Free Market ideas

[rainonlevs]

It occurred to me tonight on the ride home that I may be talking cross-topics with my friends that are big Austrian economy and laissez faire capitalism people. We seem to usually start from a particular issue and each talk about a different aspect of it. For example, I'll focus on the effect of what I see as 'free market' and deregulatory ideas

Comments

This should amuse.

[squidb0i]

Looking forward to the answers.

[gray_ghost]

I don't think there is anything to stop the powerful from abusing their power in a pure deregulated environment. Capitalism is a pretty simple system, but I have never thought of it as equal players competing in the free market to provide the best product to the consumer. What it actually is is corporations doing anything necessary to establish monopolies in their respective fields, and strangling out any competition. They only have one purpose - to maximize shareholder profit by any means necessary. And and it's base, you have a pool of workers whose labor can be exploited for the benefit of the corporations. Without a base of cheap exploitable labor, the system doesn't work.
So you know where I am coming from - my political views are more closely aligned with democratic socialism, and I think capitalism is one of the most evil human systems ever devised. It is one of the most unstable - too. Primarily this is because it has only two states. It is either expanding into new markets and growing exponentially, or it is dying.

[woopflying]

There are rules and regulations in every area of human activity that have developed from the need to create a harmonious society, the accumulation of private wealth without any consideration of the effect on society needs to have rules and regulations also. A harmonious society has to be the objective.

Any answers to the original question?

[rainonlevs]

I appreciate the comments so far, but what I'm looking for are some answers from those who believe in free markets and deregulation, or at least who understand them and can explain how the theories say this should work.

I'm not looking to argue the point, I'm trying to determine whether this point is simply not covered in the theories or is covered in a way that I am as yet unaware of.

Re: Any answers to the original question?

[sarahmichigan]

You may be asking the wrong group of people. :)

Minimal vs. No Regulation

[anonymous]

I think the difference relates to the AMOUNT of regulation. I don't think very many people (if any) would embrace complete deregulation. In the continuim of TOTAL regulation and NO regulation, it seems the difference in opinion lies in the murky middle. IMO a successful market requires 2 things.

1. The minimal amount of regulation to promote the greatest opportunity for success and the least possibility for abuse.

2. Robust enforcement of the necessary regulations with consequences that are significant enough to promote compliance.

Just as excessive regulation may improperly restrict advancement, having regulations that are either not enforced, or enforced unevenly, may also (on balance) do more harm than good.

As with most everything, the devil's in the details. What are "significant" consequences? What restrictions to a pure free market are necessary and proper (assuming regulation = restriction)?

This is why I only took 1 Econ class in college.

Gary

Re: Minimal vs. No Regulation

[rainonlevs]

Well, the "very many people" argument hardly applies, since the majority of people want more regulation for the protection of the consumer, not less, which moves the 'spectrum' of reasonable regulation significantly upward. So why don't we talk about our own opinions and ideas instead of claims to represent 'common thought', okay