If there has never been a free market then how is it possible that they could have failed?
Where did I say that free markets have failed?
By your own logic we cannot know if free markets are good because there has never been one.
And I am correct in that assumption. That we call what we have today a "free market" does not mean its fits the correct definition of a free market. Lets leave it at that. We are basicly agreeing on things.
The overwhelming majority of economists believe markets are efficient at arranging economic activity. I am not saying the market is perfect. Markets are rather reactive. We would not have such a wide variety of choices in everything from food to cars if the market did not react to the demands of consumers. Show me some cumalitve analysis that shows markets to be slower than government.
Some markets are slower to react than others and you might deny it, but its a fact. If it was not for goverment forced regulation, then cars would still pollute like they did in the 1930s. There was no incentive to make them cleaner. Thats just one of the many examples where goverment oversight or regulation has forced companies to do something that the free market did not, especially on health and safety issues... they are after all "expensive".
Firstly, more and more manufacturers are making fuel efficient cars and more "green" cars. So you're wrong there.
Of course there are! There has been fuel efficient cars since the late 1970s because among others, European goverments forced regulation on the issue. That there are more car manufactures making "green cars" is more to do with high fuel costs (which are high because of political issues and speculative issues and in part regulation issues), and changes in tax paterns on cars in Europe.
Secondly, they did not originally focus on this because gas was very cheap. However, as gas prices have gone up more and more of cars are being marketed as fuel efficient. The market is correcting itself.
Bullshit. US cars have not had a big change in fuel effiecency since the early 1980s.. there was no incentive, market wise or goverment wise.
The simple reason being that business owners want to make a profit and if they do not adapt to circumstances they will loose business.
That requires they play fair and the bigger the corportation, the more market power and well. It also depends heavily on entry costs, and numbers of companies in the market.
Here is the problem. You keep saying politically possible but that does not mean it is the most efficient or even beneficial program. Subsidies and price controls and ceilings are on the whole bad for economic welfare. Why should taxpayers pay because a business cannot compete. Why not let them not pay taxes for that and purchase from the cheapest producer. "Everybody wants fair competition for everybody else, but not for themselves" (Milton Friedman). It may benefit farmers, it does not benefit the whole.
Yes on paper and in text books, but we live in reality. Goverments could not and can not "outsource" food production to other nations.. its political sucide on the short, medium and long term, not to mention bad goveranance to depend on other countries for your food. Economic sense has to taken in context with political realities. Thats why the whole idea of a free world market is a bit of wishfull thinking as long as we cant as a planet get along with each other nore accept each others differences.
You are still missing the point. As they opened up to the free market, they have seen more growth. Hong Kong proves this. (Granted there are certain things needed for capitalism to fully suceed.)
And you dont get it.. Hong Kong has ALWAYS been a free market..hell its been more free than the US for peak sake over the last 50 to 100 years! Your statedepartment link only shows the realities of the last 10 years and Hong Kong has been an economic powerhouse far far far longer than that. Hong Kong was an asian tiger economy long before that term became popular.
No it doesn't. Everyone has to pay for that 3rd party to do it. If everyone is hiring a 3rd party then everyone is payinig for that service.
And that price is lower than if you did it yourself.. economics of scale. And I would say the economics of scale is better on centralised payroll stuff than on a very large decentralised changing of cash registers and vending machines. Alone the time it takes to do this.
Yes, the price is placed without the addition of taxes.
That shocks me.. its basicly lieing to the consumer. So a commerical from Wallmart can say "sale buy 10 gallons of cola for 20 bucks" but when he stands at the cash register its actually 50 bucks due to taxes and hidden charges?
I am not saying they "suck," just to clarify. What evidence supports them outperforming the U.S. in certain areas?
Well Denmark for one has the same GDP growth as the US in 2006. Several countries have higher or similar GDP per capita. Some countries have lower unemployement % than the US, lower inflation and so on. But it all depends on what we measuring and how we measure it and that we can discuss in another thread if you want.
I am saying the government should not deal with those who do not save up. I am saying that charities can deal with it where people freely give money. I do not believe they should be forced to do it.
So you are saying screw the poor or the dumb who did not save up. Does not matter if they die on the streets from lack of food, housing or healthcare.. it aint my problem and we should do nothing to help them.
That could be cultural differences. And the U.S. could learn a bit on saving in that sense. But doesn't this also prove that these consumption taxes, like the VAT, are having some effect?
Learn a bit is an understatement
And I dont think it proves much as its a mentality difference between Americans and Europeans on such things. Europeans are not per say a "credit card" nation living of debt (and thats not saying we dont like our credit cards) like Americans seem to be.
What. The boom didn't happen as the result of "socialist ideas." In fact, most economies that have transitioned from socialism or communism have done better on the whole. The reason the U.S. economy boomed after WWII are many, but not because people had to pay more in taxes.
We can discuss history in another thread if you like, too much to discuss on that subject alone.
No our belief in individualism comes from our belief in personal freedom. In every example of history, concentrated power has prohibited freedom. Putting too much money into the hands of the government constitutes such a concentration of power. I differ in that I believe people should people able to choose what to do with their life. It that is to be a consistent drug user, then so be it. If that is to be a rich tycoon, then go right ahead. The point is people should have the freedom to choose their own path. That is where I differ with your view. I do not think the government should be our nannies and is even efficient at doing so, I believe we should make our own choices, not the government.
And I agree with you up to a point and for the record Europeans believe in personal freedoms too, just as much as Americans.
People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, however up to a point. When peoples doings threatens the stability of the country and the well being of others, then its the duty of others (and I would say goverment) to step in to prevent said person in doing things that harms himself, others and ultimately society. To make your idea work, then only those who could pay for medical treatment should recieve, and hence drug users can not and are left to die. That goes for old people, or people who hurt themselvs at work but cant afford hospital treatment. Let them die.. else your idea can not work. If humanity sets in and we allow hospitals to treat those who cant pay, then who shall pay for them? Charities? give me a break.. cant have 40% of the US population living off charity now can we?
lol. I don't know if that last bit on Church was suggesting Americans are relgious crazies but I imagine you're not implying that. hahahhaha. Ohh just and fair europe.
Nope just stating a fact that the Church in Europe kept the majority of the population dumb and down with the help of the landowners and rich, and that went on for centuries. We simply dont trust the church to run our lives anymore... in that way we have moved on further than Americans who seem to be moving back in time.. at least some of them... heard that some wackos in Virginia want to stop people from divorcing now.. sigh.
Who has horrible problems with racism. Just and fair europe where there is a good bit of xenophobia.
I dunno, who? Might I remind you of the old saying.. dont throw stones when living in a glass house?
We all know that neither country or country is perfect, europe and the U.S. both have problems. If we want to talk about poor then who has the higer unemployment rates?
European Unemployment - Introduction.
Really depends on what country we talking about. For example the Danish unemployment is lower than the US as does quite a few european countries. It also depends on how you messure it. Take GDP growth for example .. it does not take into account different population growths between the countries.. which can change the picture quite dramaticly.
If we want to talk about countries as a whole, The U.S. citizen makes more per capita than nearly every country in europe. Luxembourg is the exception where a stamp pays for all government fees. It seems that in that instance a small government was beneficial. The point being, despite europe's supposed compasion, the average American is better off than the average european. Does that mean europe is bad, no. Europe has a strong culture and is very influential. But if we are talking economics the two just do not stack up.
Again depends on what we are messuring and how we do it. Plus it varies "wildly" from year to year often.
For example (requires PDF)
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf
US aint top there is it now?
But for the sake of argument what do you messure it in.. GNI per capita, or GDP per capita? Do you take inflation into consideration, or population growth? Size of goverment? Political colour of the goverment and so on?
But the problem is you are paying for everyone who may or may not save. You are being forced to pay. What i am proposing is that people be able to choose whether or not they donate the money.
I know, and I am saying that this will lead to millions of poor uninsured old people and that is frankly a big step back in time to the bad old days before SS.