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 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 107

Thread: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

  1. #1
    Advisor xMathFanx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    04-21-18 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    325

    A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    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?

  2. #2
    Sage
    Skeptic Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,722

    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?
    And all those hard working doctors, teachers, scientists, construction workers and other vital members of our society? At the end of of those long, stressful work days, what do most of them turn to in order to decompress and unwind so they can stay productive without completely burning out? They turn to things like watching sports, listening to music, reading books, and watching tv shows and movies. I get it. You don’t like watching the Kardashians. I don’t either. But millions of people do and those people should be able to unwind in whatever manner they wish that doesn’t harm others.
    Formerly BrewerBob

  3. #3
    Advisor xMathFanx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    04-21-18 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    325

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic Bob View Post
    And all those hard working doctors, teachers, scientists, construction workers and other vital members of our society? At the end of of those long, stressful work days, what do most of them turn to in order to decompress and unwind so they can stay productive without completely burning out? They turn to things like watching sports, listening to music, reading books, and watching tv shows and movies. I get it. You don’t like watching the Kardashians. I don’t either. But millions of people do and those people should be able to unwind in whatever manner they wish that doesn’t harm others.
    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)

  4. #4
    Guru

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,743

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    The 'free market' system is absolutely and deeply flawed as it inherently must be as a semi-democratic allocation of wealth and value with all the attendant emotional, self-interested and irrational aspects that accompany it.

    The huge disparities in wealth between Nobel Laureates/other great scientists and engineers, those who revolutionize society and advance human progress by staggering bounds and about unambiguously add the most true value to it, and entertainers, ball kickers, people who shuffle around financial products/assets (I'm one of them!) and so on are absolutely among the most glaring instances of its failings, nevermind the boom and bust of countless bubbles of all kinds predicated on herd mentality, fear and greed, and other forms of malinvestment.

    That having been said, the current mixed economic model we exercise in most countries today is absolutely better than the alternative of a Soviet-style centralized/planned economy which is unfortunately pretty unworkable due to the immense and exploding complexity of the modern global economy, not to mention the ambiguity of the 'optimal'; when computing power becomes effectively unlimited that may change, but we're not quite there, and even then finding a consensus on the 'optimal' to inform the objectives of such a planned economy would still prove confoundingly elusive.
    Last edited by Surrealistik; 12-28-17 at 04:33 AM.
    "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." -Alberto Brandolini

  5. #5
    Professor Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,679

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    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.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    14,005

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    I don't claim to be an expert, but I probably know more than everyone in this forum debating the topic.
    2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a 'made-up story'

  7. #7
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Last Seen
    03-23-18 @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,163

    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.

    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?
    I get tired of people ragging on athletes and actors for what they earn. The reason Michael Jordan made so much is few people in the world could do what he did at the level he did it. He brought in millions X millions more than he was paid. I would think liberals would be happy to see owners sharing the profits. Isn't this exactly what you pretend to champion every day? Profit sharing..... Tom Hanks makes multi millions per movie because he's a virtual guarantee of millions and millions and millions more in profit. Why begrudge him his fair share of the profit? Is it jealousy?

    The reason scientists, teachers, doctors make less than star athletes is because most anybody of average intelligence can go into those occupations, and they don't make anywhere near the return the stars do. Engineers are a dime a dozen. So while they are well paid by world standards, there is nothing special about them. Besides, I always thought they went into those occupations to be helpful and not for the money. Are you saying teachers, scientists, and doctors should be in it for the money? Some are, and they make rock star money, maybe a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon... but to make that money they have to be at the top of their game, just like a Jordan or Hanks; one of a few in the entire world that good at what they do.

    The free market makes perfect sense.

  8. #8
    Sage

    Hawkeye10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Olympia Wa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    30,766

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddy View Post
    I get tired of people ragging on athletes and actors for what they earn. The reason Michael Jordan made so much is few people in the world could do what he did at the level he did it. He brought in millions X millions more than he was paid. I would think liberals would be happy to see owners sharing the profits. Isn't this exactly what you pretend to champion every day? Profit sharing..... Tom Hanks makes multi millions per movie because he's a virtual guarantee of millions and millions and millions more in profit. Why begrudge him his fair share of the profit? Is it jealousy?

    The reason scientists, teachers, doctors make less than star athletes is because most anybody of average intelligence can go into those occupations, and they don't make anywhere near the return the stars do. Engineers are a dime a dozen. So while they are well paid by world standards, there is nothing special about them. Besides, I always thought they went into those occupations to be helpful and not for the money. Are you saying teachers, scientists, and doctors should be in it for the money? Some are, and they make rock star money, maybe a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon... but to make that money they have to be at the top of their game, just like a Jordan or Hanks; one of a few in the entire world that good at what they do.

    The free market makes perfect sense.
    Playing basketball is fun, people should play all the basketball they want......but it is not very productive to society, these mega millionaires who entertain us. We need to get some bang for our bucks, we the society do. When money is frivolously spent bad things follow usually.
    The vigor of a society is directly proportional to its capacity to conduct difficult conversations.

    VICTIM CULTURE IS WRECKING A LOT OF IMPORTANT THINGS, TO INCLUDE GUTS AND RESILIENCE.

  9. #9
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    38,992

    Re: A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

    As compared to what, exactly? I voted yes when compared to something like China has.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #10
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    29,505

    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?
    Okay...I get it, though I don't agree with you. But tell me, what is your solution?
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 1 of 11 123 ... 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
  •