- #1
kasse
- 384
- 1
In a free market, what happens to the people who lose their job in periods of bad conjuncture? To me it seems reasonable that the fall height is higher than in a welfare state.
kasse said:In a free market, what happens to the people who lose their job in periods of bad conjuncture? To me it seems reasonable that the fall height is higher than in a welfare state.
kasse said:In a free market, what happens to the people who lose their job in periods of bad conjuncture? To me it seems reasonable that the fall height is higher than in a welfare state.
CRGreathouse said:Probably unemployment insurance, despite its moral hazard.
fleem said:Yes, but there are fewer unemployed
kasse said:Why is that?
kasse said:And what do you call a person who supports a free market? Conservative? Liberal? Liberalist?
fleem said:Yes, but there are fewer unemployed, those who are employed are more productive and make more money, the standard of living for everyone is higher (even unemployed), and there is better fairness over who has a job and who doesn't (i.e fewer freeloaders), and the community, friends, and relatives learn to help each other more rather than rely on the state (and they do it more fairly because they better know who is lazy and who isn't).
fleem said:The short answer is that the economy will simply be far healthier in a free market, and a healthy economy means jobs. The proof is in the pudding--its easy to see the historical correlation between free-marketism and wealth in the nations of the world. But there are rather obvious reasons for this. Here are a few:
1. Competition in the job market better matches employees with job requirements, resulting in more efficient operation. Forcing businesses to hire and pay people they wouldn't otherwise hire and pay, simply kills businesses.
fleem said:2. Employees will be inspired to work harder because they'll be better rewarded for working hard.
fleem said:3. Employees will be inspired to develop their skills more because if they don't, they'll end up with a lower-paying job. Rewarding everyone more equally reduces that inspiration.
fleem said:4. Competence in industry inspires businesses to improve their product, making a free-market country competitive world-wide, and increasing the standard of living. Corporate welfare removes that inspiration.
fleem said:5. Competence among regional governments (i.e. a federal government that keeps its hands out of local politics) causes those local governments to please their consituents/taxpayers more so they don't move away.
fleem said:Certainly the free market has problems, but as I've said in other posts, some (not all) of those problems arise because we do not have a very free market in the west, yet the free-market naysayers blame freedom for those problems.
fleem said:Libertarian comes to mind.
Do you have any documentation to support this claim?kasse said:How come unemployed have a better standard of living in a free market than in a welfare state, when they don't receive the same support from and when those who work earn more than ever? It doesn't make sense!
kasse said:How come unemployed have a better standard of living in a free market than in a welfare state, when they don't receive the same support from and when those who work earn more than ever? It doesn't make sense!
Got any documentation, or are we expected to believe your assertions?drankin said:Because the unemployed might come from a free market country where everyone has a higher standard of living to begin with? Until they are hired again they can live on unemployment, sell possessions they've acumulated while working, have plenty of opportunity to do side jobs until employed again... there's money to be had in a free market economy when not doing your primary work.
turbo-1 said:Got any documentation, or are we expected to believe your assertions?
turbo-1 said:Got any documentation, or are we expected to believe your assertions?
skeptic2 said:Like women, minorities and the handicapped?
Why the monopoly comment? If a company is free to hire/fire employees as the wish and to give raises as they wish then the best people will get the best pay at the best companies. Now there may still be companies that treat their employees badly, but they won't stand a chance in the long run against happy productive employees. Even in monopolies there is always a threat of having your workers taken by other industries. If you don't pay them enough they will leave and you will be left with the worst workers available for what you pay.skeptic2 said:Why? Monopolies have no incentive for rewarding workers.
skeptic2 said:Perhaps, if the company has a need for employees with higher skills. If the only company in town is a coal mine, taking night courses may not be all that useful.
So when companies lobby to have the government create artificial monopolies this is better than having a huge company that can do things better than smaller companies? Yes I admit that having a bad monopoly is possible in a truly free market, but it is inherently short lived. If you corner the market on sprockets and then raise the price enough, sooner or later someone is going to take the risk and start producing his own sprockets. Without artificial monopolies there is no way to permanently prevent competition. The government is the only power that can prevent you from making something, because they have the monopoly on force.skeptic2 said:But a free market doesn't always result in competition and many times it suppresses it.
Some government regulation is a good thing such as child labor laws, but for the most part it solves problems that would have solved themselves. Minimum wage establishes itself without government mandate. If you raise the minimum wage then the money has to come from somewhere. The owners either cut profits (less profits in an industry means less growth and fewer jobs), they cut employees (again fewer jobs), or they raise prices which means that everyone who buys from them effectively takes a pay cut. On the other hand, there is truly a minimum you can pay employees before you can't get anyone to work for you, and in many places it is ABOVE the minimum wage.skeptic2 said:In the U.S. the late 1800's and early 1900's many laws were passed limiting our free market, laws such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, and the Pure Food and Drugs Act. In addition many laws were passed prohibiting child labor, limiting the number of hours workers could be required to work in a day, mandating workplace safety, and minimum wages. Do you really believe we would be better off without this government regulation?
turbo-1 said:Correlation does nor imply causation.
I've heard this idea before that the free market supposedly takes care of monopolies on its own but I have never seen a rationale for this. You say that some brave entrepreneur will come along and start a competing business. What happens when the monopoly tries to buy them out of chase them out of business? Monopolies are really quite good at mantaining themselves through various forms of legal coercion.Chayced said:So when companies lobby to have the government create artificial monopolies this is better than having a huge company that can do things better than smaller companies? Yes I admit that having a bad monopoly is possible in a truly free market, but it is inherently short lived. If you corner the market on sprockets and then raise the price enough, sooner or later someone is going to take the risk and start producing his own sprockets. Without artificial monopolies there is no way to permanently prevent competition. The government is the only power that can prevent you from making something, because they have the monopoly on force.
fleem said:"free market" is not synonymous with "anarchy", yet your response above makes it clear you believe they are synonyms. i am not an anarchist, as you imply.
Most complaints against the free market stem (and rightly so) from fear of anti-competitive behavior. The reason people fear anti-competitive behavior like trusts and monopolies is because they know competition is needed! You just defended anti-trust laws because you value competition (along with laws against murder, theft, taking advantage of children, etc.)!
fleem said:[snip] I'd rather have fat cats spending their time trying to figure out how to find loopholes in laws AND ways to improve productivity and product quality rather than have lawmakers tweaking those laws for their own benefit.
kasse said:If welfare and big government is bad, how come the scandinavian countries suffer less than other countries during the financial crisis?
kasse said:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?_r=1
And how come the scandinavian countries are the best countries to live in when they also have the most developed welfare systems?
fleem said:Yes it does.
Perhaps you meant to say, "Correlation does not imply a certain direction of causation". If that's what you were trying to say, then I guess you meant that possibly wealth breeds freedom of economy, rather than freedom of economy breeding wealth. Actually, I believe both occur. What was your point? That it is far more likely that wealth breeds freedom and extremely unlikely that freedom breeds wealth? You make such an off the wall statement (which also gives your argument nothing, to boot!) and then demand I give statistics? (Which I did with bells on, by the way!).
I believe the argument goes something like this. First there are only two alternatives to the private monopoly: a public monopoly (e.g. the old US post office), or public regulation. Both of these also have carrying costs. Second, the private monopoly left to itself in the absence of competition inevitably becomes bloated and inefficient. Then comparative advantage offers large benefits to both customers and possible competitors to make the investment required to find radical alternatives well outside the monopoly's area of market control, and the monopoly eventually falls.TheStatutoryApe said:I've heard this idea before that the free market supposedly takes care of monopolies on its own but I have never seen a rationale for this. You say that some brave entrepreneur will come along and start a competing business. What happens when the monopoly tries to buy them out of chase them out of business? Monopolies are really quite good at mantaining themselves through various forms of legal coercion.
Yes, first thing the US needs to do to economically emulate the Norwegians is ... become one the world's largest oil exporters:kasse said:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?_r=1
And how come the scandinavian countries are the best countries to live in when they also have the most developed welfare systems?
NYT said:...Still, even Ibsen might concede that it is easier to stand alone when your nation has benefited from oil reserves that make it the third-largest exporter in the world.
'Anders' is demonstrably wrong: if one looks at the charitable giving in the US per capita, it's far higher than other countries.NYT said:“The U.S. and the U.K. have no sense of guilt,” said Anders Aslund, an expert on Scandinavia at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “But in Norway, there is instead a sense of virtue. If you are given a lot, you have a responsibility.”
kasse said:Yes.
chayced said:Why do you even make this statement? Does being a woman or a minority make you an inherently worse pick for a job? This is borderline racism. If you force businesses to employ people because of quotas and not ability you do tie the hands of the companies. If racism is a problem with some companies than others will come along and swoop up the best qualified people that were ignored. Lots have companies have prospered on resources that others have ignored and in the process they have changed how business is done, personnel are a resource like all others.
chayced said:Why the monopoly comment? If a company is free to hire/fire employees as the wish and to give raises as they wish then the best people will get the best pay at the best companies. Now there may still be companies that treat their employees badly, but they won't stand a chance in the long run against happy productive employees. Even in monopolies there is always a threat of having your workers taken by other industries. If you don't pay them enough they will leave and you will be left with the worst workers available for what you pay.
chayced said:If you work in a coal mining town and want a better job then you move. If enough people move then the mine either can't operate or they raise the pay and the price of coal. Having only one job available is never a good excuse for not moving up.
chayced said:So when companies lobby to have the government create artificial monopolies this is better than having a huge company that can do things better than smaller companies? Yes I admit that having a bad monopoly is possible in a truly free market, but it is inherently short lived. If you corner the market on sprockets and then raise the price enough, sooner or later someone is going to take the risk and start producing his own sprockets. Without artificial monopolies there is no way to permanently prevent competition. The government is the only power that can prevent you from making something, because they have the monopoly on force.
chayced said:Some government regulation is a good thing such as child labor laws, but for the most part it solves problems that would have solved themselves. Minimum wage establishes itself without government mandate. If you raise the minimum wage then the money has to come from somewhere. The owners either cut profits (less profits in an industry means less growth and fewer jobs), they cut employees (again fewer jobs), or they raise prices which means that everyone who buys from them effectively takes a pay cut. On the other hand, there is truly a minimum you can pay employees before you can't get anyone to work for you, and in many places it is ABOVE the minimum wage.
chayced said:I'm really tired of the idea that there is some magic evil rich person somewhere and when we raise taxes or minimum wage or increase regulations they just pull some extra money out of their pocket. There is no magical person. Most of us own businesses in the form of IRAs or other retirement investments. All of us pay the tax burden of the rich each time we buy something. The only person who gets stuck with the bill is the working person. Trying to stop free market because of inequities will eventually make everyone equal, but we will all be equal and poor.
TheStatutoryApe said:I've heard this idea before that the free market supposedly takes care of monopolies on its own but I have never seen a rationale for this. You say that some brave entrepreneur will come along and start a competing business. What happens when the monopoly tries to buy them out of chase them out of business? Monopolies are really quite good at mantaining themselves through various forms of legal coercion.
Most of your examples have involved improvements in technology. They have also almost all been examples of competition arising in the US during the era since regulations have been put in place to prevent monopolies.Chayced said:To answer your question...