How much does Sup Forums actually believe in the Free Market? Let's find out

How much does Sup Forums actually believe in the Free Market? Let's find out.

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/12330868
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>argentina
>white

strawpoll.me/12330868

Free trade is for WITHIN a nation, between its citizens, not BETWEEN nations, across borders.

you forgot the link nigger

Sup Forums is most likely going to go full Libertarishit.

But DO recognize that Fascism is against complete free-market capitalism, and instead pushes "state-capitalism" and pseudo-socialism.

While borders should be defended in the same way private property is, open borders is a much less of an issue in a free market society where people are allowed to defend themselves as well as having welfare not exist

You do need regulations for many things but you should have an hands-off approach.

For instance, you require that a business to open must comply with certain regulations. However, you don't have to verify they are complying before they open to business. Just assume they are. Then, randomly send the regulatory agency to some of them. Also, if some complication arises due to non-compliance (e.g. food poisoning), screw the business with lawsuits.

Moreover, the industry needs to be somewhat directed. There is a positive externality in entrepreneurship, meaning many entrepreneurs are doing valuable work whilst not being compensated for it. For this reason, giving them some temporary market power, like what's done in the pharmaceutical industry should be on the table.

Nigger

Great point. You have convinced everyone.

Immigrants vote. Your argument only applies to ancap or if you implement some sort of grandfather clause.

Got any good intellectual recommendations (books, etc.)?

this

why is socialism grouped with communism? its closer to capitalism the communism

Fuck off.

Prevention is superior to cleaning up a mess, and it's less harmful to push a business into complying before opening day than it is when they're already paying hired employees and running high-volume days.

I am not going to give a unique option to every unique brand of socialism/communism and whatever relationship those two have.

We need to secure our borders to prevent cultural genocide and to provide for the security of the American people against potential criminals. We should also control trade with enemy nations like Iran and China.

but so many options for capitalism?

I assume that most people here made peace with the fact that capitalism works and isn't going anywhere.

>Prevention is superior to cleaning up a mess
You think companies don't realize that? All you're doing with regulations is cutting out competition in the market.

On philosophy? Politics? Economy?
You need to be more specific.

On government regulations of modern economies

I get the prevention is better than the cure, but don't you think that the fact that business owners will get sued big league will deter them from creating harmful products? If we make it too cumbersome to start a business, less people will take risks and that means less innovation and less job creation.

Check the stuff by Oliver Williamson, Dani Rodrik, Oliver Hart, Jean Tirole, George Akerlof, Robert Shiller, Richard Posner, George Stigler.
Many of these won Nobel prizes.

Check also how Portugal, Japan, Singapore and South Korea transitioned from developing to developed economies. They followed a similar industrial and macroeconomic policy.

Regulations are important for protecting the worker and consumer no matter what. Only niggers in Africa don't bother with them.
The problems we should ever worry about with regulations become excess.

It's only a partial deterrence. Many business owners suffer from total incompetence and naivety. In many cases, these undocumented problems could arise slowly with time, or keep a hidden hand throughout an entire business' lifespan. Again, prevention in nearly all aspects helps curb future complications.

No one except for automatons believe that capitalism doesn't work. The problem has always rested at the extent of the free market.

Free trade seems like a great idea on paper. If both partners are industrialized first world nations, it may be somewhat practical. In practice, these deals are typically between a developed first world nation (such as the USA) and a second or third world nation like China, India, or Mexico.

Problems arise when different labor standards exist in those countries. For example, when one country has no meaningful minimum wage, no health or safety standards, no prohibition against child labor or sweatshops, or other workers' rights taken for granted in the first world, the cost of labor drops significantly. Essentially, life is cheap in those countries. This makes it highly lucrative for businesses to cease operations where life is expensive (due to all those pesky safety regulations) and relocate to other places where they can exploit the working class. Why pay a 30-year-old working $20/hour, while also investing the equivalent of $10/hour in his health insurance, workplace safety, etc, when 10-year-old Abdul will do the job for $2/day without even asking for a helmet and goggles?

>Prevention is superior to cleaning up a mess
Actually no. Usually, the state is very slow, so if you have to verify companies are complying with regulations before they open, you will have a shit load of companies on waiting lists. If the state is especially inefficient, many won't even open. Is that desirable?

It's a matter of efficiency. You give a strong enough incentive to comply with regulations, whilst you don't even need to actually check what all of them are doing, thus making the state smaller, more focused and efficient. It doesn't matter that literally all firms are complying - such a thing is a chimera. What matters is that a very high percentage of them are doing so, and, at the same time, you don't impose large costs on them.

This is a general rule states should follow. Whenever you can, use institutional rules and frameworks instead of giving discretionary power to state agencies.

Workers and consumers benefit more from having more options to choose from. And politicians have no idea what regulations an industry needs. Excessive regulations will happen inevitably when politicians or lobbyists are the ones making them.

Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson

Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, With Power and Market

Not oaths to free market capitalism, rather more specific case-by-case policy.

The problem is that you presume that preventative measures = excessive regulations.
Choice freedom is great, except when it causes harm.

My grandfather ran businesses in NYC of all places, and I've witnessed business startups. If you know what the State is looking for, you can get all the necessary sign-offs within a few weeks with no hassle.
>You give a strong enough incentive to comply with regulations
Regulations are not about incentivizing the business owner and will never be so, but rather, they're about protecting both the worker and the consumer from human folly. It will always be less convenient to regulate ANYTHING, but regulations will ALWAYS be necessary for a healthy economy.
And again, best way to approach is to begin with the preventative measures before a business is fully functioning. It causes less disruptions, and ensures that the business owner understands what measures they need to maintain.

Doubt you'll find a book on such a specific request. Perhaps articles.

I suppose you're right. There need to be failsafes to make sure the free market can't be voted away, but I don't know what they should be

buy a sociology textbook?

> you can get all the necessary sign-offs within a few weeks with no hassle
Do you want me to provide anecdotal evidence stating the opposite? It's not hard and it's actually more common.

>It causes less disruptions, and ensures that the business owner understands what measures they need to maintain.
They still do under the approach I'm talking about. And owners afraid of disruption will simply comply with the law instead of making a huge gamble where they bet the agency won't visit them.