Who needs regulations says the GOP?

[The AntiDonald]

You really put a lot of effort into creating this thread. It's a lot to take in. I'll have to get back to you when I've had a chance to delve deeper into all of the information you've presented here.

picture is worth a thousand words. One just has to look.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Got an example?

Russel Vought (New OMB director) just shut down the CFPB. An agency that has protected banking consumers since the beginning of Obama's term. It has recovered billions for consumers who were shafted by their financial intuitions.

Why exactly would Trump want this agency shut down? Think about it !

 

[tonyeveland]

Russel Vought (New OMB director) just shut down the CFPB. An agency that has protected banking consumers since the beginning of Obama's term. It has recovered billions for consumers who were shafted by their financial intuitions.

Why exactly would Trump want this agency shut down? Think about it !

Because it's corrupt.

Why aren't you glad we're reducing corruption and wasted money?

Accurate Research

 

[Volunteer]

Because it's corrupt.

Why aren't you glad we're reducing corruption and wasted money?

Managers of some of my investments are avoiding my requests to withdraw funds. I cannot afford an attorney to fight big banks for my money and those institutions have whole teams of lawyers to fight for their them. Now, without consumer protection, they know I have little recourse to get my money.

Elizabeth Warren is correct. The real corruption is billionaires gaming the system to benefit themselves.

 

[HenryChinaski]

How about this century?

Republicans are working to repeal Bidens overdraft limit regulations

GOP Takes First Step Toward Repealing CFPB $5 Overdraft Fee Cap

Republican lawmakers are moving to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s $5 cap on bank overdraft fees, adopted in the final months of the Biden administration as part of its campaign against “junk fees.”

news.bloomberglaw.com

Republicans are working to overturn Biden's regulation on lead pipes and improving infrastructure

Republicans move to repeal lead limits imposed by Biden-era rules

US government would be prohibited from ever mandating lead pipe replacement or lowering lead limits in water

www.theguardian.com

GOP voted to overturn Biden's clean water regulations.

House GOP votes to overturn Biden administration water protections

The House has voted 227-198 to overturn the Biden administration's protections for thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways, advancing long-held Republican arguments that the regulations are an environmental overreach and burden to business.

www.pbs.org

Because **** helping lower income people lead pipes. And dirty water are cool. (drink at your own risk)
All that matters is that GOP pay back industry lobbyists by killing regulations that protect and serve all Americans. Because otherwise those pesky regulations cut into their profit margins.

 

[Liberty One]

Republicans are working to repeal Bidens overdraft limit regulations

GOP Takes First Step Toward Repealing CFPB $5 Overdraft Fee Cap

Republican lawmakers are moving to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s $5 cap on bank overdraft fees, adopted in the final months of the Biden administration as part of its campaign against “junk fees.”

news.bloomberglaw.com

Republicans are working to overturn Biden's regulation on lead pipes and improving infrastructure

Republicans move to repeal lead limits imposed by Biden-era rules

US government would be prohibited from ever mandating lead pipe replacement or lowering lead limits in water

www.theguardian.com

GOP voted to overturn Biden's clean water regulations.

House GOP votes to overturn Biden administration water protections

The House has voted 227-198 to overturn the Biden administration's protections for thousands of small streams, wetlands and other waterways, advancing long-held Republican arguments that the regulations are an environmental overreach and burden to business.

www.pbs.org

Because **** helping lower income people lead pipes. And dirty water are cool. (drink at your own risk)
All that matters is that GOP pay back industry lobbyists by killing regulations that protect and serve all Americans. Because otherwise those pesky regulations cut into their profit margins.

Ah, the old “without government, the poor will be drinking lead” argument—nothing but fearmongering dressed up as economic illiteracy. The assumption here is that only benevolent bureaucrats can provide clean water, while private enterprise, left unchecked, would poison its own customers. This is nonsense.

Let’s take a history lesson. Who was responsible for some of the worst lead pipe disasters? Government. It was government water systems that installed lead pipes for decades. It was the EPA that failed to act in Flint, Michigan, where a government-run water system poisoned its own residents. And it’s government monopolies that ensure customers have no alternative when the system fails.

In a free market, businesses have every incentive to provide clean water—because if they don’t, they lose customers, get sued, or go out of business. Private water suppliers, independent testing agencies, and consumer watchdog groups would be far more effective than a slow, bloated bureaucracy that protects itself first and the people last. And let’s not forget: government regulations don’t eliminate corruption; they just centralize it and make it harder to hold anyone accountable.

If you want clean water, the last thing you should trust is a coercive monopoly that faces no competition and no real consequences for failure. The free market isn’t the cause of these problems—it’s the only real solution.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Ah, the old “without government, the poor will be drinking lead” argument—nothing but fearmongering dressed up as economic illiteracy. The assumption here is that only benevolent bureaucrats can provide clean water, while private enterprise, left unchecked, would poison its own customers. This is nonsense.

Let’s take a history lesson. Who was responsible for some of the worst lead pipe disasters? Government. It was government water systems that installed lead pipes for decades. It was the EPA that failed to act in Flint, Michigan, where a government-run water system poisoned its own residents. And it’s government monopolies that ensure customers have no alternative when the system fails.

In a free market, businesses have every incentive to provide clean water—because if they don’t, they lose customers, get sued, or go out of business. Private water suppliers, independent testing agencies, and consumer watchdog groups would be far more effective than a slow, bloated bureaucracy that protects itself first and the people last. And let’s not forget: government regulations don’t eliminate corruption; they just centralize it and make it harder to hold anyone accountable.

If you want clean water, the last thing you should trust is a coercive monopoly that faces no competition and no real consequences for failure. The free market isn’t the cause of these problems—it’s the only real solution.

I’ve a friend who is an environmental lawyer who is an expert in clean water reclamation and preservation, He forces polluters to comply with the law. I’m going to let him respond to your fantasy. Personally I remember life before the EPA. I remember when the Chicago river was in fire and factories were allowed to dump toxins in the river with impunity. Free Market my ass.

 

[Liberty One]

I’ve a friend who is an environmental lawyer who is an expert in clean water reclamation and preservation, He forces polluters to comply with the law. I’m going to let him respond to your fantasy. Personally I remember life before the EPA. I remember when the Chicago river was in fire and factories were allowed to dump toxins in the river with impunity. Free Market my ass.
View attachment 67557994View attachment 67557995

It’s easy to blame businesses for environmental disasters like the Chicago River fire, but this misses the crucial point: government policies, not the free market, allowed this to happen in the first place. Before the EPA, businesses were operating in a heavily regulated environment where pollution was often overlooked or even encouraged by local governments. The government actually subsidized pollution in many cases—think of the widespread practice of allowing companies to dump waste into rivers because there were no meaningful property rights or accountability for pollution. In fact, many of these companies had the legal backing to discharge toxins without any fear of legal consequences.

Let’s consider the role of government-granted monopolies. In the case of the Chicago River, the local and state governments were more interested in protecting the interests of powerful businesses than in safeguarding the environment or public health. Local authorities often gave carte blanche to factories and industries, allowing them to use public waterways as dumping grounds. These companies had no incentive to clean up their act because they were shielded from competition and faced little threat of being held accountable by government regulators.

In a true free market, this would never happen. Businesses would face competition from others that would provide cleaner alternatives or innovate to minimize waste and pollution. If a company polluted its environment, its reputation would suffer, and consumers would move their business elsewhere. Moreover, private property rights would allow individuals and groups to protect their own land, rivers, and ecosystems, suing companies for damages if they polluted.

The Chicago River fire was the result of government-enforced environmental degradation—not the free market. The real issue was that the government was either too corrupt or too incompetent to enforce property rights and environmental protections. The solution wasn’t more government intervention through the EPA—it was removing the government from the equation and allowing competition, innovation, and individual rights to do what they always do best: solve problems.

 

[dockside]

Ah, the old “without government, the poor will be drinking lead” argument—nothing but fearmongering dressed up as economic illiteracy. The assumption here is that only benevolent bureaucrats can provide clean water, while private enterprise, left unchecked, would poison its own customers. This is nonsense.

Let’s take a history lesson. Who was responsible for some of the worst lead pipe disasters? Government. It was government water systems that installed lead pipes for decades. It was the EPA that failed to act in Flint, Michigan, where a government-run water system poisoned its own residents. And it’s government monopolies that ensure customers have no alternative when the system fails.

In a free market, businesses have every incentive to provide clean water—because if they don’t, they lose customers, get sued, or go out of business. Private water suppliers, independent testing agencies, and consumer watchdog groups would be far more effective than a slow, bloated bureaucracy that protects itself first and the people last. And let’s not forget: government regulations don’t eliminate corruption; they just centralize it and make it harder to hold anyone accountable.

If you want clean water, the last thing you should trust is a coercive monopoly that faces no competition and no real consequences for failure. The free market isn’t the cause of these problems—it’s the only real solution.

That's total BS. My spouse and I, after selling our house in the late1980's (when lead in pipes was known to poison and affect brain development/functioning) rented an apartment in a brand new building (we were some of the first tenants to live there). We had our water tested and it was over 20 parts per million instead of the recommended high of 3 parts. We notified management who then gave some kind of half-ass notice to the other tenants (didn't tell them it had too high a lead content). Needless to say, we only used tap water for bathing and washing dishes and clothes. Had to "import" our drinking water. Moved out at the end of our lease. Yeah, free market works so well, as long as no one finds out that you'd rather make a lot of money than care about the health of your customers.

 

[Liberty One]

That's total BS. My spouse and I, after selling our house in the late1980's (when lead in pipes was known to poison and affect brain development/functioning) rented an apartment in a brand new building (we were some of the first tenants to live there). We had our water tested and it was over 20 parts per million instead of the recommended high of 3 parts. We notified management who then gave some kind of half-ass notice to the other tenants (didn't tell them it had too high a lead content). Needless to say, we only used tap water for bathing and washing dishes and clothes. Had to "import" our drinking water. Moved out at the end of our lease. Yeah, free market works so well, as long as no one finds out that you'd rather make a lot of money than care about the health of your customers.

Your story, even if taken at face value, does not refute the merits of the free market. But let’s first address the obvious question: how do we verify your claim? You assert that a brand-new building in the late 1980s, when knowledge about lead poisoning was already widespread, had dangerously high levels of lead in its water. Yet, instead of legal action, reputational damage, or market-driven accountability, the only consequence was you personally choosing to leave at the end of your lease? That is, at best, an anecdote lacking broader relevance and, at worst, a complete fabrication designed to misrepresent the incentives at play.

More fundamentally, your conclusion is entirely backward. The free market functions precisely by rewarding those who provide better, safer services and punishing those who do not. Had this issue been widely known—whether through independent water testing, consumer advocacy, or private certification agencies—the property owner would have faced severe consequences: lawsuits, loss of tenants, and financial ruin. The real problem arises when the state intervenes to shield businesses from liability, distort risk through regulation, or monopolize services that should be handled through voluntary exchange and competition. You blame the market when, in reality, it is state interference that enables fraud and negligence to persist.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You really put a lot of effort into creating this thread. It's a lot to take in. I'll have to get back to you when I've had a chance to delve deeper into all of the information you've presented here.

While I agree, I’d argue it doesn’t take much work to make the case. Trump’s plans including deregulation, cuts that will hurt working and middle class people, shifting of further wealth to the top 10th of the first percentile and other corporatist/oligarchical policy was obvious well before his election. It was spelled out in the P2025 playbook he denied association with and then started running verbatim minutes after being sworn in.

I said as much here. Not because I know anything special or had any insight not readily available to anyone who cared to collect, parse and deduce the obvious from the available data.

We are where we are and are heading where we are heading because a majority of us FAILED TO BE DISCERNING. We elected a failed businessman, make believe scripted reality TV magnate, professional con man with a long, long, well documented recorded history of grifting, swindling, lying, cheating and betrayal; a man of vastly bad character and horrendous ethics, to be our Leader. TWICE.

Shame on us for being so foolish.

 

[Liberty One]

While I agree, I’d argue it doesn’t take much work to make the case. Trump’s plans including deregulation, cuts that will hurt working and middle class people, shifting of further wealth to the top 10th of the first percentile and other corporatist/oligarchical policy was obvious well before his election. It was spelled out in the P2025 playbook he denied association with and then started running verbatim minutes after being sworn in.

I said as much here. Not because I know anything special or had any insight not readily available to anyone who cared to collect, parse and deduce the obvious from the available data.

We are where we are and are heading where we are heading because a majority of us FAILED TO BE DISCERNING. We elected a failed businessman, make believe scripted reality TV magnate, professional con man with a long, long, well documented recorded history of grifting, swindling, lying, cheating and betrayal; a man of vastly bad character

This is the standard leftist narrative—long on emotion, short on facts. You claim Trump’s policies were designed to “hurt” the working and middle class while enriching the elite, yet under Trump, we saw record-low unemployment, rising wages (especially for minorities and the working class), and a booming economy. Deregulation and tax cuts don’t “hurt” ordinary Americans—they free businesses to grow, hire, and invest.

As for your claim that Trump is a “failed businessman” and a “professional con man,” this is just partisan rhetoric. A “failed” businessman doesn’t build a multibillion-dollar empire or employ thousands of people. A “professional con man” doesn’t endure relentless attacks from the establishment yet continue to attract millions of voters who see their lives improve under his policies.

The real failure of discernment here is among those who blindly accepted the media’s fearmongering and ignored the actual results of Trump’s presidency. Twice, the American people chose a leader who prioritized economic growth, national security, and American interests—because the alternative was the very oligarchical corruption you claim to oppose.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

This is the standard leftist narrative—long on emotion, short on facts. You claim Trump’s policies were designed to “hurt” the working and middle class while enriching the elite, yet under Trump, we saw record-low unemployment, rising wages (especially for minorities and the working class), and a booming economy. Deregulation and tax cuts don’t “hurt” ordinary Americans—they free businesses to grow, hire, and invest.

As for your claim that Trump is a “failed businessman” and a “professional con man,” this is just partisan rhetoric. A “failed” businessman doesn’t build a multibillion-dollar empire or employ thousands of people. A “professional con man” doesn’t endure relentless attacks from the establishment yet continue to attract millions of voters who see their lives improve under his policies.

The real failure of discernment here is among those who blindly accepted the media’s fearmongering and ignored the actual results of Trump’s presidency. Twice, the American people chose a leader who prioritized economic growth, national security, and American interests—because the alternative was the very oligarchical corruption you claim to oppose.

First, I’m an actual pay as we go, you can’t spend more than you take in, fiscal Conservative. Not a corporate welfare, corporatist, calling themselves a conservative.

Secondly, that’s nonsense. Real working class wages saw a bump under the Obama era rise in federal and many states minimum wage increase. However, adjusted for inflation, working folks wages are still flat lined and their percentage of the nation income has decreased.

Again, nonsense, of course it does .

Tax cuts that diminish revenue decrease gov’t ability to maintain and expand the things that benefit working folk and small business. The have less impact on the wealthy and big business whose resources allow them to work independently and around public facilitating.

Regulation can level playing fields. Force big business to compete fairly with entrepreneurs. Force innovation.

I don’t react to fear mongering. I collect my own data, parse it, collaborate and collate it, subject it to deductive reasoning to determine fact from fiction, and critical thinking to use facts deduced to reach logical conclusions.

 

[Liberty One]

First, I’m an actual pay as we go, you can’t spend more than you take in, fiscal Conservative. Not a corporate welfare, corporatist, calling themselves a conservative.

Secondly, that’s nonsense. Real working class wages saw a bump under the Obama era rise in federal and many states minimum wage increase. However, adjusted for inflation, working folks wages are still flat lined and their percentage of the nation income has decreased.

Again, nonsense, of course it does .

Tax cuts that diminish revenue decrease gov’t ability to maintain and expand the things that benefit working folk and small business. The have less impact on the wealthy and big business whose resources allow them to work independently and around public facilitating.

Regulation can level playing fields. Force big business to compete fairly with entrepreneurs. Force innovation.

I don’t react to fear mongering. I collect my own data, parse it, collaborate and collate it, subject it to deductive reasoning to determine fact from fiction, and critical thinking to use facts deduced to reach logical conclusions.

Oh please. The idea that government-mandated wage hikes create prosperity is pure fantasy. When you artificially raise wages, businesses don’t magically find more money under their couch cushions—they cut jobs, raise prices, or automate. So congratulations, you “helped” the working class by making everything more expensive and putting some of them out of work. Brilliant.

And tax cuts “diminish revenue”? As if the government spending less of our money is a tragedy? Here’s a thought: maybe the people who earned that money know how to use it better than a bunch of bureaucrats doling out pork to their cronies. You talk about “leveling the playing field,” but regulation is the biggest gift to big business there is. The corporate giants love it because they can afford the compliance costs while their smaller competitors get crushed. That’s not competition—it’s protectionism.

You claim to think critically, but all I see is the same tired, top-down economic nonsense that’s been wrecking prosperity for decades. If you actually want rising wages and a fair market, here’s the real solution: get the government the hell out of the way.

 

[HenryChinaski]

It’s easy to blame businesses for environmental disasters like the Chicago River fire, but this misses the crucial point: government policies, not the free market, allowed this to happen in the first place. Before the EPA, businesses were operating in a heavily regulated environment where pollution was often overlooked or even encouraged by local governments. The government actually subsidized pollution in many cases—think of the widespread practice of allowing companies to dump waste into rivers because there were no meaningful property rights or accountability for pollution. In fact, many of these companies had the legal backing to discharge toxins without any fear of legal consequences.

Let’s consider the role of government-granted monopolies. In the case of the Chicago River, the local and state governments were more interested in protecting the interests of powerful businesses than in safeguarding the environment or public health. Local authorities often gave carte blanche to factories and industries, allowing them to use public waterways as dumping grounds. These companies had no incentive to clean up their act because they were shielded from competition and faced little threat of being held accountable by government regulators.

In a true free market, this would never happen. Businesses would face competition from others that would provide cleaner alternatives or innovate to minimize waste and pollution. If a company polluted its environment, its reputation would suffer, and consumers would move their business elsewhere. Moreover, private property rights would allow individuals and groups to protect their own land, rivers, and ecosystems, suing companies for damages if they polluted.

The Chicago River fire was the result of government-enforced environmental degradation—not the free market. The real issue was that the government was either too corrupt or too incompetent to enforce property rights and environmental protections. The solution wasn’t more government intervention through the EPA—it was removing the government from the equation and allowing competition, innovation, and individual rights to do what they always do best: solve problems.

This is a light response from environmental water reclamation attorney

He is focused on private ownership of drinking water and points to some historical problems. The problem is that water would not be provided to poor people in many cases at all without government. It is not a black and white thing. Some services are best provided by government and others best left to the free market. Originally, there were no fire departments and police services were handled by hiring knights to protect you. Also, the free market requires a large amount of government to operate.

 

[Liberty One]

This is a light response from environmental water reclamation attorney

First of all, this idea that the government is the only thing ensuring access to basic services like water is fundamentally flawed. The fact is that government involvement often distorts markets and creates inefficiencies. Look at the case of municipal water systems—many of them are bloated, inefficient, and plagued by corruption. If you look at history, private companies used to provide water services efficiently, with competition keeping costs down. It’s not a black-and-white issue, but the government has a terrible track record of solving problems that it creates in the first place.

Moreover, your point about fire departments and police services is historically inaccurate. Early fire protection and law enforcement were provided by private, competitive entities, not the government. The myth that we need government for everything is a result of the long-standing narrative that government action is somehow a prerequisite for a functional society. In reality, the free market has demonstrated time and again that it can provide services more effectively and efficiently than the government.

Lastly, suggesting that the free market “requires” a large amount of government is completely backward. A true free market thrives with minimal interference. The key is ensuring that the rule of law is upheld and that the government doesn’t impose its arbitrary control over the market. It’s not about government “helping” the free market—it’s about getting out of the way and letting innovation flourish.

 

[HenryChinaski]

First of all, this idea that the government is the only thing ensuring access to basic services like water is fundamentally flawed. The fact is that government involvement often distorts markets and creates inefficiencies. Look at the case of municipal water systems—many of them are bloated, inefficient, and plagued by corruption. If you look at history, private companies used to provide water services efficiently, with competition keeping costs down. It’s not a black-and-white issue, but the government has a terrible track record of solving problems that it creates in the first place.

Moreover, your point about fire departments and police services is historically inaccurate. Early fire protection and law enforcement were provided by private, competitive entities, not the government. The myth that we need government for everything is a result of the long-standing narrative that government action is somehow a prerequisite for a functional society. In reality, the free market has demonstrated time and again that it can provide services more effectively and efficiently than the government.

Lastly, suggesting that the free market “requires” a large amount of government is completely backward. A true free market thrives with minimal interference. The key is ensuring that the rule of law is upheld and that the government doesn’t impose its arbitrary control over the market. It’s not about government “helping” the free market—it’s about getting out of the way and letting innovation flourish.

My lawyers, friends response, not mine..
Who maintains the rule of law? An invisible hand? Santa Claus?
Water pollution control and provision of water are areas in which we need some sort of government control.

 

[Liberty One]

My lawyers, friends response, not mine..
Who maintains the rule of law? An invisible hand? Santa Claus?
Water pollution control and provision of water are areas in which we need some sort of government control.

It’s important to recognize that just because something requires regulation doesn’t mean it must be managed by the government. The notion that only government can maintain the rule of law or handle things like water pollution and provision of water is a misunderstanding of how systems can operate effectively in a free market.

In fact, we’ve seen examples throughout history where private property rights and voluntary cooperation have done a better job than government intervention. For example, private water companies—through market competition—often find innovative ways to reduce pollution and provide cleaner water because they have incentives to do so efficiently and sustainably.

A central issue with government control is that it often lacks the incentive structures to encourage innovation and efficiency. Governments can be slow to respond and inefficient because they’re not directly accountable to consumers in the same way private companies are. When businesses pollute or fail to provide quality services, they lose customers. In the government, however, inefficiency often persists because they’re not constrained by market forces.

The idea that the “invisible hand” or “Santa Claus” will just solve these problems is a strawman. It’s about creating systems where property rights and accountability incentivize the right behavior. We need regulations, yes, but those regulations should be carefully designed to harness market forces and private incentives, not depend on centralized control, which often results in mismanagement and overreach.

The truth is, more market-driven solutions, along with the proper legal framework to enforce property rights and address pollution, would likely lead to better outcomes than relying on government bureaucracies.

 

[HenryChinaski]

It’s important to recognize that just because something requires regulation doesn’t mean it must be managed by the government. The notion that only government can maintain the rule of law or handle things like water pollution and provision of water is a misunderstanding of how systems can operate effectively in a free market.

In fact, we’ve seen examples throughout history where private property rights and voluntary cooperation have done a better job than government intervention. For example, private water companies—through market competition—often find innovative ways to reduce pollution and provide cleaner water because they have incentives to do so efficiently and sustainably.

A central issue with government control is that it often lacks the incentive structures to encourage innovation and efficiency. Governments can be slow to respond and inefficient because they’re not directly accountable to consumers in the same way private companies are. When businesses pollute or fail to provide quality services, they lose customers. In the government, however, inefficiency often persists because they’re not constrained by market forces.

The idea that the “invisible hand” or “Santa Claus” will just solve these problems is a strawman. It’s about creating systems where property rights and accountability incentivize the right behavior. We need regulations, yes, but those regulations should be carefully designed to harness market forces and private incentives, not depend on centralized control, which often results in mismanagement and overreach.

The truth is, more market-driven solutions, along with the proper legal framework to enforce property rights and address pollution, would likely lead to better outcomes than relying on government bureaucracies.

He’s in the middle, he sees the need for ‘government regulation’ for societies benefit and the free market depending on industry and needs.
I guess you would call that moderation.
The government is compromised of people making decisions, You can’t escape that.

Put down the Ayn Rand is all I have to add.

 

[Liberty One]

He’s in the middle, he sees the need for ‘government regulation’ for societies benefit and the free market depending on industry and needs.
I guess you would call that moderation.
The government is compromised of people making decisions, You can’t escape that.

Put down the Ayn Rand is all I have to add.

I study economics, not fiction. Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Hans Hermann Hoppe to name a few. I understand that absolute free market capitalism is scary to most people, but that’s only because they have been propagandized by government education.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I study economics, not fiction. Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Hans Hermann Hoppe to name a few. I understand that absolute free market capitalism is scary to most people, but that’s only because they have been propagandized by government education.

Ever played a game of Monopoly. What happens? Despite everyone starting out even, taking turns, and getting paid the same, the wealth concentrates automatically. And with concentration and inequality there is both corruption and antagonism. The “marketplace” is a mathematical failure. We need wage and price controls that are more dynamic than in Monopoly, but most people only follow the money rather than the math. The math doesn’t work, and it is in the math that we can find a solution.
And without antitrust laws, large companies easily dominate industries, eliminating competition and allowing them to charge exorbitant prices to consumers with limited options. Also a “free market” doesn’t account for negative externalities like pollution, where a company's actions harm the environment without bearing the full cost, leading to environmental damage.

 

[Liberty One]

Ever played a game of Monopoly. What happens? Despite everyone starting out even, taking turns, and getting paid the same, the wealth concentrates automatically. And with concentration and inequality there is both corruption and antagonism. The “marketplace” is a mathematical failure. We need wage and price controls that are more dynamic than in Monopoly, but most people only follow the money rather than the math. The math doesn’t work, and it is in the math that we can find a solution.
And without antitrust laws, large companies easily dominate industries, eliminating competition and allowing them to charge exorbitant prices to consumers with limited options. Also a “free market” doesn’t account for negative externalities like pollution, where a company's actions harm the environment without bearing the full cost, leading to environmental damage.

Monopoly, as a game, does not accurately reflect the dynamics of a voluntary, decentralized market. In a free market, wealth concentration doesn’t occur due to “market failure,” but rather because individuals are free to make choices based on their preferences and actions. This leads to the natural outcome of some individuals being more successful than others based on talent, innovation, or entrepreneurial risk-taking.

First, the assumption that wealth concentration leads to corruption and antagonism overlooks the reality that, in a voluntary system, those who succeed must offer value in exchange for wealth. The “math” of the free market, in fact, is a reflection of human action and individual choices. People choose what to buy, what to sell, and with whom to trade—this is a decentralized process that cannot be manipulated by a central authority.

On the issue of antitrust laws, the argument for government intervention in the marketplace assumes that companies are inherently anti-competitive in a free market, but this is simply not the case. In fact, competition is one of the most powerful drivers of innovation and consumer benefit. Without government interference, market forces would ensure that any company seeking to dominate an industry would face the threat of competition from new, innovative businesses. The idea that large companies can simply eliminate competition ignores the fact that they are constantly under pressure to innovate and improve to maintain their market position.

Lastly, the issue of negative externalities like pollution is a misunderstanding of property rights. In a truly free market, property rights would be clearly defined, and companies would be held accountable for harming others’ property—whether it be land, air, or water. Pollution becomes a problem precisely because property rights are not fully protected in many cases. If individuals and businesses had clear legal recourse to protect their property, the problem of environmental harm would be much less severe.

In conclusion, the free market, far from being a failure, is the best system for ensuring wealth creation, competition, and the protection of the environment through properly defined property rights. Centralized intervention, whether through wage controls, price controls, or antitrust laws, distorts the natural processes of human action and leads to unintended consequences that harm individuals and society.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Oh please. The idea that government-mandated wage hikes create prosperity is pure fantasy.

Who said they created prosperity? I said they were responsible for a small bump that barely registered in the metrics and that working and bottom lower class wage growth is still flatlined when adjusted for inflation.

Fact: I am literally middle-middle class and in in the 8th percentile economically in this nation. Middle-middle class, and 92% of this nation makes less than I do.

When you artificially raise wages, businesses don’t magically find more money under their couch cushions—they cut jobs, raise prices, or automate. So congratulations, you “helped” the working class by making everything more expensive and putting some of them out of work. Brilliant.

Who stated differently?

What’s also true is the pie, while fixed in any given moment, over time has grown considerably. None of that growth has been shared with the producers of it. It’s all gone to upper most management and investors. So much so that the income gap isn’t a gap anymore, it’s a chasm.

That’s not new. It’s old world and it leads, eventually, to the old world response; pitchforks and torches. Where those whose healthy ambition has morphed into greed get reminded it’s not who has the guns, it’s who has the numbers.

Why is it that folks never learn. It’s like we never had an industrial revolution, robber barons, a Gilded Age, a Great Depression and WW2.

We good understand we’re repeating ourselves and avoid a generatiin’s worth of economic misery, but no we have to do it all again.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Monopoly, as a game, does not accurately reflect the dynamics of a voluntary, decentralized market. In a free market, wealth concentration doesn’t occur due to “market failure,” but rather because individuals are free to make choices based on their preferences and actions. This leads to the natural outcome of some individuals being more successful than others based on talent, innovation, or entrepreneurial risk-taking.

First, the assumption that wealth concentration leads to corruption and antagonism overlooks the reality that, in a voluntary system, those who succeed must offer value in exchange for wealth. The “math” of the free market, in fact, is a reflection of human action and individual choices. People choose what to buy, what to sell, and with whom to trade—this is a decentralized process that cannot be manipulated by a central authority.

On the issue of antitrust laws, the argument for government intervention in the marketplace assumes that companies are inherently anti-competitive in a free market, but this is simply not the case. In fact, competition is one of the most powerful drivers of innovation and consumer benefit. Without government interference, market forces would ensure that any company seeking to dominate an industry would face the threat of competition from new, innovative businesses. The idea that large companies can simply eliminate competition ignores the fact that they are constantly under pressure to innovate and improve to maintain their market position.

Lastly, the issue of negative externalities like pollution is a misunderstanding of property rights. In a truly free market, property rights would be clearly defined, and companies would be held accountable for harming others’ property—whether it be land, air, or water. Pollution becomes a problem precisely because property rights are not fully protected in many cases. If individuals and businesses had clear legal recourse to protect their property, the problem of environmental harm would be much less severe.

In conclusion, the free market, far from being a failure, is the best system for ensuring wealth creation, competition, and the protection of the environment through properly defined property rights. Centralized intervention, whether through wage controls, price controls, or antitrust laws, distorts the natural processes of human action and leads to unintended consequences that harm individuals and society.

Sure, AI written Free market Fred.

 

[PNW Guy]

You really put a lot of effort into creating this thread. It's a lot to take in. I'll have to get back to you when I've had a chance to delve deeper into all of the information you've presented here.

If you were capable of processing, even the most basic of information, your posts wouldn't reflect Trump support; so we don't believe you...