View Poll Results: Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 55.88%
  • No

    5 14.71%
  • Other

    10 29.41%
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 107

Thread: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,752

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    i chose "other." the market works in some situations and not in others. same thing with the public sector. it's a fluid and nuanced balance.

  2. #22
    Student xMathFanx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    184

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by seax View Post
    Hello xMathFanx,

    I understand what you are saying and actually agree with the the principles you lay forth. Someone bounces a basketball or throws a touchdown pass and they make $10 million or more per year....a research scientist looking for a cure for cancer that went to school for 12-14 years ...racked up debt in some cases makes a six figure or below income. In a perfect world where reason prevails and controls every aspect of everyone's life ....this would be the rule. But here's the problem; you are comparing apples with oranges. Many scientist and researchers are funded by the government or have funds that go to the institution they work for...not all...there are exceptions but when comparing that to 'entertainment' you get into trying to mix two species. People peal out money to go to NFL games and NBA games because they like or enjoy the entertainment. There's no entertainment watching a research scientist find the 'God particle' or discover a warp engine to go to the extremes of our galaxy. Now, the free market has made millionaires of people that would by all practicality be making modest salaries. These enterprises create income for other's to enjoy such as advertising, product sales for clothing and/or food, drink...etc...it goes on and on. Government can't create those jobs and those jobs provide tax money to go to the doctors, scientist, teachers, etc. Really, I agree....some make way too much money...and I don't buy their tickets or watch them on ESPN. Be it good or be it bad...the market makes the rules in a free society and until a better way is tried and proven....for my part will stick with it. When it gets out of wack enough, it will correct itself.

    best regards,
    seax
    The current system is taking as a given the notion that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than a utility value system (while this is not at all obvious and I have raised a large number of profound concerns of the logical consequences in valuing people's individual preferences rather than their productive contributions).

    In fact, most of my argument is centered around this fundamental Philosophical point

  3. #23
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    694

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
    It is objectively factual, as I have already explained. That is:

    Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's ass to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

    Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

    Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)
    What an arrogant elitist you are. Speaking of more primitive times, the minstrel was the most welcome visitor to any medieval castle or town, or even a village made up of huts. I suspect even cave men enjoyed the wall art and the singalongs around the campfire. Once a civilization progresses beyond the sustenance level people begin to specialize; and their worth is determined by the market. Storytellers and poets were the rock stars of their day. The Greeks had their Olympics. Once civilization progresses people are freed up. So what should they do? People should do what they do best. That's the genius of capitalism, the free market and democracy; you are free to market yourself however you want. No one dictates what you will do. If you are good at growing things be a farmer. If you like machinery become an auto mechanic. If you have a flair for music or sports then by all means......... and if millions of people appreciate your talent then good for you. It's doubtful, though, that millions will flock to your auto repair shop; there are lots of mechanics around, but you should be able to make a good living. If, on the other hand, you can sink a lay-up like no one else on the planet, and millions of people follow your sport, you will be rich. Good for you.

    Man does not live by bread alone; we also need diversions and entertainment, among other things. And Katy Perry draws a much larger customer base than your average auto mechanic or farmer, or even inventor. And for every Katy Perry who "makes it", there are hundreds of thousands of wannabe's. Maybe millions. They should keep in mind that happiness is usually dependent on how you handle "plan B".

    In all of this audience size is key. We have news anchors in the USA who make $20-30 million a year. But there are also news anchors in England (They call them newsreaders). But they aren't paid a fraction of what the Americans make. Why? Because the audience in England is relatively small. That's why actors and musicians and everybody else likes to come here; it pays better. Same is true for engineers, doctors and scientists; we pay better because we offer a more affluent audience (customer base) for what they do.

    When the auto mechanic has 30,000 people lined up at his door every morning he will make as much money as Katy Perry or Tom Hanks, or even Michael Jordan.

  4. #24
    InnKeeper Most Pleasant PleasantValley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Deer Park, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    698

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    I voted YES, and will explain why.

    Most people work necessary jobs for the functioning of society, as you very effectively described.

    This is why our DISTRACTIONS (fluff) seem to grab our attention more.
    Being a red-blooded American man, I will check out an attractive woman any chance I get, unless at work.
    So her ass is very important to me and what shape it is in.
    Be it on the silver screen, on TV, or walking down the street.
    It matters greatly.

    Sports are the same way. General Montgomery was once attributed as saying we take our SPORTS much more seriously that any damned war. That is why grown men and women paint themselves up in team colors and sit on a wooden bleacher freezing their tails off. It is serious business.
    In Texas you will see near fistfights over sauce or no sauce on BBQ.

    Then after a black eye (shoulda seen the other guy) we go home and enjoy our TV, hot showers, warm beds, good music and other comforts the rest of the Joe Paychecks provide for us.

    This is just my opinion, so don't get all bent out of shape if you disagree with me.
    When your FEELS become more important than your REALS, you might have a problem...Cephus

    Read for comprehension instead of CONFRONTATION...UNKNOWN

  5. #25
    InnKeeper Most Pleasant PleasantValley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Deer Park, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    698

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    *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.
    This is probably the best answer to the thread's question.
    The Cereal Box Solution to economy.
    When your FEELS become more important than your REALS, you might have a problem...Cephus

    Read for comprehension instead of CONFRONTATION...UNKNOWN

  6. #26
    Sage
    RetiredUSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Norfolk Virginia area.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,979

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    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.
    Its easier to run for office than to run the office.
    Tip O'Niell

  7. #27
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    230

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Okay...I get it, though I don't agree with you. But tell me, what is your solution?
    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.

  8. #28
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,574

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    As compared to what, exactly? I voted yes when compared to something like China has.
    China is communist in name only these days. Their actors make just as much as ours do. http://www.china.org.cn/top10/2017-0...t_40862063.htm
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #29
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,533

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
    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.c...ers/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?
    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.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  10. #30
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,574

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
    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?
    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.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •