"Free market" means lawless killing for a profit.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

It's true.

Those who advocate for a "free market" are really pushing free reign to kill people (by sucking every penny out of them) with drugs and video games and arms and unecessary surgery and carbon dioxide and diamonds (worthless) and war and teevee and tragedy and fashion and appearance and fires/tornadoes/*place catastrophic event here* and death (it costs a minimum $400 to dig a grave,and didja' know SSI pays only $263). Eventually, the "free market" beast will starve itself TO DEATH but only after starving life itself!

It's disgusting. I am disgusted by ANYONE who gung-hos on capitalism because,...I've seen how the decency and dignity associated with being HUMAN is easily gutted by the capitalist gurus. Sick people sucking off hard-working Americans until trust waivers and then, the capitalists do as any/all criminals who have gotten away by being total bullshitters do,..."just give me another chance",...to screw you again.

Criminals, like the regime in charge, are incredibly intelligent. They know how to manipulate others to their will. They have no morals. They have no sense, whatsoever, of duty or obligation towards the whole of the country they USE. They are highly intelligent but have no smarts or common sense about the fact that, they are no more special or superior than the Mother in Sudan who flees with three babies on her back, wearing no shoes and having no guarantee of food or shelter but surviving. If ONLY the heartless, gutless, brainless and soulless capitalists were forced to live like that,...for their riches.

If those capitalist people were REALLY intelligent, they would COMPREHEND the bullshit of 'supply-n-demand' and 'supply-side' economics. They would be sick at the thought of buying another yaht to fill their insatiable greed while that money could save, literally, thousands of children, and promote a healthy democracy. Of course, I must suppose those "free marketeers" are not, have never been and will never be interested in democracy because, 'democracy' doesn't serve greed.

Spilling thoughts without edit, here. Thank you for that opportunity.

A "free market" serves fascist appetites. A "fair market", one that abides by rules of law serving the public and society, as any civil society must, promotes opportunity to all.

A democracy promotes opportunity to all because the rule of law applies to all.

[blues90]

1. I can't argue with that .

[Redstone]

2. But if I hadn't used my right under a capitalist system to start my own business,

I wouldn't have the 8 hours a weeks available that I use to do work for nonprofit organizations for free.

And I probably wouldn't have the spare money to contribute to charities that I now have, either.

Redstone

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

6. May I ask that you read my post a second time.

Then, perhaps, we can discuss how your and my and many others who seek to contribute rather than ravage would be protected from predators.

on edit: btw the ngos and npos are subjected to far more scrutiny than the COs of America,...of course, you all ready know that.

[Redstone]

9. "Protected from predators" like the fuckers who are charging me $2,100 per month for

health insurance?

That would be nice, and I'm sure it's part of what you propose under the umbrella term of "fair markets."

I'll read your further posts on the subject with interest.

Redstone

[stillcool]

3. there's nothing free about it...

unless you're a member of that 2% club.

[bryant69]

4. A Fair Market is still capitalistic

Just so you know. Markets are by their nature capitalistic.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[eridani]

5. Markets are not either (necessarily) capitalistic

Capitalism is about the ownership of the means of production and nothing else. If every business was either a sole proprietorship or a cooperative, the economy would not be capitalist in any sense, but these businesses would still operate in a market economy. Markets are always and everywhere regulated to some degree--the question is whether or not the regulations favor people or corporations.

[bryant69]

7. And you favor the destruction of the corporation?

Or am I misreading you?

Bryant

[eridani]

16. I'll settle for eliminating their status as "persons"

In the real world, people are not used to the idea of owhing their jobs and the attendant responsibility.

[bryant69]

23. That I might be able to get behind depending on how it is implemented n/t

[Redstone]

10. If every business wer either a sole proprietorship or a co-op, who the fuck would

build the airplanes? The cars? The computers? The ships?

Nice dream, but unrealistic. There have to be large companies to build large things. And, by the way, weren't the "robber barons" of a hundred years ago pretty much sole proprietors? Fat lot of good THAT did for society (even though this statement shoots holes in my prior one).

Redstone

[eridani]

17. The robber barons had employees, and therefore were not sole proprietors

Sole proprietors own their own means of production, but not anybody else's. They have no employees--that's what being a sole proprietor means.

Ownership structure has no relationship whatsoever to size. Planes would be built by companies like Boeing, whose only shareholders would be their own employees. Granted, with so many specialized roles in larger companies (engineer, lawyers, higher level managers, etc) some employees would be harder to replace than others and would probably be able to demand more shares per capita than assembly line workers.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

8. No. "Markets" are offering a product for sale.

Capitalism is offering a society, its heart and soul, for sale.

There is a difference between soul and soul-less-ness.

Didja' hear about the "market" that refused money from penniless New Orleans and the 'chain' hotel that kicked the penniless out?

[bryant69]

12. Well i also heard about th Government that failed to save

New Orleans or do much about them after they had been pretty well decimated. But that doesn't mean I hate government.

Bryant

[Odin2005]

22. As a Market Socialist I take offece to that comment.

socialism/capitalism is about who controls the economy, not how goods and services are distributed.

[Bronyraurus]

11. Nah, I'll take free markets

I can get my tuna fish, my books, and my stereo better that way. For cheap.

[wicket]

21. Yep, it's all about ME ME ME ME ME ME

Who cares if this crap was made by a child slave in China, as long as I got mine!!!! :eyes:

[wicket]

25. Bye bye asshole!

:hi: :rofl:

[KaptBunnyPants]

26. Your mercury tainted tuna, corporate censored books, and poorly made stereo

Those are the things you would sell your human dignity for? Not nearly enough for me, I think both of us deserve better.

[Union Thug]

13. "Free Market Capitalism" is code for rule by robber barons, modern feudalism. n/t

[gollygee]

20. That's right

and it isn't actually free, as smaller companies seem to have rules placed against them for the benefit of large corporations. There was an article posted yesterday that a small meat company could NOT test all their cattle for BFE because it would make their meat more profitable and other meat companies would have to test all their cattle for BFE to be competitive. There's nothing free market about that. It is definitely feudalism. There are rules, but all the rules benefit the rich.

[Rage for Order]

14. Actually, democracy does serve greed

It allows people to own property, and to pass accumulated property from one generation to the next via the rule of law.

[gravity]

15. Free markets are just a system of mutually beneficial exchanges

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Capitalism, like every other economic system, tries to solve the problems of having limited resources with unlimited wants and needs. Our system isn't perfect, but we have it a hell of a lot better than 90% of the world. It's just this unlimited wants and needs that we have which makes us never satisfied with what we have.

Saying that capitalism isn't democratic is just bullshit. Most 'capitalists', whatever that means, want a stable government with sound rules and regulations so they won't get screwed like the rest of society. Even those who aren't rich support capitalism because they don't want the government to tell them how they should spend their money.

There are problems with our current system like inequalities in opportunities and lack of safety nets, but overall free markets have made our country the richest in the world with a standard of living that the majority of the world would kill to have.

[NuttyFluffers]

18. no. trade is a system of mutually beneficial exchanges

free markets are an oxymoron, just like free trade. trade, by its very definition, has nothing to do with free. that would be a gift instead.

markets, by their very nature, require defined boundaries and foundations. w/o a common set of binding rules to support the structure of a market there will be complete and utter chaos with raw resources going to he who wields the most direct power.

when you enter a market you already agree to abide by its conditions. these can be many and varied, from currency, contracts, settlement of disputes, et cetera. and these binding rules and conditions affect the market all the way from raw materials gathering up to retail distribution of individualized final products. and this entire process is littered with trade transactions, with the rare gift here and there, thus further obviating the possibility of a connection to 'free'. there is absolutely nothing 'free' about the 'market' except the hallucinogenic thinking of conservative capitalists in their masturbatory dreams of greed.

now, this is just a terminology issue. but it really helps when we don't buy into the right wing think tank words. we already have words like trade, laissez faire, et cetera, to speak more concisely and clearly about concepts without buying into the current Orwellian doublespeak.

[gravity]

24. Free markets just facilitate trades

[NuttyFluffers]

28. i understand what you are trying to say, but i say don't buy into bad jargon

you probably want to say "let's have laissez faire attitude towards trade and market." fair enough, but don't buy into a loaded, and essentially ridiculous, term such as free markets. it doesn't make sense, was explicitly designed by RW think tanks, and ties in other issues that really cloud what you are trying to express. i believe it would be far wiser to truly say what you mean than buy into bad jargon being foisted upon you by a system that ultimately doesn't care about you any further than they can exploit you and all you love.

[jgraz]

19. But the lawless killing will be so efficient!

Do you really want to trust lawless killing to Big Government?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

27. your anger is misplaced

or do you think there were no evil men or crimes against humanity prior to Adam Smith and the "Wealth of Nations"? There have been unspeakable acts of barbarity since the dawn of man and it has nothing to do with corporaitons, which is merely an elaborate instrument with which one builds wealth.

You're all over the place, so let me hop around a bit too:

If not the CEO, the king. If not the firm, the force of armies. If not the brand, the unfurled banner with emblazoned coat of arms. It's not the corporation that's the problem, it's the evil that exists in the hearts of men. It existed in the Middle Ages and it exists now.

We are witnessing first hand the limits of democracy. See how easily Bush sidesteps the checks and balances. See how easily he dismantles the Constitution. Had Iraq gone his way, think of the power he would have. Think of how further he could have gone.

Supply and demand isn't bullshit, it's economic fact with over 500 years (if not more) of history under its belt. Supply side economics may be a different story.

A "fair" market is objective. You could regulate it to the needs of unions or low level employees and then guess what? Investors stop investing and the firm goes bankrupt and all those people you are trying to help have no job. The key is a balance between the owners, the investors and the operators, a balance that constantly evolves and needs to be tweaked. Regulation is needed in many industries, but it's use should be mandated by common sense, not ideological subservience to the "common man".