• 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!

Should the "Free Market" be left alone?

Should the "Free Market" be left alone?

  • Yes. The Free Market should be allowed to work it's 'magic'

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • No. Government should play a large role

    Votes: 9 21.4%
  • No. A mixed economy, with minimal government involvement, is best

    Votes: 24 57.1%
  • No. The concept of a "Free Market is a fraud

    Votes: 7 16.7%

  • Total voters
    42

SeekingWisdom

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
11
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes. The Free Market should be allowed to work it's 'magic'
No. Government should play a large role
No. A mixed economy, with minimal government involvement, is best
No. The concept of a "Free Market is a fraud
 
Last edited:
Yes. The Free Market should be allowed to work it's 'magic'
No. Government should play a large role
No. A mixed economy, with minimal government involvement, is best
No. The concept of a "Free Market is a fraud

I am somewhere between the second and third option.
 
A mixed economy with minimal government involvement is ideal IMO.

And people call me a socialist :lol:
 
No, it should not be left alone entirely to self-regulate. The government should have some hand in the economy.
 
Government's role should be that of referee. Making sure everyone plays by the same rules.
The government can also have a role in fostering emerging technology's.
The market as it stands right now, has some trouble with long term vision, mostly
being limited to next quarter.
Government could have a limited role in multi decade projects.
 
In the case of the USA's free market? Yes, of course the government should play a part in it.
 
The free market is the ends, not the means.
 
The free market is not really free without a certain restriction placed upon those who wish to control and manipulate it. That can only come from government.
 
Government's role should be that of referee. Making sure everyone plays by the same rules.
The government can also have a role in fostering emerging technology's.
The market as it stands right now, has some trouble with long term vision, mostly
being limited to next quarter.
Government could have a limited role in multi decade projects.

The free market is not really free without a certain restriction placed upon those who wish to control and manipulate it. That can only come from government.

I'm somewhere between these two. The history of a "free market" is negative at best. The "free market" idea has allowed slavery, child labor, environmental abuses, dictatorships, institutional racism, sexism etc. Sure, one could argue that so has the government, however - this isn't the case in every society it has been tried in. There isn't a single country who has embraced "free market" without it leaving a pretty ****ty history. Latin America from the 60s to the 80s had bloody wars being fought in the interest of a free market societies. In Africa we have hundreds of places who are suffering environmental damage all in the name of the IMFs ridiculously dangerous free market strategies. The best we can do is use the Canadian or even Nordic approach and leave the market to make decisions with governments taking precautionary measures to balance the abuses and mistakes made by the market.
 
No. Government should play a large role
No. A mixed economy, with minimal government involvement, is best

I am somewhere between these two options also. I guess it depends on your definition of "large role" and "minimal involvement." I would consider the amount of market intervention in most developed countries to be fairly minimal, and it generally works well.
 
If there were an option for a mixed economy with a medium level of government involvement (which I take to mean both oversight and also regulation and direct action), that'd be my vote.
 
If you step back far enough and look at the concept of a free market you will see that every market is free. Just because a market has a winner it doesn’t mean that group may displace them. The issue in this poll is that one winner in the market may be the government. You can also have a single free market winner or group of winners that are not officially part of the government; but, that have considerable influence with the government. This Poll asks “Should the "Free Market" be left alone?” , it always is.
 
None of the above.

The government has four basic roles in a "free market".

1. Ensure reasonable safety of workers -- What OSHA should really do, not the bloated crap it has become
2. Ensure fair market practices are upheld -- No monopolies, no price fixing, not allowing one company to sell for a loss to force competitors out of business, etc.
3. Protect consumers from fraudulent actions -- Things like what the FDA should be doing, product safety, "fine print" or disclosure-the government should not protect people from being stupid (it is impossible to stop stupid people from being stupid), just make sure they are not victims
4. Protect the public from unreasonable dangers associated with industry. -- What the EPA really should be doing and not being the rampaging monster it has become.

After those four, it should stay the hell out of the market place.

How is the current US Government doing in relation to these functions, well if grading from an A to an F, it would receive a grade of Z.
 
Last edited:
A free market requires some minimal controls to ensure it stays free, otherwise it quickly becomes bogged down with monopolies and companies too willing to game the system and not compete fairly.
 
Government's role should be that of referee. Making sure everyone plays by the same rules.
The government can also have a role in fostering emerging technology's.
The market as it stands right now, has some trouble with long term vision, mostly
being limited to next quarter.
Government could have a limited role in multi decade projects.


Limited to next quarter is greed...and thats been the problem...it used to be the rich stayed rich and got richer while allowing the middleclass to make a living and giving aid to the very poor....now its im rich its all for me and screw everyone else...and that attitude cannot sustain itself and the only thing that affords some protection to those that need it is the govt....left to romney ryans designs the rich would pay no taxs and still send everything out of the country for extra buck.
 
HELL YA THE FREE MARKET SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE! It would do WONDERS for the economy. Unemployment would drop. The free market is the way to go. Why would the government need to be involved?
 


We have never seen true Capitalism, that is why he thinks there is no such thing as a free market. Just like we have never seen true Communism, because the State owns everything in today's Communism. True Capitalism and Communism is Anarchy.
 
HELL YA THE FREE MARKET SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE! It would do WONDERS for the economy. Unemployment would drop. The free market is the way to go. Why would the government need to be involved?

To ensure that the meat we buy is good, and processed cleanly,(that goes for all foods), to ensure our water supply isn't polluted by companies pouring waste into them, to ensure that the medicine we take is okay, and fully vetted before it goes out to market, to ensure that people can't run rampant scams on other people, etc, etc, etc.
 
The larger the government's percentage of the GDP, the more entitled people feel that the government should be in the economy. The government occupying more and more of the playing field is what scares me the most. We are all but a socialist economy at this point--the government just hides it with strings hidden behind a curtain as opposed to just so blatantly participating like they do in other places.
 
We have never seen true Capitalism, that is why he thinks there is no such thing as a free market. Just like we have never seen true Communism, because the State owns everything in today's Communism. True Capitalism and Communism is Anarchy.

There was something that Irving Kristol once said when he was thinking about socialism. He wondered if maybe there was something organic about socialism and communism that led to Stalinism, and he thought there was something that led to it. Perhaps the damnations of true free market capitalism showed themselves under controlled circumstances.
 
Back
Top Bottom