Whose more insane, me or the rest of society? Read the following blog of bollocks and decide for yourself.
Should markets dictate our society?
Published on July 30, 2008 By Scotteh In Politics

In my next blog, i will be launching a scathing attack on democracy goverend by the free market approach that our society has adopted since the Clinton era. As well as this, i want to outline a critique of the fundemental principles that hold it together, however before i do, i want to hear what those whom believe this system is the right way forward for our society have to say on the matter.

 So if you believe that the free markets are the right approach, please could you leave a few comments on why you feel so.

 

Many thanks.

 

Edit: Rephrased it slightly, i'm talking about the approach that allows corporations and markets to operate more freely, a society whoms fundemental principle is to serve oneself.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 31, 2008
That's Friedman's vision of a free market? What am I missing here?


He doesn't mention the violence, but you're a man of the world, have you ever heard of an unregulated free market economy that doesn't end in repression?
on Aug 01, 2008
He doesn't mention the violence, but you're a man of the world, have you ever heard of an unregulated free market economy that doesn't end in repression?


Have you ever heard of a command economy that doesn't end in the Gulag?
on Aug 01, 2008
Have you ever heard of a command economy that doesn't end in the Gulag?


It goes back to the imperfection of man. Nothing is going to be truly utopian, but the best system is that which is corrupted least. And distribution of power is the way to assure the least corruption. That is why Monopolies are the worst, oligopolies next, and competitive markets the best. Command economies are monopolies. Free Markets are competitive since no one controls them.
on Aug 01, 2008
I think a free market with certain government interventions is best. We need the government to promote the common good of all people over the common good of an individual, and to realize economies of scale in certain industries where an individual's resources are not enough on one's own to do whatever it is that needs to be done. I suppose in a truly free market situation that a corporation could be formed instead of the government, but in the area of actual human necessities (food, water, shelter) that could lead to profiteering and repression, whereas if the government regulates it, everyone gets what they need with those with much able to have the option of buying more or better food, water, or shelter.
on Aug 01, 2008
I think a free market with certain government interventions is best. We need the government to promote the common good of all people over the common good of an individual, and to realize economies of scale in certain industries where an individual's resources are not enough on one's own to do whatever it is that needs to be done. I suppose in a truly free market situation that a corporation could be formed instead of the government, but in the area of actual human necessities (food, water, shelter) that could lead to profiteering and repression, whereas if the government regulates it, everyone gets what they need with those with much able to have the option of buying more or better food, water, or shelter.


You could make the argument that the government is a corporation that has the unique ability to wield lethal force in order to enforce its policies, and that the citizens are shareholders who vote for new CEO's and board members every couple of years!
on Aug 01, 2008
Have you ever heard of a command economy that doesn't end in the Gulag?


Exactly, you need a balance. Friedman has some interesting ideas, but I'd hate to see them made a reality.
on Aug 03, 2008
Free markets result in the most efficient outcome that maximises the net benefit of society (assuming an absence of imperfections+failures). The case of market imperfections+failures there can be a case for government intervention to correct them, and result in the most efficient outcome being chosen, but the markets are still needed to achieve this.

The alternative extreme, that is completely state controlled markets (i.e. communism) is terribly inefficient and destined to failure.
on Aug 04, 2008

greywar
As Arytsim already demonstrated we already have a managed economy vice total free markets. Scotteh, you really seem to need a dramtic reality bath. The world didn't spring into existance the day you started paying attention to it.

 

At great risk of repeating myself, Clinton opened the markets considerably in 1992 on the advise of several Economisits, remember the whole 'Big Govermer era is over'?

If you think the world or you economoy was the same before 1992, then it is you my friend that is in need of a 'reality bath'.

on Aug 04, 2008
At great risk of repeating myself, Clinton opened the markets considerably in 1992 on the advise of several Economisits, remember the whole 'Big Govermer era is over'?


Actually it was later (as he was not president in 92) and I dont think NAFTA is the world.
on Aug 05, 2008

At great risk of repeating myself, Clinton opened the markets considerably in 1992 on the advise of several Economisits, remember the whole 'Big Govermer era is over'?Actually it was later (as he was not president in 92) and I dont think NAFTA is the world.

1996 he gave the big goverment speech, it was before he was even offically sworn into goverment that he was encouraged to start the ball rolling.

I've not got around to finishing the article yet because the weather where i am, rather bizzarely, is quite nice .

on Aug 05, 2008
I've not got around to finishing the article yet because the weather where i am, rather bizzarely, is quite nice


I have heard that said about England.
on Aug 05, 2008
I have heard that said about England


Perhaps they should hire the mythical Chinese who giveth the rain and also taketh away, though right now they're busy controlling the weather for the Olympics.
2 Pages1 2