What Happens to Jobless Individuals in a Free Market During Economic Downturns?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
In a free market, job loss during economic downturns can lead to more significant hardships compared to a welfare state, as the unemployed may lack sufficient support. However, proponents argue that free markets create higher overall productivity and income levels, benefiting even those who are unemployed. The discussion highlights the importance of competition in job markets, suggesting it leads to better job matches, higher employee motivation, and improved product quality. Critics raise concerns about monopolies and the potential for exploitation without regulation, arguing that free markets can lead to fewer rights for workers and lower wages in areas with limited competition. The debate also touches on the role of government regulation, with some arguing that it is necessary to ensure fair competition and worker protections, while others believe that too much regulation stifles economic growth. The effectiveness of welfare systems in countries like Scandinavia is cited as evidence that government intervention can coexist with economic prosperity. Overall, the conversation reflects a complex interplay between market freedom, economic health, and social safety nets.
  • #51
xxChrisxx said:
The below is not to imply that you or the graph is wrong, just bakcing up the statement of Correlation does not imply causation.

There may be a correlation but that does not mean that single variable is responsible. You also need to be careful about the conclusions you can draw from a graph like that. You have to ask, do the results indeed imply causation or as a consequence.

Eg. Do rich people have more TV's in their home because they are rich. Or are they rich becuase they have more TV's. (In this case the answer is obvious becuase of common sonse, but strictly from the correlation alone you cannot draw the conclusion that they have more TV's becuase they are rich)

Point is: your graph lovely as it is, by itsself is inconclusinve.

This makes no sense. It sounds like you are trying to defend your (or whoever's it was) statement, "correlation does not imply causation" by now saying "consequences aren't necessarily caused by anything".

I assure you, correlation always implies causation, unless, of course, you reject the scientific process.

Please take a look at my first response to that "correlation does not imply causation" post. I address the issue of direction of causation, but I'm being difficult, here, because it really looks like someone is trying to obfuscate simple matters in order to pretend they didn't make a bad (and, IMO, spun) statement.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
fleem:

What does GDP say about the quality or sustainability of what is being produced?
 
  • #53
fleem said:
This makes no sense. It sounds like you are trying to defend your (or whoever's it was) statement, "correlation does not imply causation" by now saying "consequences aren't necessarily caused by anything".

I assure you, correlation always implies causation, unless, of course, you reject the scientific process.

Mathematically you are wrong. Technically its always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation"

Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it.I wasnt making comment about anything you or anyone else said, becuase I really couldn't care less. Just defending the (correct) point that you have to be careful when using a graph you have found to instantly conclude you are correct.

EDIT: I also said that I wasnt saying you were wrong (as I agree with the conclusion that the more free the economy, the grater the wealth) I'm simply backing up the statemnt from a statistically honest perspective.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
DavidSnider said:
fleem:

What does GDP say about the quality or sustainability of what is being produced?

A high per-capita GDP says that the products and services in that nation are being purchased by the consumers in that nation (over foreign goods) because those domestic goods are all extremely low quality and the consumers are all masochists and want their economy to plummet to oblivion. (just kidding).
 
  • #55
xxChrisxx said:
Mathematically you are wrong. Technically its always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation"

Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it.I wasnt making comment about anything you or anyone else said, becuase I really couldn't care less. Just defending the (correct) point that you have to be careful when using a graph you have found to instantly conclude you are correct.

EDIT: I also said that I wasnt saying you were wrong (as I agree with the conclusion that the more free the economy, the grater the wealth) I'm simply backing up the statemnt from a statistically honest perspective.

Ah of course. I thought you were implying the strong correlation among the many data points in that graph impied a notable liklihood of no causation. As with all science, we refer to a strong enough correlation as a "proof" of causation. But your technical point is taken.

EDIT: I do, though, think the original statement was simply made to imply the graph was notably suspect on purely statistical grounds (assuming no foul play in its creation), because the person that made that post didn't make clear, like you, that he was simply setting the technical record straight.
 
  • #56
fleem said:
A high per-capita GDP says that the products and services in that nation are being purchased by the consumers in that nation (over foreign goods) because those domestic goods are all extremely low quality and the consumers are all masochists and want their economy to plummet to oblivion. (just kidding).

or perhaps they buy them because the products are cheap and buy them again because they fall apart and prefer what they can buy now over what they have to save for to get later.
 
  • #57
kasse said:
If welfare and big government is bad, how come the scandinavian countries suffer less than other countries during the financial crisis?
Swedish economy hits 30-year low

Sweden’s government has released data showing the nation’s economic growth has slowed to its weakest levels in more than 30 years. Anders Borg, Sweden’s Finance Minister, announced the bad news along with a forecast that the Swedish economy will shrink by 0.8 percent in 2009.

Sweden’s labour market will also be affected by the economic slump, with unemployment expected to rise to 7.7 percent in 2009 and 8.5 percent in 2010. Again, the government foresees 2011 as being the turning point when figures begin returning to healthier levels.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/01/19/swedish-economy-hits-30-year-low/

Population: 9,059,651 (July 2009 est.)
(Source: CIA Factbook)

New York City has almost the same population at 8.36 million. You're comparing apples and oranges.
 
  • #58
DavidSnider said:
or perhaps they buy them because the products are cheap and buy them again because they fall apart and prefer what they can buy now over what they have to save for to get later.

Quick, somebody give their blow hard politicians the power to save them from that hell on Earth!

Seriously, I could say the same thing about foreign goods. You're making things up to avoid talking about that graph.
 
  • #59
arildno said:
That might change.

They were EXACTLY like you and me in their human natures.

Consider the implications of that.
The concept of a free people, the worth and rights of the individual have radically changed over the last couple millennia, more so over the last two or three centuries. In the middle ages, generation after generation expected that the world would not change at all for them, even for their descendants, other than the possibility their social group might be obliterated. They were correct in that thinking. Before the settlement of North America, culminating with the American revolution, large societies had an expectation around the world that they would answer to a King/Emperor/Pope somewhere. There was zero expectation on the part of the average person that they could ever be King. That thinking has radically changed in the developed world.
 
  • #60
mheslep said:
The concept of a free people, the worth and rights of the individual have radically changed over the last couple millennia, more so over the last two or three centuries. In the middle ages, generation after generation expected that the world would not change at all even for their descendants, other than their social group might be obliterated, and they were right. Before the settlement of North America, and culminating with the American revolution, large societies had an expectation around the world that they would answer to a King/Emperor/Pope somewhere. There was zero expectation on the part of the average person that they could ever be King. That has thinking has radically changed in the developed world.

Maybe so, but the comment was along the lines of selling yourself into slavery to ensure you are kept (ie don't die of starvation).

This is a point about preservation which is the most fundamental need, it trumps expectations and aspirations. So within the context of the question, were are precisely the same as the people from 6th centruy Gaul.
 
  • #61
fleem said:
Quick, somebody give their blow hard politicians the power to save them from that hell on Earth!

Seriously, I could say the same thing about foreign goods. You're making things up to avoid talking about that graph.

First of all, I never made any statements about giving politicians any sort of power.

Second, I don't see anything wrong with the graph.

What I'm asking you to consider is that not everything that is important to the well being of a society is based on GDP per capita.

How would you libertarians handle the problem of environmental destruction? Let's say factories down the road are polluting your farm, but you can't prove which one of them is responsible?
 
  • #62
DavidSnider said:
First of all, I never made any statements about giving politicians any sort of power.

Second, I don't see anything wrong with the graph.

What I'm asking you to consider is that not everything that is important to the well being of a society is based on GDP per capita.

How would you libertarians handle the problem of environmental destruction? Let's say factories down the road are polluting your farm, but you can't prove which one of them is responsible?

For the record I'm only "mostly" libertarian, and also the definition does have some ambiguity. I do believe the federal government should have power to regulate certain activity damaging the environment. Of course, ideally its done with real science (not through the "scientists" bribed with govt grants), and that's hard to implement. When asked about my political leanings, I usually mention some degree of state sovereignty. I believe the federal government has convinced the people that states should not have much power. But competition among the state governments would be a powerful force keeping government clean (taxpayers move away from corruption). Unfortunately its kinda harder to move out of the country to get away from corruption in the federal government. I doubt I need to point out that 95% of what the federal govt does is blatantly unconstitutional. Finally, i applaud states that defy the federal government's unconstitutional laws, like California and marijuana, because that sort of attitude is our only hope in keeping the federal government in check.
 
  • #63
fleem said:
ideally its done with real science (not through the "scientists" bribed with govt grants).

Is this truthiness or do you have a specific example?
 
  • #64
xxChrisxx said:
Maybe so, but the comment was along the lines of selling yourself into slavery to ensure you are kept (ie don't die of starvation).

This is a point about preservation which is the most fundamental need, it trumps expectations and aspirations. So within the context of the question, were are precisely the same as the people from 6th century Gaul.
Precisely because the vast majority of people know that there are opportunities for nearly everyone (unlike Gaul), that tomorrow may and likely will hold even more opportunities (unlike Gaul), then it makes little sense to sell away the rest of your life because today they are destitute. Furthermore, on average everyone around them is not destitute (unlike Gaul), in fact no matter where you are in this country there is likely a millionaire within a rocks throw with no connection to the King (unlike Gaul). There are churches and other charitable organizations within a rocks throw (unlike Gaul), all of which need have nothing to do with government. Despite all this people can and do resort to desperate actions in the moment. But given the above, it is simply ridiculous to make the comparison between 21st century free societies and Gaul in terms of subsistence living.
 
  • #65
mheslep said:
Precisely because the vast majority of people know that there are opportunities for nearly everyone (unlike Gaul), that tomorrow may and likely will hold even more opportunities (unlike Gaul), then it makes little sense to sell away the rest of your life because today they are destitute. Furthermore, on average everyone around them is not destitute (unlike Gaul), in fact no matter where you are in this country there is likely a millionaire within a rocks throw with no connection to the King (unlike Gaul). There are churches and other charitable organizations within a rocks throw (unlike Gaul), all of which need have nothing to do with government. Despite all this people can and do resort to desperate actions in the moment. But given the above, it is simply ridiculous to make the comparison between 21st century free societies and Gaul in terms of subsistence living.

I wasn't aware that this discussion applied to only this country. Look at Africa, look at Central America and large parts of South America. Look at parts of Asia and you will find areas where your post doesn't apply. In these areas it is not ridiculous to make that comparison.
 
  • #66
mheslep said:
Precisely because the vast majority of people know that there are opportunities for nearly everyone (unlike Gaul), that tomorrow may and likely will hold even more opportunities (unlike Gaul), then it makes little sense to sell away the rest of your life because today they are destitute. Furthermore, on average everyone around them is not destitute (unlike Gaul), in fact no matter where you are in this country there is likely a millionaire within a rocks throw with no connection to the King (unlike Gaul). There are churches and other charitable organizations within a rocks throw (unlike Gaul), all of which need have nothing to do with government. Despite all this people can and do resort to desperate actions in the moment. But given the above, it is simply ridiculous to make the comparison between 21st century free societies and Gaul in terms of subsistence living.

I think you were focusing too much on the literal points of the argument as opposed to the general meaning behind it. The original point was that, as you say, desperate times makes people do funny things, now as much as the examples chang (and have become less extreme) people will act in the same manner (to preserve themselves) be it in 6th C Gaul or 21st century western world.

Now the 'sell yourself into slavery becuase of strvation arguement' takes this to the extreme, and in modern 1st world countries will never happen as we have alternatives (charites/welfare). Without the security net of welfare (be it goverrnment or other) you will find that people can and will turn to similar measures that our ancient ancestors turned to.

So the comparison is far from rediculous in terms of human behaviour, in the outcomes and otions they have then yes.
 
  • #67
I have some related questions about (ideal) free markets (run by real people):

1) How government should afford military expenditures? or Who should be responsible for the nation's defense?
2) What should be the government objectives?
3) What should be the course of action where government objectives and free market goals interfere?
4) Is free economy prone to more boom-busts (or greed)?
5) Will profit maximizing society be sustainable in the long run? Often, short term profit maximizing goals interfere with the long term sustainability.
Or, If free market can sustain itself in the long run?
6) Should there be any public services?
 
Last edited:
  • #68
mheslep said:
The concept of a free people, the worth and rights of the individual have radically changed over the last couple millennia, more so over the last two or three centuries. In the middle ages, generation after generation expected that the world would not change at all for them, even for their descendants, other than the possibility their social group might be obliterated. They were correct in that thinking. Before the settlement of North America, culminating with the American revolution, large societies had an expectation around the world that they would answer to a King/Emperor/Pope somewhere. There was zero expectation on the part of the average person that they could ever be King. That thinking has radically changed in the developed world.

Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
arildno said:
Yawn.
How amusing.
You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food.
Yes quite right. Which has nothing to do with your assertions above. You are spouting nonsense there.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
skeptic2 said:
I wasn't aware that this discussion applied to only this country.
Yes the discussion, as started in #42, applies to the developed world where there substantial economies in existence and the possibility of changing over to a 'wholly unregulated economy' has relevance.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
mheslep said:
Yes quite right. Which has nothing to do with your assertions above. You are spouting nonsense there.

Why?

Do elaborate..
 
  • #72
The isolated and likely temporary premise described here:
#68 said:
If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), ...
You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food
is not the same as the widespread and nearly pandemic conditions implied for the actions described here
#42 said:
...you willing to agree to any sort of degradation.

We have pathetic letters from 6th century Gaul, where a man sells himself into slavery to the local land-owner in order to gain some sort of security in his life.

People sold their own children (if you were a carpenter, scraping by, and then had an accident making you unable to work for a long time; what would you choose: let all your children starve to death, or sell one to a guy who says he will be treated well, giving you the money to care for the others while you are ill?)...
People still do occasionally reach dire conditions in modern societies, but they visibly do not sell their children off. Or, in the rare tabloid story of some human monster who does so, it is not because of starvation conditions.
 
  • #73
mhsleep:

Your "conditions" are mere, historical circumstances. They change profoundly over time, and can, of course, be reversed.

Not so with the condition of starvation.

Whenever it occurs, it leads to the same type of cravings within the individual, irrespective of the historical times he lives in.

Only insofar as the historical times happens to be amenable for him, in his condition, will he not sink into self-degradation.

And THAT is the argument for why we should have a system of minimum social aid.

Even a libertarian like Herbert Spencer understood that.
 
  • #74
arildno:
"Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food. "

Alright, class, what logical fallacy is this?
 
  • #75
Please use the "quote" function when replying.
 
  • #76
AUMathTutor said:
arildno:
"Yawn.

If you were PHYSICALLY starving (and that is an OBJECTIVE, trans-historical condition!), you would rid yourself with such notions in the manner of..seconds.

You wouldn't care about "rights", but about food. "

Alright, class, what logical fallacy is this?
There is no fallacy.

It merely bumps into your indoctrinated head.
 
  • #78
Evo said:
Please use the "quote" function when replying.

Sure.
 
  • #79
What are the drawbacks with having welfare like hospitals, school and a pension system in a free market society? Isn't it a pity if people regard taxing theft, and not a way to continue a safe society?
 
  • #80
I hear a lot of people comare taxing to theft. In a sense, I suppose it's similar. However, I'm not sure if I know of a better way of providing, for instance, national security, than by taxing everybody and using it to fund a national military. Privatization comes to mind, but I'm not sure how that would work.

Social programs could more realistically be privatized. I think there's a possibility... I don't know if it would be better or worse, but I can imagine that anything other than the way things are now would be bad for a while, at least until things settled down. It wouldn't be an easy transition, in my relatively uninformed opinion.
 
  • #81
I cannot really see any drawbacks of having hospitals, schools or pensions.

Cost... and that's it, but I would like to think that in this day and age money means less to people than the increased standard of living and health of all. Sadly people give more of a **** about their bank balances than helping others.
 
  • #82
kasse said:
What are the drawbacks with having welfare like hospitals, school and a pension system in a free market society? Isn't it a pity if people regard taxing theft, and not a way to continue a safe society?
Do you have a point? Please make it if you do.

If you want to equate taxation with theft, you have a whole lot more history than the US to reference.
 
  • #83
The thread is going nowhere. Closed.
 

Similar threads

MHB My Failed University Life: Addictions, Depression, and Uncertain Future
Replies
1
Views
2K
Buy and Hold Beats Active Investing
Replies
46
Views
5K
Can Alternative Contracts Solve Free Market Limitations?
Replies
10
Views
6K
News Mixed Economy the only real and reasonable economic system?
Replies
11
Views
7K
What will be the economic purpose of modular reactors?
Replies
11
Views
3K
News Did the 2008 Financial Crisis Mark the End of Free-Market Economics?
5
Replies
222
Views
34K
News Is Classic Liberalism Realistic in Today's Society?
Replies
3
Views
2K
What U.S. Economic Recovery? Five Destructive Myths
4
Replies
156
Views
38K
Study Block during Master's Thesis work
Replies
2
Views
1K
News How do deregulation policies fit into a free market system?
Replies
27
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top