MLM Directory - Why are so many people so hostile towards the idea of a free market when...?

Why are so many people so hostile towards the idea of a free market when...?

...it hasn't been allowed to exist by the mafioso monopolistic government? The government has strangled the market with so much red tape nonsense that at some times it can barely function at all. What is so wrong with the free market? - "Slave wages!" Myth. Any company that didn't pay decent wages would soon find itself without employees - "Unsafe products!" Myth. Not only would a company face civil liability but they would soon be run out of business because no one would buy their products. - "Monopolies!" Myth. The government CREATES monopolies by allowing such stringent intellectual property laws and by creating so many legal hoops, licenses, certifications, inspections, blah blah blah that only the filthy rich can get into the market. If the government would just butt out then small time folks could get in the marketplace, innovate and bring new and better products to the scene. These are just a few of the myths touted by Statists. Never mind that a true laissez-faire free market system is more ethical and moral seeing as how this shouldn't be any of the government's business. Really, the Fed was only supposed to be concerned with inter-state commerce but they slowly grabbed power bit by bit until we have what exists today. Thoughts? Why won't you people let the free market be....free? @Tyler Those things happened even with the insane amounts of regulation! Government is like snake oil with you guys. If it doesn't work maybe you just didn't use enough, right?

Public Comments

why so they can screw the economy up like the major banks did,why so they can spill oil into the gulf because they took shortcuts?
Those who don't like a free market system are either ignorant or jealous of others success. it doesn't help that our Govt has demonized the free market system........but how rich is Pelosi? How much did 0bama make last year after taxes? ($5 MILLION BTW)
Monopolies wouldn't exist? Right... Adam Smith argued strongly that government intervention was needed to prevent monopolies forming. He was quite adamant about it. He states that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
It very vogue to be socialist don't ya know. Stupid Americans can't see that it fails time and again so we welcome it :(
typical statist response- "let me guess big oil is paying you to say this right????" matthew D said, would you let me be your doctor if i said to you i still needed to go to school and wasnt trained? no i wouldnt, and i doubt anyone else would, so good luck with that. he fails to realize that people can be their own regulators. and he acts as if people dont die from drugs today, with the FDA and the war on drugs. he also thinks that he has the authority to tell people voluntarily working together that they can not do so because he feels one of them is being ripped off. he is falling into the if i were king syndrome. he seems to also think that not working or living in the woods is somehow worse than working. i dont necessarily think so. many people moved into the city to work in factories in the industrial revolution because they wanted to. they didnt want to work 14 hours a day 7 days a week, make their own furniture, grow their own food, make their own clothes, etc. they preferred living in the city working in the factories. some people didnt, they stayed in the farms in the country.
because it leads to a better life.since the majority is now.the majority that don't WORK.there all for whats free.but free at some one elses expense.
You are incorrect. There is the matter of slave wages or no money. And the lack of public assistance if you refuse to work for those slave wages first. In an employers market companies can rip off their employees for their labor. Big time. Unsafe products? Do you realize that before the FDA drugs would not be 'tweaked' until enough people died from the product? Than you have the ability to fight claims that the product is not safe until enough money is made. Moral hazard anyone? And as for standards, would you let me be your physician if I told you I wanted to be a physician but needed the training and licenses?
It has not been allowed to exist just like true communism has not been allowed to exist...because both would require massive human hardships to fully develop. Remember the free market only works for people who have enough money to participate...all others would need to be left to starve.
The government comes up with new laws every day for us to break.
Slave wages? Absolutely true. You have to work. You can't just say "oh I think I'm going to stop working now". Slavery was actually part of a free market economy at one time. Unsafe products? Absolutely true. By the time they figure out your products are harmful they can't do anything about them. If they try to sue you just buy everyone off and get a team of lawyers to face off against their dinky loser lawyer. Monopolies? I'll give you this one. Less monopolies is possible because everyone would steal everything from each other. Less innovation would occur with no patents because there is no reason to do it when generics can steal it in less than a week.
Alright, so let's go through the "myths": "Slave wages" - your one response is that companies would find themselves without employees. Few things. First, if that's the case, why can Mexico hire people? They pay their employees far less than we do, and yet still manage to hang onto them. Second, the main reason why wages remain at a certain level in this country is because a standard is set. If no standard is in place, companies will have no desire to compete based on wages. Why should they? All companies will just lower their wages over time. Sure, it wont be quick, but it will happen. Third, you assume competition is necessary for wages. Quite the contrary. The job market is in trouble, that means that there's not enough jobs for everyone. That means they can provide jobs with low wages and still get employees desperate for work. That's what they do overseas, that's what they will start doing here. "Unsafe products" - your only point here is liability. Liable to whom? What, are people going to start suing these companies? On what grounds? The point you're missing is that there's a bunch of regulations that specify just how far companies can go. These include safety regulations, set down by the FDA. Know what people were doing before those regulations? They were making medical devices that didn't work and selling them for thousands on the basis that everyone believed them because, hey, there's no one to check. Pharmaceuticals were going out that were literally killing people and causing terrible other problems. What reason would we have to sue? The company wouldn't require adequate labeling anymore. That's a part of regulations. Once again, you're assuming competition solves. If no one has to adhere to these standards, they will stop doing so eventually because it's cost effective. It costs $800 million to get a pharmaceutical to market, who's going to pay that it make their customers love them more? They'd just drop the price instead and save a ton. "Monopolies" - what exactly do you think was going on before Theodore Roosevelt got into office? He instituted most of these policies, mainly because steel, oil and numerous other companies were buying up all their competition. And why shouldn't they? They would have no one to market against! They could charge as much as they want for a product that everyone needs because people will still buy it! Sure, the government institutes a lot, but do you know what that stuff does? Intellectual property laws protect businesses by ensuring that they have something they can use for a while, instead of someone else simply stealing their product and marketing it as their own. What's to prevent that without IP? See, what you ignore is that regulations are what allow us to prevent each of these. Regulations may cause their own set of problems, but without them, companies aren't liable. Companies aren't required to do anything. Why would they be? You're talking about the short term and ignoring the long term. Sure, for now, companies want to keep a good public image. That will end when companies start reducing wages bit by bit, reducing safety inspections of their own products bit by bit. There'll be a couple of hold-outs, companies that really want to make a difference, but they'll have to spend so much just to stay where they are that they will either be put out of business or bought up by another company. This is your understanding of economics and business? You really have to take actual classes in this stuff before you can pretend you're an expert.
You hit a great point and this my answer: The government can't control you IF: God is displayed and worshiped freely in a free society. Education is achieved at its highest level Freedom to work with or without unions. Freedom from over taxation and regulation Freedom of speech. Obama has tried to silence Talk radio and Fox news. Freedom to assemble--Union thugs who supported Obama have made attacks on TEA Party members. Freedom of the press, our press so pro left we can't get news unless you have cable. You have the right to bear arms--A freeman can have a weapon a slave cannot. So the free market is attacked because free people don't want government to run their lives. All of the above are being attacked by left wing liberals to undermined our constitution. If this keeps up Soros and his cronies will control all the market and if will no longer be free.
dude..you are being fooled by the political horseshit..there are no free markets,a socialist smoke screen for control ! what we need to stimulate trade is Equal Markets,tariff for tariff,restriction for restriction...or none at all....
Slave wages myth- Why? In your view of the labour market there are more jobs that people. Why does that have to be the case. In fact to actually achieve growth and prevent wage inflation generally states need more less skilled people to allow the economy to expand. Supply and demand don't have to provide wages and labour conditions that we deem fit for human living. We can see that in action today and in victorian era capitalism before we began to regulate capitalism and take young people out of the workforce to educate them for today. Unsafe products/externalities- Why does this have to be the case if a certain natural resource becomes rare the inflation of price means that companies may be willing to take on environmental costs/risks that dont seem so bad. Oil companies have had a while to learn for example of spills but continue to make them- cost benifits analysis. What about long term damage? or damage cost by cutting forests and leaving them at that unplanted.How do communities sue for smoke in the air. And what about mining companies that simple declare themselves bankrupt so they dont have to pay for the own mess for example. Monopolies, how would development of mass marketing of innovations be achieved with Intellectual property. Tweeking the laws that the libertarian state would apply- radical but hardly libertarian. Joseph Stiglitz the Keynesian suggests that. What about social mobility? How would you ensure that people from rich families didn't simply buy success and the poor and their children langiush with no spending power in poverty. Especially without standardised government educational spending and outreach training for those in poverty. What about a standard system of weights and measures and labelling who would enforce that. Whos going to light our streets. What about a recession(even from an outer shock) when we have no-one to stimulate the economy so generations don't lose the oppurtunity to get jobs and pay for education to get ahead. But to answer your question. People are usually hostile to all radical ideas because they usually have a vested interest in something or other in the current state of affairs. For example would a man with pension funds really want more regulation and taxing of the company hes invested in - no but neither would he want wittle down the state to a level where he cannot even get free medical care or a state pension.
you're saying the facts of what have happened historically are myths, and you're basing that assertion on pure speculation. sounds like you're going right out of the debunked austrian economics playbook. I will show you why these austrian economics ideas are false with examples and logic: there has been downward pressure on wages since the age of reagan began (incidentally in the post ww2 new deal era wages doubled), if companies didn't have to pay a minimum wage at all, that would increase the downward pressure on wages. go look at job websites on the internet, there are plenty of experienced people complaining they do not get decent wages, but they don't leave because they have no other options. if you are a highly skilled worker you may not be affected, but it will be crushing for everyone else. outsourcing is another example that people will work for slave wages if that's the only thing companies are offering. the idea that in an unregulated market products would be safer is your most laughable assertion. companies make unsafe products now and don't go out of business because people have short memories. there are many examples of companies who weigh the costs of a recall vs the amount they will have to pay out to those who are injured or killed. besides, if there was no regulation, there would be nothing to prevent companies from paying off the media to keep them from reporting on products that kill people. word of mouth won't spread fast enough to keep more people from dying. finally, you make the absurd claim that in a truly free market there would be no monopolies. in reality there would be even more monopolies. big companies merge and buy their competitors now, they would do it even more if there was no antitrust. if someone new came into the market and created something innovative in an unregulated market, the bigger companies would just steal their intellectual property instead of buying them up like they do now. you've been brainwashed by slogans.