People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

28th November 2011, 20:48
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Someone needs to set and enforce the rules of the game, and it has to be someone elected by the many who are the base of said market. You can't let the players make the rules as the game develops, we all see what that means in the end.

Exaclty. that is what I mean by a government that has a bare minimum of influence. If the government wasn't giving out tax breaks and bailouts and sweetheart deals and the like, corporations wouldn't have so much influence. Government needs to be like an umpire, there to make sure the rules are followed, but not to make new ones that favor one team over the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

Name me one system that will stop any of those things.
28th November 2011, 20:49
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And the imposition of the free market in education and healthcare does not guarantee improvement either.

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.
28th November 2011, 20:53
race aficionado

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .
28th November 2011, 20:54
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

But can you explain how the economic issues we are discussing differ from other inequality issues that have been addressed by protests, sometimes violence & direct action, and ultimately legislation?

Because in a free market system everyone has the opportunity to advance, however some will fail. The other inequality issues such as discrimination, slavery, etc. mean that one has been denied access to the free market.
28th November 2011, 20:55
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by race aficionado

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

Nor do I, for it seems to suggest in one breath that the private sector would both lead to improvements in education and healthcare, and not do away with poor provision.

I'm afraid that as soon as I read of involving the private sector in education, I think of the kid who was suspended from school in the USA for daring to wear a Pepsi T-shirt while a photo was being taken during his school's 'Coke In Education' day.
28th November 2011, 20:56
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Because in a free market system everyone has the opportunity to advance, however some will fail. The other inequality issues such as discrimination, slavery, etc. mean that one has been denied access to the free market.

Is that how you view the imposition of systems such as apartheid, then — nothing more important than the denial to black people of access to the free market?
28th November 2011, 20:57
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by race aficionado

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.
28th November 2011, 21:00
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Is that how you view the imposition of systems such as apartheid, then — nothing more important than the denial to black people of access to the free market?

Basically when you brake it down, yes that is what it was. Certain people were denied access to the free market of housing. They were denied access to the free market of labor. They were denied access to the equal protection of the legal system.

It was also morally repugnant, but we are talking about issues outside of morality at the moment.
28th November 2011, 21:01
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

Really? In every case? Experience tends to show otherwise. And given that you're always on at many of us to go into details, define 'better'.
28th November 2011, 21:01
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What proportion of TEA Party members are Republicans and what proportion Democrats?

What proportion of the protesters at OWS are Democrats and what proportion Republicans?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page