• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Free Market religion needs to fall on its sword.

JP Hochbaum

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
2,549
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People who rely on the mantra of the "free market" don't realize that they are rooting for something that doesn't exist in a natural human state. Any market ever created has existed by some form of contract or rule or regulation, set in place by some form of democratic action or governing body. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it is an invention, a technology.

Relying on a market to do some magic without the use of our brains or our manipulation is like relaying on a hammer to build a house on its own. Any kind of technology or tool is useless and sometimes harmful if we let it be controlled by the wrong people, why would we think that this is somehow not true for markets?

Just like any tool or invention, it needs to be used properly. Sometimes it needs grease to make it run smoothly, and sometimes it needs to be reinvented to fit current cultural uses. And other times it needs regulations to prevent it from hurting others.

We need to stop looking at the "free market" as an omnipotent god and start seeing it for what it really is: a flawed human concept, that always will need monitoring and reconfiguring.
 
it is controlled by the ruling elite, you can monitor it but you will never reconfigure it.
 
Things work quite the opposite.

Markets generally do arise on their own-or more specifically as a result people coming together to satisfy demands or create new ones.

Then, predictability, the governments says: "Hey look, let's go regulate that market."

I'm for the rule of law. They make markets work better by protecting people from aggression.

But the idea that markets (in general) are simply declared into existence is a backward way of looking at how things actually happen. Of course, the government can declare markets into existence. But those aren't free markets, and usually not successful.
 


No offense, but I think you are over-thinking this.

One, there is no real 'free market'...just a version of it that has been severely watered down.

Two, 'free market' economics - imo - is not a style of economics at all, but simply a moniker for logical, human, economic transactions. It's what people logically would normally do when external forces (like government intervention) are not forcing/disallowing/funnelling them to do economic transactions a certain way.

Free market is not a concept...it's simply a term for economic freedom without government intervention.


'Definition of 'Free Market'

A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.'

Free Market Definition | Investopedia
 
Last edited:

So let me get this straight, when people want decentralized power and free will of the people to contract and negotiate as they please, it's like a religion, but when statists like yourself, who believe paternalism and omnipotent bureacratic guidance is the best way to run the economy and our lives, it isn't like a religion?

I think you've gotten that really backwards. Top down control is the defining factor of modern religion. All you're essentially saying is "You, individual citizen, don't know what's best for you, that's why we have a politician to define what's best for you and make you buy it."

And I think it's cute that after you Keynesian statists have been ****ing with the market hardcore the past 100 years, you use the past 100 years as an example why the free market doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
People didn't understand how evolution works so they believed in the superiority of divine beings. It's the same thing with economics. If you don't understand how economics works then you will believe in the divinity of congress. But government planners can't even supply the optimal amount of milk.

The economy is an equation...

y = f(x)

y = supply = dependent variable = output
x = shopping/demand/preferences = independent variable = input

supply = f(shopping)

If you change the input (shopping) then the output (supply) will change accordingly. For example, if everybody becomes a vegetarian then meat will no longer be supplied.

Imagine if we prevented women from shopping for themselves. If a lady wanted anything then she would have to find a guy to buy it for her. In essence, we'd be filtering the input. As a result, the output would change accordingly. What would happen to the supply?

A. it would increase in value
B. it wouldn't change in value
C. it would decrease in value

If you answer A...then please start a thread where you suggest that we create a law that prevents women from shopping for themselves.

If you answer B...then why didn't it change in value? How much time do you think women currently spend shopping (entering their input into the equation)? If you prevent them from shopping for themselves... then are men going to volunteer their time to shop for women? Even if they do...that time has to be taken from other uses.

If you answer C...then I would be really surprised. Because right now you think it's a good idea to allow 500 congresspeople to shop for millions and millions of people in the public sector.

If preventing women from shopping for themselves destroys value...then how much value is destroyed by preventing everybody but 500 people from shopping for themselves?

Think about it...if we prevented women from shopping...then how many different personal shoppers could they choose to give their money to? Around 150 million. That would be infinitely better than our current system. If we applied our current system to the private sector...women would have to give their money to 500 elected guys. It would be a supremely stupid thing to do.

You think it's a good idea to throw nearly all the data away because you fail to understand economics. You think the output will be just as valuable even if people's preferences and circumstances are removed from the input.

So the reality is that you are the religious one...with your strong and ridiculously blind faith that somehow congress knows your preferences and circumstances like god knows how many hairs are on your head.

You're welcome to believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny and god...but things are really wonderful when you don't force your absurd beliefs on others. If we created a market in the public sector...then your congress would still be there. You'd be free to indulge your faith by giving them all your money...while us nonbelievers would be free to directly input our preferences and circumstances into the equation which determines how society's limited resources are used.
 

LOL...JP Hochbaum believes that government planners are fully omniscient while you believe that they are partially omniscient...


Government planners can supply the optimal amount of courts, police and national defense but they can't supply the optimal amount of public education, public healthcare and welfare. Bottom up systems work for unimportant things like food, education and healthcare...but they fail when it comes things that are actually important. We have to put the really important things in the hands of god. Errr...in the hands of congress.

The fact that you believe in partial omniscience means that it's really really really funny when you criticize JP Hochbaum for having more faith in government planners than you do. It's ridiculous that both of you have any faith in government planners. Obviously both of you are clueless about economics. Two peas in an ignorant pod.

 

Did you just straw man an argument out of your ass? Run along boy and find someone else, I said nothing of the sort.
 
I agree. This liberal capitalism which has arose in the last two centuries is a mammon-centered religion and is just as materialistic as socialism.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Did you just straw man an argument out of your ass? Run along boy and find someone else, I said nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

Look, either you do, or you do not, want to create a market in the public sector. If you don't want to allow people to shop for themselves in the public sector...then it's because you believe that a top down approach works for certain goods.

Why do you believe that a top down approach works for certain goods?

A. It's because you believe in partial omniscience. You believe that government planners can reach inside your head and pull out your preferences for some goods but not other goods.

B. You believe that your preferences are inconsequential when it comes to determining the optimal supply of some goods but not other goods.

Which is it? A or B?
 

Incorrect. What you've done, and I've called you out on this before, is create a new absurd theory, then go around on the internet calling people idiots for not believing it. I'm not really interested in debating with you about it because we're going to run into the same dead end we have every other time we've discussed it. I don't think the government should be involved in the market at all. I do not believe in any political omniscience. All I believe is that the state has a few tasks that we can not accomplish by ourselves, and this is primarily the justice system.

So no, I'm not like you, I don't want people to be able to defund our justice system if they so choose and let us descend into anarchy. If you'd like to continue to hijack this thread with a completely unrelated topic, I urge you to make your own thread instead of poisoning this one.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
All I believe is that the state has a few tasks that we can not accomplish by ourselves, and this is primarily the justice system.
Click to expand...

Your reply contained absolutely no economics. If you're not interested in discussing economics then why are you hanging out in the economics forum?

In case you missed it...

"To allocate resources in the pursuit of chosen ends is an economic matter: a matter of costs and benefits, of investments, risks, and payoffs—above all, a matter of choices and trade-offs." - Alan Walstad, Science as a Market Process

You're welcome to try again. Why do you believe that government planners can supply the optimal amount of courts but they cannot supply the optimal amount of anything else? Can you link me to anything that supports your belief? If you can't substantiate your belief...then clearly it is supported by faith alone.

Personally, I have studied public finance...which is why I know that the visible hand (congress) cannot supply the optimal amount of any good. Do you need me to substantiate my claim?

You can't eliminate people's choices/trade-offs from the equation and expect that the supply will be anything close to optimal. Yet, this is exactly what you expect. Why? Because you have faith! You and JP Hochbaum both have faith. Which is why it's so funny when you attack him for having too much faith. You fail and fail and fail to explain why you have any faith at all in a top down approach.
 

In your dream world, Bob the rapist can defund the criminal justice system to give him an edge in his endeavors. Sorry, I don't think justice is something that should be voted on, and neither do 99.9% of Americans. And as a side note, nothing you've ever written has contained anything about economics, just the rambling of someone who is completely disconnected from reality.
 

I'm disconnected from reality? Are you kidding me?

In your reality, if we applied a bottom up approach to public goods, then courts would maximize their revenue by allowing rapists to go free? Seriously? 99.9% of Americans would give more, rather than less, of their taxes to a court system that failed to provide justice? Let me guess...taxpayers would also give more, rather than less, of their taxes to firemen that allowed their houses to burn down? Taxpayers would give more, rather than less, of their taxes to mail carries that lost packages?

You have this crazy cognitive dissonance. You seem to think there's a demand for justice...yet if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go...you also seem to think that they wouldn't spend any of their taxes on justice.

Make up your mind...is there a demand for justice or not? Do you even know what "demand" is?

RabidAlpaca said:
And as a side note, nothing you've ever written has contained anything about economics, just the rambling of someone who is completely disconnected from reality.
Click to expand...

Is this economics?


If that isn't economics...then please show me what you believe to be economics.
 

So if we have a town called Pleasantville, USA, population 100, and all 100 people voted for things they wanted, like free candy and TV's, instead of putting some of it towards a justice system, it's just "**** them", right? We should just let everyone rape and murder each other. The demand for a justice system is not determined by the wants of the people, but rather the amount of crime. If the people provide less funding than is needed to prosecute the level of criminality, justice will not be served. It has nothing to do with a market.

This isn't a discussion of economics, it's a discussion of morality and ethics. YOU have taken this conversation away from economics and away from the OP. Stop derailing this thread even further.
 

The wants of the people have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of crime? Just like the wants of the people have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of food? LOL! It's really funny and really sad.

Shopping is the process by which consumers communicate their preferences and circumstances to producers. If you care about allowing people to communicate their preferences and circumstances...then you'll support a bottom up approach. If you don't care about allowing people to communicate their preferences and circumstances...then you'll support a top down approach. If you support a half and half approach...then you really don't understand either approach.

RabidAlpaca said:
This isn't a discussion of economics, it's a discussion of morality and ethics. YOU have taken this conversation away from economics and away from the OP. Stop derailing this thread even further.
Click to expand...

You attacked JP Hochbaum for having too much faith in the visible hand. Yet, you also have faith in the visible hand...which you have completely failed to defend.

Again and again and again...show me the economics!!! Here's another example...

 
I don't actually disagree with any of these.
 
I actually want less regulation. For example, I would prefer regulations be rewritten as what you can do, instead of what you can't do.

For example, this is watered down to make it easy, but create a regulation that says banks can only create savings and checking accounts and only create commercial ans personal loans. Makes it simple and easy.

So before you label me as a statist, try actually finding out what my views are first ok?
 

Markets are prone to self-destruction because when things get dicey, emotion takes over. Self interest has the ability to get a lot of people very emotional. Once people calm down and revisit rationality, markets work as they were intended. Subduing panic created by markets is well within the confines of stable governance.
 
You are presenting Rabid Alpaca and I a false dilemma.

Neither one of us are absolutists, so I would give up on trying to debate this silliness.
 
Hi With all due respect, and I do mean that, I see you as very much a statist economically. You are a major proponent of the Fed and government playing master market manipulator in order to meet its desired outcome. My argument is not only that this is out of the scope of government, but that the "desired outcome" is almost always beneficial to corporate interests and not individual Americans.

What you just proposed may be "less" regulation, but it is still dramatically more restrictive to liberty and gives the government even more power.

The core of my point is that we haven't had anything even remotely resembling a free market since about 1913, so it's completely irrational to point to failure in a time where we have more government involvement than we've ever had, then blame that failure on the free market. I also hope that you've reconsidered the alleged parallel between top-down theism and bottom-up decentralization.
 
Well my three major idologically bent beliefs are removing FICA taxes, initiating a JOBS bill (both of which were conservative policy choices at one point in the 20th century), and raising the min wage (which has happened under most conservative presidencies as well.

So we need to get past the labeling part, I am nowhere near as statist as one thinks.

Try to also get away from the rhetoric of "restricting liberty". I am not advocating anything of that sort. I don't intend to eliminate trade, only to make sure this human invention doesn't end up hurting us.
 

But you are advocating an extreme restriction of liberty. You literally just said:


In this situation, the government is decreeing what may be done, and everything else may not be done. This would be like having a justice system where things aren't prohibited, but rather citizens are given a list of things they are allowed to do, and everything not on the list is illegal.

Having someone tell you exactly what you can do and you can do nothing else is about as totalitarian and paternalistic as it comes. I would rather see a simplification of regulations. The job of the government is supposed to be impartial arbiter of the market, insuring contracts are honored and people aren't being conned.
 

Not at all. For example, if a bank wants to perform other actions besides being a bank, then they would have to open a business doing just that. It doesn't limit them from doing anything.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Not at all. For example, if a bank wants to perform other actions besides being a bank, then they would have to open a business doing just that. It doesn't limit them from doing anything.
Click to expand...

So your grand plan for simplification of economic regulations applies only to banks and no other institutions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…