Is the Free Market the solution to all economic problems?

Discuss

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The free market applies the full information and intelligence of its participants. In time, an efficient solution emerges and is reached. A cabal of planners cannot compete.

>applies
Don't you mean it requires, which is almost impossible?

>>applies
>Don't you mean it requires, which is almost impossible?

No, it applies. Each participant is aware of his resources and needs. He applies and trades the former too acquire the latter. In this way, the free market applies the full information and intelligence of every participant.

A cabal of planners cannot have that level of insight. They must resort to models, which are an imperfect representation. Policies based on this will be similarly inefficient.

Not quite. When monopolies rise, people who have new ideas are either absorbed by said monopoly, or succumb to overwhelming pressure from the company and any business venture they pursue gets crushed by simply flooding the market. Also, corruption tends to run deep when there is "generosity" to go around, a prime example being the conditions of the early 1900s in the U.S. before the crackdowns on standards of production, manufacturing gangs, and working safety conditions.

How do you respond to claims that corporatism and crony capitalism are not real free market capitalism

I want to dump my seed in her, and then pull a nigger on her camwhore ass.

Capitalism is just as spooky as the state my unique ones. Every one and every thing is already MY property, I have just yet to attain power over it.
All markets are theft, they steal from me

The free market is the solution to all problems not just economic.

In a truly free market one would be free to form white only covenant communities, free yourself from kiked-up central banks, form mutual-aid societies for whites only so you don't have to subsidize sub-human breeding while also uplifiting whites, and all sorts of banned practices which aren't specifically economic.

Yes, but some regulations and labour laws are necessary to prevent the exploitation of the workers.

Monopolies which don't supply a superior product at the lowest prices aren't able to exist without state protection.

You don't because they aren't

No, but more free economies are objectively more prosperous for their participants. Now and throughout history. Consistently.

Oligopolies, a natural byproduct of completely free economies, are almost by definition not free.

Also too, economies that are regulated, either through deliberate lobbying or the misplaced legislation of an ignorant or witless politician can create a synthetic environment in which enterprise is conducted. If the environment is too synthetic, then companies can be more successful than their competitors by merely adapting to and navigating the synthetic environment (aka government red tape) better than the next guy instead of be legitimately better run with better operations, products, or services.

Free economies with strict, but adaptable boundaries that can evolve with the economy, anticipate it well, and react to it well are the best.

>each person is aware of his resources and needs
so? even if this WERE true, which it obviously isnt, it takes two parties to trade.

yes it is, my econ class told me so

>free economy
name one

>Monopolies which don't supply a superior product at the lowest prices aren't able to exist without state protection.
They only need to supply a mandatory product at an inflated price dumb fuck. Mercenary protection just like you dumb ancaps always theorized when the gubberment dissolves and accepts your "superior" ideology.

No because it causes to many social problems.

Isn't scalping part of the free market which fucks up the economy even more?

Welcome to the natural world. It's the same in our modern economics as it is for the Lion on the savannah. You take. If you can't, you don't win. If you don't win, you don't breed. From the bottom up, top down, it's how we and all known living things better ourselves over time.

That's cute.

What I'm describing is a relatively free economy. Hence my first sentence. If you don't understand this concept, I can't help you.

there is a third option

FPBP, pure capitalism, like communism, only works perfectly in theory. The greed of man ruins both.

>property
>without power
wew nigger, read some proudhon

name them

o hay a non brain dead NatSoc guy

Interestingly, corporate fascism, rather than outright political fascism, has been shown to be a very agile economic system for its participants and in some cases wildly successful.

no because there is no solution to all economic problems

I'll take the burden of proof shift bait.

Look at hong kong vs mainland china before china moved away form being more communistic economy and became a more corporate fascist system. So 1970s and 1980s. Barrier to entry in Hong Kong's economy was for most intents and purposes zero beyond competition.

>3D Asuka will never wink at me

>>each person is aware of his resources and needs
>so? even if this WERE true, which it obviously isnt

Hope? Explain to me how an individual doesn't know what he wants. And that he doesn't know what he has available in his environment. And can still be called a market participant. This is definitional stuff here.

> it takes two parties to trade.

Yes. And a trade occurs when there exchange is mutually beneficial. Be what's your point?

hk is pretty much the only one you can think of, but firstly it was a crown colony and not entirely independent secondly it is city state with a huge gimmick and that gimmick is china.
in other words, its a fluke

Aaand you're retarded and don't understand that things are relative. More free economies tend to have more prosperous participants than less free.

If you're really form Singapore, it explains a lot. Met very few people in that part of the world capable of lateral or relative thought.

Once we have quantum computers, central economic planning will over take capitalism as the best way to allocate resources

you failed to prove anything, fuck off

in the free market, the invisible hand jerks you off

1. most people dont know what they want, or their resource capacity, this explains bad debt
2. in order to trade you need to know your own needs and means, and the needs and means of the person trading with you

People make bad trades and good trades all the time. Most of the time people make good trades, that's why capitalism makes everyone richer over time.

capitalism =/= free market

Not him, but the point is that you are implying that a) people know what they wants (and basic experience will teach you that this is a laughable statement) and b) people's desires are rational.
Since you're basic your whole defense of free market on these factors, maybe you should expand a bit.

>Monopolies which don't supply a superior product at the lowest prices aren't able to exist without state protection.

our car-makers in germany have the tendency to form cartels, and govt. intervention had to stop them each time from doing so

This; a free market economy assumes each individual is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to make good decisions, when in reality that's not true and companies can use that to their advantage and profit off of the consumer

One thing libertarians should agree with leftists on is that markets were never free.

Hell, the entire advertisement industry is based on clouding consumers' judgement.

no, the free market + government intervention when there is market failure en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

we're not lolbertarians

>that's why capitalism makes everyone richer over time.
total fucking bullshit
it never ceases to amaze me how ultra-bullshit some kids are.
the whole fucking world KNOWS there's a few rich and everyone else is fucking poor, but this retard thinks this shit is going to fool anyone, it just boggles the mind

>a free market economy assumes each individual is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to make good decisions

It makes no such assumption. In fact, it relies on bad decisions. Bad deciders are removed from the market because they have no more resources. Their poor decisions go with them. This is why it is hazardous to "bail out" anyone in a free market.

have you lolbertarian faggots never played bioshock?

>retard thinks this shit is going to fool anyone, it just boggles the mind

... he types on his modern computer in a first world country based on the closest approximation of a free market economy we have left.

How would the greed of man "ruin" capitalism in the absence of state regulations?

no, an unregulated free market carries so many social issues with it too that it cannot possibly be considered a reasonable option

A vast difference between a free market and a market economy.

A free market implies no rules or regulations. A market economy allows producers to set prices and enter and exit markets as they see fit.

I'm for market economies. I'm against a free market.

Pursuing profit is the best way to meet needs, because the more people need something, the more they'll pay for it.

Refute this if you can.

free market don't fix things, but guns do

>admits we don't have a free market

just what the fuck are you even trying to argue here?
past your bedtime maybe huh

>just what the fuck are you even trying to argue here?

>Discuss

I'm discussing the nature of free markets -- particularly how the lack of information prevents planners from being able to achieve the efficiencies of the distributed decision-making intrinsic to free markets.

What are you contributing? What's your argument? Maybe it's before your speaking time, because you haven't yet done enough listening and thinking.

>I'm discussing the nature of free markets -- particularly how the lack of information prevents planners from being able to achieve the efficiencies of the distributed decision-making intrinsic to free markets.

planners: rabid randians seeking anarchy
lack of information: want total control over a supposed free market
and this lack of control and lack of information is preventing some faggots from "achieving" "efficiencies" lol...of, get this,.....
.."the distributed decision-making INTRINSIC to a free market"

you retarded little fucking piece of slimy shit, NONE of what you have been saying is anything but pure made-up bullshit

a "free" market (free of any laws or regulations) is just anarchy
you hate having to follow the fucking law and this is the eazy sleazy way you see as being the "best" for you, despite being too stupid to expect someone to simply kill you and take all your toys during an actual "free market" event

so your free market is nothing but bullshit and was never anything else but bullshit
all free-market faggots are fucking LIARS who pretend they totally need all laws and regulations to go away forever so they can live in some fantasy land

what a fucking TARD

Of course. A small government can't and wouldn't have trillions of dollars/euros national debt, because it cannot borrow and overspend so much money.

A small government is also less likely to violate people's rights due to reduced influence in society for social engineering or other human rights violations.

During the past decades, more economic freedom has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty.

Being a free market is different than being a globalist putz who sells the country to foreign interests.