Free to Choose - vol 02, 1990

[Karlzberg414]

There's a problem with this reasoning in that it lumps together both essential goods and choice or "luxury" goods together. They are very different. When free markets are applied to luxury or surplus goods - things which people can live without - there is no problem. But when it is applied to goods essential to human survival, it can create chaos - housing, basic food, healthcare, fuel for example.

[CosmicFork]

I reject the premise that there is a quote "free-market" for ordinary workers in this country. What we have is a Coercive Market . In a Coercive Market, the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. Those who preach the virtues of the free market should be the first to recognize that a coercive market is as certain to be destructive as a genuine free market is beneficial.

[jtandbear]

Yes, we have a coercive market. It happens when the gov't steals 3 trillion dollars from us and creates a pot of gold that every last interest group and business fights for the access of so they can stamp out free competition. Why's the coercive market destructive? It is b/c of such gov't interference and crony capitalism. Even in a coercive market, though, there is no set amount of wealth. Just b/c one group has money, it doesn't mean that you can't have it, too. It's not a zero sum game.

[conorhennessey]

lol. amateur economics 101.

[sreymind]

@CosmicFork

'unbalanced share of the nation's wealth'

Nations don't have wealth, people have wealth and some have more than others. Simply adding it up is no more the nation's wealth than the sum total of all the money carried by people standing at a bus stop is the bus stop's wealth.

[CosmicFork]

But is this "market" really "free"? Coercion marks the employer-employee relationship at every point. For most employees, pay and working conditions are neither negotiable, nor a matter of free choice. It is "take it or leave it." And few are in a position to leave it--not when a job is a necessity for survival. In a true free market, both the buyer and seller of work or services are free to bargain for the best possible terms.

[conorhennessey]

coercion implies the use of physical force

[CosmicFork]

I have said, time and time again. that a truly "Free-Market" has never existed. What I'm talking about in my comments, (and I will continue to talk about) is the horrible societal consequences Friedman's ideological views have had on the real world, as seen in "Reaganomics". I lived through it. I saw what Friedman's ideology and "Reaganomics" did to ordinary working people's wages in my country, and I bet his ideology harmed plenty of other ordinary workers in other countries too!

[CosmicFork]

There is a huge discrepancy between the "ideal" of so-called "Free-Markets" that is supported by strident libertarian types, (like kev3d) and their actual manifestations in the real world. For those who are interested in the real world, we see "Really Existing Free-Market Theory", which means market discipline for the poor and the defenseless, but PLENTY of protection and subsidy for those who really need it, i.e. the Rich, and The Powerful.

[kev3d]

No, the best way to see how free markets exist in the real world and what happens when they are not present is not to read a book but to actually go and see these places. In the last 3 years I have been to 18 countries, roughly a 80 cities or so on four continents. It's obvious; free markets work and they increase the average living standard.

[CosmicFork]

I reject the premise that there is a "Free Market", for ordinary working people. What we have is a Coercive Market. In a Coercive Market the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's wealth. Those who preach the virtues of the free market should be the first to recognize that a Coercive Market is as certain to be destructive as a genuine Free Market is presumed to be healthy.

[kev3d]

The Earning power and standard of living have increased, not decreased. All nations that we classically associate with the industrial revolution, The UK, the US, France, Germany, Japan and a few others now enjoy first world status. The quality of life for the Average Indian has skyrocketed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hundreds of millions of mobile phones are purchased in India for example, giving millions a direct increase in the quality of life.

[CosmicFork]

kev3d is wrong, I don't live in Singapore, as he does, but in America there's been a big change in the last 30 years. Real wages for hourly workers stagnated in the 70's and started a steady decline throughout the 80's, and continued even through the so-called "Clinton Recovery". There was a horrible illegal distruction of Unions under President Reagan. The Prison Population TRIPLED during "The Reagan Years", (Building Prisons is a Great Growth Industry, in my country Now) I could go on,..

[kev3d]

Well I have only been in Singapore for 3 years, I was born and raised in rural middle America. "Real" wages? what does that mean? How is it during those 30 years the US, along with many other countries, experienced unprecedented growth? Destruction of unions? Pardon me, think of the two industries which are always in financial trouble, now think of two of the most heavily unionize industries; the answer is the same, Cars and Airlines.

[CosmicFork]

People confuse what we have today with "Free Market Capitalism". We don't live in the world of 1776, when Adam Smith published his book describing the free market. That world where cobblers exchanged hand-made shoes with farmers who sold hand-raised geese in an open-air market, hasn't existed for 300 years! That world has been replaced by a centralized and highly organized economy; it is absurd to assume that the Adam Smith economic model still operates in the same way.

[CosmicFork]

People who post these Milton Friedman videos live in "Free Market Fantasy Land", where every social problem is solved by "The Free Market". Our economy utilizes markets, but they are carefully controlled, not free. As any working person knows, the large employer controls the Labor Market. Adam Smith would not have recognized nor approved of today's so-called "free markets".

[MarxBakuninMe]

You must have faith in the Great Invisible Hand! The free market can do anything . . . damn, it would have obliterated the Taliban and the Nazis in 5 seconds if only we had allowed it to!!

[kev3d]

Capitalism is simply a means by which goods and services are produced and distributed. It makes no comment on, say, how to fight wars or healthy dietary habits. The free market does not "fix everything", nor does it claim to. It just happens to provide the most consumer choice while respecting rule of law and individual property rights. Free Markets are not enough to ensure freedom, but wherever there is freedom, there is a free market.

[MarxBakuninMe]

Capitalism is a system of production for profit. Everything else - freedom included- is always secondary.

[siebelseibel76]

The main institution of American capitalism--wallstreet--is voluntary (at least de jure voluntary). However, many Americans can suffer at the hands of wallstreet even if they do not participate in the institution. This might be a heighten form of market-behavior, but even small market forces (that are able to survive under capitalism) impose involuntary externalities. That's life. Freedom to chose can never be fully expressed in any society.

[MarxBakuninMe]

What's with all these thumbs down by the way? Is what mr1001 has to say so unnerving that he has to be censored?

[MarxBakuninMe]

Problem with the libertarian-right is that they always stress NEGATIVE freedom instead of positive freedom. Yes - work for a boss or starve. Personally I think we should work to get rid of hierarchy. Then again, if you want to have a boss fine by me, but the anti-authoritarian tendency is against capital.

[SoCalSocialism]

The name of the game is Socialism. The means of production will be socialized, the profits will be socialized, the workers will truly take destiny into their owns hands and not have the nanny state. They collectively and democratically, without leaders, will administer society.

Must I tell you how the profits will be democratically chosen to be spent by the workers? Well I can't. I'm sure you can think of some ways. Lol

[1978RDC21]

what profit? there will be no profit if production is socialized. We will all work for Non-profits then. When there is no opportunity to advance motivation will be socialized as well. Right comrade?

[kyufa]

mr1001nights: "Work for a boss or starve" seems to be your only argument. It's not even really an argument, it's simply a posture that you repeat over and over, as if repetition makes something more true. Address the third "work for yourself" option or STFU.

[mr1001nights]

In colonial Brazil slaves could buy their own freedom and become self-employed, or slave owners themselves. Did that social mobility justify the "work for a boss or get beaten" status quo of chattel slavery? so why should it justify the 'work for a boss or starve" status quo of wage slavery?

[mr1001nights]

Free to choose:Work for a boss or starve

[nibelungensohn]

You mean you don't have to work and yet you don't starve?

[mr1001nights]

wage slavery does not refer to the unavoidable subjection of man to nature (having to work to gain one's sustenance), but to the avoidable subjection of man to man (having to work for a boss)

[TimeWarp66]

You're not working FOR a boss. You're working for yourself. Silly Leftist.

[mr1001nights]

yeah, and I guess that an obese 500lb woman is a sexy as Angelie Jolie if you just change your perception of the situation

[TimeWarp66]

That was an odd reply. Your analogy is fallacious as all hell.

[MarxBakuninMe]

No you are working for a boss. Yes you can quit but this is like saying "move to Somalia if you son't like Obama's tax plan". If you are truly libertaian then you oppose hierarchy.

[TimeWarp66]

How can you even compare a business to a hierarchy? Hierarchy's are a form of forced collectivism. People voluntarily choose employment to pursue their own self interest.

[SoCalSocialism]

You are pro capitalism, where one section of society exploits another to get rich while one stays poor. The self interest of individuals under capitalism is all against all! "Get out of my way! Its mine! Its mine! Trampling over others. "

We socialist think what will work for society at large and actually work to plan the economy by socializing the means of production and the profits then deciding what we need.

[TimeWarp66]

Wrong. In a free market all parties benefit in consensual exchanges. That is why they are CONSENSUAL. Would you argue the person buying a can of soda for $1 at a store is being exploited by the owner? Or do both parties benefit because that person wanted the can of soda more then they wanted the $1, and the salesman wanted that $1 more than the can of soda? It's not a one sided transaction, both parties feel they have benefited which is why they both say "thank you" after it's over.

[SoCalSocialism]

Consensual exchange is not the problem.

Its the exploitation of the entire working class by the minority of capitalists that leaves them in poverty and misery.

By socializing the means of production wages and consensual exchange would still happen.

After socializing the means of production the profits would be democratically owned and planned by the working class for what is truly needed by the real working people in society. Effectively eliminating the exploitation of the workers.

[TimeWarp66]

How is "entire working class" being exploited "by the minority of capitalists" exactly?

[SoCalSocialism]

Very funny, ROFL

But seriously in order for their to be a rich class their needs to be an exploited one kept poor.

That rich corporate class praises freedom because they know that in order for men to be enslaved they must be free first.

[1978RDC21]

You are not distinguishing between equality under the law and equality of economic outcomes. There can never (and should never) be equality of economic outcomes. Some people are more intelligent, some people work harder. That is just the way life is.

In my view the goal of capitalism isn't simply to be rich, it's to be what you want. Everyone is free to be anything. A painter, you may not be successful, no one may like your art, but you still have the freedom of choice.

In socialism, not so

[siebelseibel76]

Every major socialist theorist--from Eduard Bernstein to George Orwell; from Upton Sinclair to Bakunin--believed that one should recieve compensation from their output (or labor). Capitalist do not believe this. Capital markets demonstrate what capital is; capital is not a direct result from output. One can get rich in a capitalist economy by doing less (in fact the more successful one is, their reward will be to contribute less).

[MarxBakuninMe]

How do the rich expolit the poor? Hello? Bail out? Remember?

[1978RDC21]

1st - I believe in the free-market and i don't agree with the bailout.

2nd - A bailout by the gov't. (taxpayers) is not free market, nor is it capitalist. In fact it's more socialist.

[siebelseibel76]

Bailout of a capitalist institution is an attempt to save capitalism--not socialism. I wish we would replace Wallstreet but this would be a challenging task for today's society.

I respect that you are against the bailout. A capitalist does not have to be for it, but only a capitalist can be for it.

[kev3d]

How is government intervention anything BUT a socialist device? Nationalization of companies and using taxpayer money to invest in failed businesses is decidedly UN-capitalistic (and quite unwise). Even G.W. Bush said that he had to "abandon free market principles" to get the bailout rolling. I think it might be the stupidest thing he's ever said, considering it was government meddling in the housing market which started the recession in the first place.

[andersoncouncil65]

The housing market was not due to giving loans to poor people. The cost percentage of loans made to low-income people is insignificant. Poor people having difficulty paying their loans was going on for a long time without effect. Besides, if it was a significant factor, a businessman should not get loans to pay loans. That is just bad business.

The housing market is more related to captial investment that ceased.

[kev3d]

Insignificant? According to whom? According to Economist Walter Williams " it is unlikely that a lender would extend a mortgage to a person with a poor credit history, making no down payment, and providing no verifiable employment history. But under the pressure of the government's Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up or guaranteeing such mortgages, a lender will." Howard Husock even predicted, years ago, how it was a terrible policy.

[andersoncouncil65]

The loans to poor people account for an insignificant portion of the housin market because the loans are many times smaller than middle-class and higher loans (who also actually receive more loans because they purchase and move more often).

Instead of assuming conservatives are right, you should learn the arugments of the left. Read about Upton Sinclair, MLK, Edward Bernstein, Susan B. Anthony, Ida M. Tarbell, or George Orwell.

[kev3d]

The housing bubble was caused by people with poor credit history and banks willing to lend to them due to government reassurance, not "Poor" people. There is a difference. As it is, it was those with poor credit history that defaulted on the loans. Every one of the people you listed died more than 40 years ago and none were economists by trade. Rather than pick my favorite dead philosopher to support my view, I let the economists who know something about the subject persuade me.

[conorhennessey]

some real deep thinkers there....

[kev3d]

So when exactly did I stop being in "poverty and misery"? When I was in grade school I worked on a nearby farm, shoveling shit, building fences, stacking hay. After school I worked a minimum wage job, stocking shelves. I save money, I bought a car, I saved more money and went to tech school, now I command a high salary. All without the magic of central planning. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic failed for a reason. But im sure you'll give it a good try. Hello bread lines!

[MarxBakuninMe]

What the hell are you talking about? Businesses are collectivist in the strictest sense as they are run by (usually small) groups. Hierarchy = one man ruling over another; and that's pretty much the relationship between employer and employee.

[1978RDC21]

1st, it's not collectivist, because there is not an equality of outcomes. People are paid based on productivity, or potential or whatever means an employer may create the contract.

"Hierarchy = one man ruling over another". Having a boss does not create a hierarchy. You may choose to work somewhere else, where is the bosses "rule" then. In fact in a free-market, you may be your own hierarchical ruler if you choose.

[siebelseibel76]

Socialist believe in equality of opportunity. When conservatives think socialists are referring to outcome it is because socialists are more incline to believe the poor have had less opportunity--giving them opportunity (such as free education) will allow them to reach their true potential that is lost in a capitalist economy. Today, institutions such as public education and freedom (not ownership) of information has allowed civilizations to drastically improve their intellegence.

[siebelseibel76]

When you say a boss is not hierarchical, you ignore positive choice. No one is forced to work for an authoritative boss. The industrail revolution is an example when there became essentially zero positive opportunity to avoid an authoritative boss. Without the ability to get around the system, employees became de facto forced into these jobs. Positive choice means that one is able to carry out his/her negative choice (the choice that is de jure given to him/her).

[MarxBakuninMe]

"You may choose to work somewhere else"

Of course. And you may choose to live somewhere else if you dislike Obama's tax plan. You idiots have such a narrow idea of freedom.

Anyway, capitalism is dying. FAST.

[1978RDC21]

As capitalism goes so goes the country.

You are right that I "could" move to a different country, but that's a little different than changing jobs. But, I may move to another State to gain a tax advantage. In fact, businesses do it all the time.

I have no doubt that people may rebel against capitalism, but history will show that as the government tries to reign it in, people will suffer. Opportunities will disappear, choices will disappear, and freedom will disappear.

[MarxBakuninMe]

The government "trying to reign it in" is not the only alternative. Anarchy would mean that capitalism would cease to exist because it needs the state to survive - and freedom would be preserved, with no Friedmanite mass murderers running around . . .

[kev3d]

No, Capitalism would reassert itself very quickly, even if no government existed because A. Capitalism means the means of production are in private hands. And B.If people wanted to live, they would have to cooperate. Since a table maker can only trade tables for food whenever a food producer needs a table, a goods-or-service intermediary is needed; money. Government, by and large, is an impediment to free markets and thus, property rights.

[MarxBakuninMe]

"Capitalism would reassert itself very quickly, even if no government existed "

Capitalism cannot exist without government.

[kev3d]

You think a government would not also arise? What I meant by "no government" is no currently established government. One (or many) would form because governments always spontaneously form. So do markets. Assuming technology did not revert back 3000 years, the market would be relatively free until (like now) the government grew to the point of massive incompetence, over taxation, over regulation, and corruption all in the name of "social justice".

[macadomus]

my problem of free trade and capitalism is that it's moblie. the market leaves one and enters the other not creating choice but opportunity. businesses chase profit and will change the land given law of the people to fit it model. while destorying the market it left behind killing it competition and the people that once worked for it.