Question:
What's so bad about the Free-Market?
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:08:16 UTC
It seems that some people think the Free market is a bad thing. Please understand that monopolies, subsidies, and corporate welfare isn't part of the free market.
24 answers:
?
2011-03-14 13:10:16 UTC
flea markets are great
whiteflame55
2011-03-14 13:13:50 UTC
Monopolies are a part of a truly free market, whether you realize it or not. A perfectly free market doesn't exist because a perfectly free market ensures that those that make the most money absolutely dominate it. There's no chance for other companies to take their place because those original companies literally own all the access. Regulations actively prevent monopolies from forming. A free market has no regulations. Yes, there would be no subsidies, meaning that even more businesses would go out of business for lack of sales during tough times. Once again, that supports monopolies.



Edit: You're understanding of a free market is apparently not very consistent. A free market includes zero regulations. That's why it's called a free market. A market that has regulations cannot be free, it's an oxymoron. If monopolies are being broken up, that's regulation. Therefore, a free market includes monopolies because they're not being broken up by the nonexistent regulations.



Edit #2: Thanks for getting my name right the second time. We're having a disconnect in our arguments, so I'll explain what's going on. What you're saying is that you want an economy that includes regulations so that monopolies don't form. I AGREE. What your question says is different. It says "what's so bad about a Free-Market?" A free market, when you implement it in its full-fledged form, includes no regulations. That's why it's called a "free market." You're obviously not a libertarian because you do support regulations, but that's not a free market. You're basically arguing against the whole pretense of this question by providing these responses.
magnum
2016-12-16 00:36:46 UTC
I consider you, simply by fact i think that the loose marketplace can bypass loopy if it is not regulated. precisely this loss of regulation under Bush is what created the economic meltdown. In effect the loose marketplace potential that the wealthy and the capitalists can do incredibly a lot what they choose. An occasion is the pharmaceutical industry, wherein ostensibly there exists opposition. whether interior the US each and every of the organizations agree and fee outrageous costs for type names, which the organizations sell for much less in different worldwide places. besides, while greater fee-effective generics come into the marketplace after their patents expire, the Pharmaceutical organizations bribe wide-unfold manufacturers to place off their merchandising, there by allowing to proceed their outrageous costs. In yet another field the airways that are supposedly aggressive comply with maintain thje comparable costs, thereby circumventing the assumption of a loose marketplace and ccontinuetheir monopolies. So in essence the loose marketplace would not truly help people or the economic device.
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:32:43 UTC
1. The idyllic "free market", whatever that means, may enable the negative externalities of private transactions and social costs to be borne by third parties and the general public. Some government regulation is needed to ensure that the costs and damages caused by negative externalities are borne by the parties who engage and benefit from their own private transactions.



2. An intrinsic value of the free market system is that land will be used for its highest and best use (i.e., most profitable). This value may be incompatible with other important values regarding land use management, public works projects, and national energy, water conservation, military, and food production policies. Some government regulation is needed to balance competing interests regarding land use.



3. The private sector is unable or unwilling to finance some research and development necessary to promote the nation's long term interests. The long term goals of U.S. military, education, infrastructure, and space exploration policies cannot be served and furthered even minimally by the private sector.



4. If left to its own whims and caprices, the Free Market, whatever that means, creates gross inefficiencies in areas such as energy, transportation, and communications generation, production, supply, and distribution. Some government regulation is needed to make the difficult decisions that will assure market efficiencies in these areas.



5. Monopoly protections for innovations, patents and copyright are necessary to promote growth and progress of the individual, society, and civilization. Limited monopolies in these areas correctly align human self-interest and desire for profit with the general needs and wants of the consuming public. Effective intellectual property rights protection is the key to America's economic future in the 21st century.
profound insight
2011-03-14 13:39:25 UTC
The free market is ok for those who have a big income, no special needs, parents supporting them through school and who can afford to buy private home, travel, health and unemployment insurance and a house. For everyone else, it's a really big and gruelling, vicious and heartless struggle, worse than in mixed society alternatives.
Chief Inspector Clouseau
2011-03-14 13:13:52 UTC
It fails to provide for the needs of millions of people. It's run by and for those with money, the poor have absolutely no say and the middle class have very little say. The American middle class came about by saying No to the free market. The only thing the free market wants to do to wages and benefits is to lower them, which does mean people will have less and less money to buy the products the marker sells meaning it's a self destructive mentality, but the market doesn't care. It has made a few people filthy rich and keeps millions in poverty. It's a thoroughly rotten evil system.
?
2011-03-14 13:18:54 UTC
A truly free market economy is not a bad thing. However capitalismand free markets are not compatible. As such we have state controlled/ manipulated economies which pay lip service to the idea
?
2011-03-14 13:13:22 UTC
Its win win. Rich keep there money, poor get jobs. The only people against free-market are people who think welfare is better than a job, that makes no sense to me. There was a day before welfare where poor people relied on churches,charitys, supportive family to make ends meet. Now for some reason, because I have money, I have a "duty" to care about the poor people. If we lived in a tax free country I would have lots more money to give people jobs, That money that I would pay you, is going to the government. Poverty would be dramatically reduced in a free market economy. We know how to spend our money better than the government. We KNOW how to get people who need money, some money. peta,breast cancer research, feed the children,ect...us as people raise money better than ANY government
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:13:52 UTC
The "free market" does not exist. Neither does "free trade". You will always find that those with influence will control them to their advantage.



*** Added *** I am all for capitalism. I believe it to be the greatest economic model ever devised by man. I also know that the greatest threat to capitalism are capitalist. I do not believe the solution to every problem is to privatize everything. I know that if capitalism is not regulated then it will self destruct. I am a capitalist, but I am also a realist.
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:13:23 UTC
lol... if monopolies aren't part of the free market, why do they always show up when it's used?



can I just ignore all the bad parts of communism and say "that's not part of communism", because the book says that it's not a part of it?
Bob H
2011-03-14 13:33:31 UTC
If you really want to enslave people; first, tell them they're free. How many middle class people own politicians? The TEA party is owned by a couple of toilet paper magnates.
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:17:15 UTC
Nothing.



However, Republicanism is all about instituting MONOPOLIES.



And Monopolies are BAD for the Free Market.



Thanks.
?
2011-03-14 13:11:40 UTC
Because the use of the term "free" is relative to what position on the totem pole you're on.
Disposable Hero
2011-03-14 13:11:56 UTC
It's not. The left just doesn't like it because it requires one to work hard to make it in a free market society. They would much rather live in a nanny state and take government hadouts.
?
2011-03-14 13:14:41 UTC
Problem is when you deregulate everything AND build in subsidies for big business, and unsustainable tax cuts - it's not free anymore, or fair.
Crazy Conspiracy Theorist
2011-03-14 13:11:24 UTC
No most do not understand this. The Socialist/Globalist keep installing socialism into the market place and when it fails they blame the free market for their programs/regulations failures.



Fight the NWO!



V
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:11:16 UTC
Nothing's bad about it, for productive people. Moochers lose in a free market, so that's why they hate it.
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:11:13 UTC
Interesting to see how the odumians will be told to respond. The free market is what made this country.
Stay thirsty my friends
2011-03-14 13:10:04 UTC
The "Free Market" is a myth.
?
2011-03-14 13:13:06 UTC
Well giving our jobs to china where they don't have to abide by our labor and environmental laws is killing us. Or hasn't anybody noticed?
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:09:52 UTC
those without a good seat at the game, don't like it.
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:10:33 UTC
It would be great if it was actually "free" and not rigged.
slg70
2011-03-14 13:11:46 UTC
its a ***** for lazy folk
anonymous
2011-03-14 13:10:13 UTC
It leaves liberals with nothing to control.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...