction of the enviroment? I can’t see how.

We would like to exist in a market that serves our values. But this only means, in implementation, that we would like to exist in a world where people served our values. That’s what governments are for. They consciously and deliberately attempt to force people to serve values outlined in the laws of the government.

How does what you outline not affect economic matters if you say those things in response to a comment about greater economic equality?

We don’t need absolute economic equality, I agree. The market is based on how people value stuff. If everyone could obtain the same stuff with the same effort and could also implement that effort we would have economic equality, and the market would serve the collective interests of the people who interacted in it.

You originally stated

Why should the common man have such a powerful say in what how the market forces operate? I wouldn’t hire a person whose only experience and knowledge was in janitorial services to perform a kidney transplant on me. Why would I want that same man to have such a powerful voice in the market, free or not? one becomes a holder of significant economic power by working within the market constructs efficiently. This person has demonstrated they have what it takes to manipulate the market, something you want to do, but obviously can’t. Now, what would be a better method of serving your interests: trying to coax all the citizens of the US to agree with your idea of how a market should operate or the few men who have demonstrated their ability to interact in the market with stunning success?

40

No erislover, she isn’t waxing philosophical or making comparisons. When Mandelstam disputes the existence of a free market she means that the market isn’t free. It is promoted and regulated by our government. Not free.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
[sub]:: and there was much rejoicing ::[/sub]