• 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!

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?

  • Total voters
    34
Can someone on here actually prove the existence of any known form of government/economy that doesn't have winners and losers.

Kicking around theoretical scenarios can be fun, but most humans are wired to get ahead by the resources available to them or exploiting others, regardless of the system they live under.
 
Mycroft said:
Okay...I get it, though I don't agree with you. But tell me, what is your solution?
Click to expand...

The free market attempts to simulate nature, in the sense of competition for resources and natural selection. The most efficient is selected. We pay the best ball players the most; selection. When humans attempt to control the free market with government regulation, this is no longer a simulation of natural selection. This is artificial selection. It is no longer green or natural.

The concern of xMathFanx is really connected to a subset of the free market, called supply side economics. This market is free, however, it is driven by the supply side, and not the demand side. The analogy is a group of predators migrate to a new territory. The only food supply that is available is rabbit. These predators may be omnivores and may like and prefer other types of foods, but the supply side of the food is limited to rabbits, with the rabbits competing for their own space and food. The predators compete and eat the default food; ticket prices go up.

An alternative would be demand side economics, within a free market framework. In the example above, since there are only rabbits, there is not much leverage for the demand side wishes of the predators, other than which rabbit they will eat. A true demand side free market scenario, would be where the consumers listed what they wanted, and the supply side adjusts its output of resources, to meet this demand. In terms of a natural scenario, this would be like the predators all getting together and deciding they want deer, rabbit and squirrel, in that order. Suddenly, nature makes this appear like magic. This is not very likely in the natural environment. The environment does what it does, based on internal competition. The predators needs to adapt to that food supply or migrate to another place.

The underlying reason for the natural preference of a supply side driven free market, is the supply side obtains its goods and services, from people who can creativity come up with ideas, that they can implement and offer the free market. This creates a tangible output from people who can make things happen. Demand side might be creative, but demand side depends on others to create the tangible output. The result is demand side hands off its wises to the supply side. We are back to supply side.

For example, if I can juggle and I am good at it, there is a natural path for me, to a tangible free market output, that has quality; juggle act. If someone demands me do the high wire act, I am not good at this. Even if I try to meet that demand, my quality will be low. The demand will be limited even by the original demander. It is much easier to produce quality, if I do what I am are good at, and then enter the free market from the supply side. The same is true in nature. Each environment offers a food supply based on what it is best suited to make, via natural selection. It is hard for the environment to materialize demand side wises and dreams, unless these dreams appear in a creator, who then offers it to the environment. If new tree mutated to produce apples, demand will appear.

Another analogy may be the house wife wants to expand the kitchen by knocking out an outside wall. This is a good idea, however, it is not something she can do. Her demand is dependent on the supply side producing this as a tangible result. Demand side cannot produce results without supply side, but supply side can produce even before there is demand. Nobody knew they demanded, Facebook, before it was added to the supply chain. This stroke of genius came from someone who was good at this and offered it to the free environment as a food source.
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

Let's test your theory. Please post your itemized expenses for the year and your income and we'll review your decisions and give you better ones for 2018. If you are happy with the results, we can extend it to your friends on your behalf.
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible



Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

Professional Athletes and Actors are paid much more than the general population even in countries without a free market system. Let's look at a professional athlete. They have a talent and physical gifts that less than .001% of the population has. They also have trained and cultivated that talent their entire lives starting in early childhood. The typical MLB player has many more hours over the course of his entire life in training than even the typical scientist or doctor has.

Moreover, doctors, particularly specialists, are well compensated and are among the absolute top level professions in terms of income. They make more under a somewhat free market system than they do under heavily socialized systems.

Take scientists. Once again, high demand scientific fields like Petroleum Geologists, Actuarial Scientists, Chemical Engineers, and Computer Scientists are among the highest paid professions.
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

The simple truth of the matter is this:

If anyone will pay you to do something, the value of your work is what you can demand and receive.

If nobody will pay you what you want, you have miscalculated the value.

I can put my house on the market and list it for a billion dollars. It is very unlikely that I'll find a buyer at that price.

The value is dictated by the market.

Limiting the top end of valuation will not increase the bottom end. All that will happen is that the top end will be reduced.
 
wellwisher said:
The free market attempts to simulate nature, in the sense of competition for resources and natural selection. The most efficient is selected. We pay the best ball players the most; selection. When humans attempt to control the free market with government regulation, this is no longer a simulation of natural selection. This is artificial selection. It is no longer green or natural.
Click to expand...

I agree that government interference tends to screw things up. I like to see as little as possible of that kind of stuff.

The concern of xMathFanx is really connected to a subset of the free market, called supply side economics. This market is free, however, it is driven by the supply side, and not the demand side. The analogy is a group of predators migrate to a new territory. The only food supply that is available is rabbit. These predators may be omnivores and may like and prefer other types of foods, but the supply side of the food is limited to rabbits, with the rabbits competing for their own space and food. The predators compete and eat the default food; ticket prices go up.
Click to expand...

Please don't argue against another forum member when talking to me. I have no interest in nor any connection to that person's conversation with you.

An alternative would be demand side economics, within a free market framework. In the example above, since there are only rabbits, there is not much leverage for the demand side wishes of the predators, other than which rabbit they will eat. A true demand side free market scenario, would be where the consumers listed what they wanted, and the supply side adjusts its output of resources, to meet this demand. In terms of a natural scenario, this would be like the predators all getting together and deciding they want deer, rabbit and squirrel, in that order. Suddenly, nature makes this appear like magic. This is not very likely in the natural environment. The environment does what it does, based on internal competition. The predators needs to adapt to that food supply or migrate to another place.

The underlying reason for the natural preference of a supply side driven free market, is the supply side obtains its goods and services, from people who can creativity come up with ideas, that they can implement and offer the free market. This creates a tangible output from people who can make things happen. Demand side might be creative, but demand side depends on others to create the tangible output. The result is demand side hands off its wises to the supply side. We are back to supply side.

For example, if I can juggle and I am good at it, there is a natural path for me, to a tangible free market output, that has quality; juggle act. If someone demands me do the high wire act, I am not good at this. Even if I try to meet that demand, my quality will be low. The demand will be limited even by the original demander. It is much easier to produce quality, if I do what I am are good at, and then enter the free market from the supply side. The same is true in nature. Each environment offers a food supply based on what it is best suited to make, via natural selection. It is hard for the environment to materialize demand side wises and dreams, unless these dreams appear in a creator, who then offers it to the environment. If new tree mutated to produce apples, demand will appear.

Another analogy may be the house wife wants to expand the kitchen by knocking out an outside wall. This is a good idea, however, it is not something she can do. Her demand is dependent on the supply side producing this as a tangible result. Demand side cannot produce results without supply side, but supply side can produce even before there is demand. Nobody knew they demanded, Facebook, before it was added to the supply chain. This stroke of genius came from someone who was good at this and offered it to the free environment as a food source.
Click to expand...

Okay. With a number of analogies...some of which I perceive as so convoluted it appears they contradict your own premise...you, I think, conclude that "demand side economics" is the solution to the problem of supply side economics. You seem to contend that supply side economics, bad as it is, is the way things are. Question: How do you change it?
 
Last edited:
xMathFanx said:
?[/B]

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

It should be noted that many of the positions you noted are part of the socialist system, not the free market system. Doctors, teachers, waste management, scientists etc are all employed by govt, funded through taxation, and generally regulated through union negotiation. If anything youre proving the point that we should put them in the free market system where their value have greater latitude for pay. Like how plastic surgeons make more than general practitioners. Or great scientists get employed by spaceX and make millions. In the free market, talent generally rises to the top and gets paid because of it.

In the socialist govt, we have to promote diversity, social justice, equal pay regardless of merit. And limit pay to political wrangling, tolerance of tax payers, and of course waste a bunch on waste, fraud, abuse. Once you demand that every govt worker get paid a minimum salary of 60k plus 80k in benefits, you cant afford to pay the top talent millions. The janitor got some of those millions redistributed.
 
Unregulated or poorly regulated monopoly power is not sensible. Free markets enable firms to work their way to having de facto monopoly power that then enables them to coerce and defraud people. This requires government to prevent and regulate monopoly power, which makes it what we should refer to as “relatively free market.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
radcen said:
*sigh*

I get tired of this, too. Are entertainers *worth* the same as doctors and such? No. Their contribution to society is hardly critical. But then they have millions of people willing to pay outrageous prices to watch them work. Sorry, it's demand.

But even me, at my lowly "dime a dozen" profession, can go to the store and have literally dozens and dozens of tasty breakfast cereal choices at my disposal, all for me to easily purchase at my whim. And that's just one example. No other system provides this. Entertainers may get overpaid, but my life is pretty damn good, too.
Click to expand...

Indeed, no other system can deliver such as such competitive prices.

Further, excessive regulation is sure to kill the golden goose / horn of plenty that it is.
 
Evilroddy said:
There are no free markets except along the margins of civilization where the rule of law and state control do not exist. The athletes, celebrities and trend setters serve to distract citizens from thinking about how to improve their faulty or even disfunctional economies and societies and also serve to bleed off wealth from being accumulated into real political power in the wider population through advertising and consumerism of non-utilitarian wants. Distraction and the rechannelling of wealth allow political and economic oligarchs to maintain the power to skew the market system in order to favour themselves at the expense of the wider public. The game is fixed and the public must be distracted by entertainment and exhausted by earning and consumerism in order to protect the rigging and the riggers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Bread and circuses.

Really old trick.
 
Phys251 said:
Capitalism is like a dog: A well-trained, well-behaved, housebroken dog is an asset to any home. But a wild, undisciplined dog can be dangerous to humans.
Click to expand...

Free Market is just a polite way of saying "we, the rich and powerful, don't want regulations so that we can make all the rules" and lo and behold, they reap all the rewards of such a system. There needs to be regulation and rules to any system... or the system is just fake.
 
xMathFanx said:
You have missed the point entirely.

The entire modern Global system (all/overwhelming majority of the luxuries of modernity, as well as the dangers) is predicated on the fruits of Science and Tech. Now, I can only conclude that a person responding like this fails to understand just how precarious our situation is.

For example, there are only about 10,000 Physicists in the world (not all of which are great researchers--there is a standard distribution like in any other population). Without Physicists, we would have next to none of our modern inventions that we currently depend upon nor would we be able to push innovation forward. Therefore, the "basic" research and work of such people is extremely valuable (and there is currently hardly anyone equipped to do it). The standard/average Engineer learns enough Physics, Chem, ect. to harness what we have learned about Nature in a useful manner (however, the overwhelming bulk of this work in no way approaches the depth of understanding in Physics, Chem, ect. and they are highly limited in what they can do). If you just gathered up the one million people most eager, persistent, and qualified to do the sort of research that our modern world depends upon and removed them from the planet, we would be left with very few people (if any) capable of sustaining our current system (and one million is a very generous number). That is a huge problem, and one that is nearly never discussed (accept for in the Scientific community itself, which discusses this matter perpetually) simply because people are taught that their collective delusions in some way make sense, and are viable ideas to organize their lives around (when in reality they are non-sensical and self-destructive).
Also, others such as intensive laborers, many "Blue Collar" professions are imperative in order to keep society functioning and they are looked down upon (often are disincentivized) due to people's simple-minded prejudices. This is an inherently unstable structure as well as unjust (because the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work are not the ones benefiting from the system).

Basically, my argument is simply: the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model)

Your argument is basically, "If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this, then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what you are suggesting/implying)

I would add, based on my reading of you current position, the 10,000 physicists number likely doesn't bother you one bit. What if it were 1,000? 500? There is an enormous problem having the information that society is based upon being that arcane. You must see that? Also, it is important to note, these few people in fields such as this are not at all treated like Athletes, Actors, Celebrities, ect. but rather are largely treated very poorly. If someone wants to go into such a field at the moment it has to be in spite of the profound hardships they are bound to encounter (even if they are genius level like Alan Guth for example).

Also, Construction Workers and the like are often treated similarly awful even though our society absolutely depends upon their hard work and continued existence (which is largely taken for granted)
Click to expand...

Your intent here is for income redistribution.
You do not understand that the driving factor of a laissez faire economy is profit.
 
Waddy said:
What an arrogant elitist you are.
Click to expand...

This is quite an odd accusation considering the model I am proposing is valuing productive work such as Construction Workers, Waste management, Repairs, "Blue Collar" intensive labor, ect. ect. as the near highest level of productive work/utility and thus pay-out..

In fact, what I am objecting to is the current "Elitism" of our system, in which our basic/primitive Mammalian predispositions are determining value way out of proportion to their actual contributions (e.g. Kardashians, Beiber types, Athletes, Actors, Celebrities, ect. ect. ect. These people are essentially put on a pedestal since they largely fit primitive notions of Alphas (e.g. they look strong/healthy/attractive and/or perform the type of Physical activities that you would expect of any other Ape if they were to get a bit more intelligent in the case of Athletes)).

You essentially inverted the model
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

Your problem isn't actually with the free market. Your problem is with people. You simply don't like the choices they make, so you want to ensure they can't make those choices.

Thus, you detest freedom of choice. Which is to say, you detest freedom in general.
 
jonny5 said:
It should be noted that many of the positions you noted are part of the socialist system, not the free market system. Doctors, teachers, waste management, scientists etc are all employed by govt, funded through taxation, and generally regulated through union negotiation. If anything youre proving the point that we should put them in the free market system where their value have greater latitude for pay.
Click to expand...

What I am proposing would still be a Market system (not Socialist Worker/Government ownership/control). Have you read any of my other posts addressing this exact point?

jonny5 said:
Or great scientists get employed by spaceX and make millions. In the free market, talent generally rises to the top and gets paid because of it.
Click to expand...

Clearly you are disconnected/unfamiliar with the path to becoming a Scientist (even a genius level Scientist), which is why I have already addressed this point. Look into the case of Alan Guth, and note that this is standard procedure (read my former posts on the matter).
 
Harshaw said:
Your problem isn't actually with the free market. Your problem is with people. You simply don't like the choices they make, so you want to ensure they can't make those choices.

Thus, you detest freedom of choice. Which is to say, you detest freedom in general.
Click to expand...

There is partial truth to this, although I have already addressed this point. You are correct that in principle I'm not against the "Free Market"--notice this is still promoting a Market system (albeit highly constrained). However, people are objectively, consistently, perpetually making horrible decisions and I want to incentivize people to make more productive/rational decisions but still maintain the freedom of choice to decide what field they would like to enter (e.g. you can still play Basketball for a living, but then you will be the one making $30,000 a year or so since it is an extreme luxury compared "Blue Collar" intensive labor that is absolutely necessary to maintain a functioning society of the Tech. level we are currently at (or progress it forward)).

What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--which actually is why we are having this debate here and now.

Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing
 
Moderate Right said:
What do you want, socialism? That's failed everywhere it has been tried.
Click to expand...

Depends, what kind of socialism are we talking about? Norway is a social democracy, is it really that bad off?

I will say one thing, stagnant wages and a growing income gap is going to cause more problems the longer it goes unaddressed.
 
xMathFanx said:
There is partial truth to this, although I have already addressed this point. You are correct that in principle I'm not against the "Free Market"--notice this is still promoting a Market system (albeit highly constrained). However, people are objectively, consistently, perpetually making horrible decisions and I want to incentivize people to make more productive/rational decisions but still maintain the freedom of choice to decide what field they would like to enter (e.g. you can still play Basketball for a living, but then you will be the one making $30,000 a year or so since it is an extreme luxury compared "Blue Collar" intensive labor that is absolutely necessary to maintain a functioning society of the Tech. level we are currently at (or progress it forward)).
Click to expand...

"Productive, rational decisions" based on your own preferences and what you personally value. You want to force people into doing what you want them to do. Because you think people are stupid.

This is just garden-variety coffeehouse totalitarianism, the kind of thinking which produced the absolute worst regimes the world has ever seen.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Depends, what kind of socialism are we talking about? Norway is a social democracy, is it really that bad off?
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is not "Socialism" in any true sense of the term since it maintains the Market system. However, it is a form of Social Democracy (which are Constrained Market systems), however it is fundamentally different than the current ones one offer for the reasons I have explained at some length now
 
Harshaw said:
"Productive, rational decisions" based on your own preferences and what you personally value.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the rest of the post (and others) or were you simply triggered after coming across this and stop (because I already addressed this at quite some length and you have failed to marshal an argument against it--if you have one, I would like to hear it).
 
xMathFanx said:
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
Click to expand...

You do understand, do you not, that NBA and NFL are not free market enterprises? They are government created monopolies.

Your argument shoots itself in the foot.
 
xMathFanx said:
Did you even read the rest of the post (and others) or were you simply triggered after coming across this and stop (because I already addressed this at quite some length and you have failed to marshal an argument against it--if you have one, I would like to hear it).
Click to expand...

What do you think you said that I didn't address? You think people are stupid and they make stupid choices, and you want to be able to stop them from doing so, for the greater good.

This is what you said. Do you think you said anything other than that? If so, what, specifically?

Your thinking is the basis of fascism, communism, socialism, various totalitarianism, and the worst regimes in history. Fascist Italy. Nazi Germany. Communist Russia. Communist China. Kampuchea. Castro's Cuba. Pinochet's Chile. The list goes on.

My argument against it is more than 100,000,000 dead in service of it in the last century alone. Plus, the inherent and incandescent goodness of personal freedom, even when it doesn't go the way you personally would prefer.
 
jimbo said:
You do understand, do you not, that NBA and NFL are not free market enterprises? They are government created monopolies.

Your argument shoots itself in the foot.
Click to expand...

I have already addressed the point that the "Free Market" does not exist/has not existed in practice. Rather, there are varying levels of Constraints and Interventions

Thanks for your "thoughtful" response
 
It seems to me that you are simply proposing that we replace the rigged "free market" system we have with one that is rigged more to your liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom