Isn't a free market system basically "mob rule"?

Question

the standby mantra "let the markets decide" is basically saying "let the majority decide (the majority being the center of the bell curve- essentially those of average intelligence, those less forgiving, with less understanding and greater ignorance, less tolerant, narrower global perspective, etc.)
in today's world - this seems it would lead to a less progressive and backward-thinking economic drive

as a broad and generalized example: McDonalds is probably the most popular restaurant in the world - but probably one of the least healthy (admittedly trending healthier as of late) but still the existence of such popular business entities, wildly successful via free market affects us all- through health strain, ecologic strain, etc.
it seems we essentially by this constrained "free market" system are destroying our societal evolution by "dumbing down" by the will of the majority
also to mention this middle-bell-curve is largely more swayed by what they hear, advertisements, TV, etc. and often by their own stubbornness, not willing to listen to other viewpoints (typically the more intellectually based viewpoint, the higher end of the bell curve)

so how exactly is a free market system supposed to help the entire country, the world, as a _whole_, when all it seems to do is dumb down the entire world to an 'average' stance?

it's basically a socialist business model is it not? to let the market cater specifically to the masses

aren't government restrictions, government oversight, gov't standards- assuring a system more of economic progress and responsibility?

Answer 1

"aren't government restrictions, government oversight, govt standards- assuring a system more of economic progress and responsibility?"



Depends on who "THE GOVERNMENT" is and what their interests are...that is the problem. If said government has the interests of the well being of the people as a whole in mind, then great...but power does not always draw in the kindness crowd. Better to let the people have the power and choice I say.



If you are against an 'average' standard why do you support the world group point of view? That too would be regulated on the average needs of the group. Both sides run on a majority rules type intention, it is who hold the decisions/control that matters.

Answer 2

A free market system is an easy thought for a National level, it simply gives you the freedom to think as an individual, or a small group to have a good business idea and start with it, This gives you the opportunity to make money if you are smart ( or at least smarter than those people around you) and with this, more people get into very similar businesses and though leads to lower prices and better quality, its a good idea, but it is facing, faced, and will always face problems from time to time, because it leads to inflation generally after a few decades depending on the market, i believe its the best way for markets to be in!

Answer 3

If people want to eat at McDonald's, they're going to be making poor decisions regardless of what the issue at hand might be. How is introducing more government babysitting going to fix stupid?



Personally, I don't see what people enjoy about the thought of the government controlling every aspect of our lives. I prefer to keep the freedom to make my own choices in life. I'm an adult and don't need a babysitter anymore.



Oh and it's about as far from socialist as you can get. Socialism is where you have little to no choice in where your money goes and what you do with your life. In a free market system, you have limitless choices.



Just because people don't make the choices you think they should doesn't make it any less of a freedom to choose.

Answer 4

Mob rule is a good assessment of this mess. If nothing else, it IS illegal gambling, but it's legal because no one wants to call it that.



This ecocnomy/capitalism is just about down the toilet's drain, dude. These things come/go in structured phases --- first its slash & burn, then it's agrarian, then it's feudalism, then it's pre-industrial home manufacturing, then it's industrial, then it's post industrial and technological, then it's service economy, then it's some form of socialism.



The old order withers out and a new one has to replace it, because the money-sucking b@$tards have sucked up all of the profits leaving nothing for everyone else (where we now are located) and a new economic order has to begin. The last and next one will have to be some type of socialism, simply because we cannot keep adding great wealth to the already extant great wealth of the rich b@$tards in control of it all. Unless . . . .



If we are to avoid socialism then the next system will have to eliminate all forms of numbered currency in favor of people's labor being rewarded with something like credit cards declaring their having earned what they need/want for specified periods of labor.



Numbered values having been eliminated, people will then finally obtain what they worked for without the value of their labor, and thus their earnings, being cheated away from them by political or economic hot-shots screwing around with numbers in the Fed Reserve or on Wall St.



As rich b@$tards always say, "nothing's free!" except for the rich b@$tards, that is.



A system not using currency will provide all that one works for while preventing rich b@$tards from devaluing one's labor and then making a higher profit from it in turn. THE SOONER WE IMPLEMENT THIS, THE SOONER OUR ECONOM IC WOES END.

Answer 5

no, youre thinking of direct democracy. the good thing about the free market is, since you are so much smarter than everyone else, you dont have to make those dumb decisions like go to mcdonalds or watch tv like the rest of us morons do. and just to let you know, america is not, nor has it been a laissez faire free market society for a very long time. we have massive government influence in the economy which raises prices tremendously, limits choice, and gets people arrested for trying to engage in voluntary transactions. the way the free market would help things as a whole is this. people buy things they like, that benefit them. people who want to make money, provide those things for the people. in a socialist, government market system, the one person in charge of the government decides what is best for society, what is best for everyone. and obviously, everyone will not agree with them. therefore it will breed resentment, hatered, violence, etc. you can try to force people to make decisions that you think are "smart" or "good" but unfortunately for you, not everyone will listen, and your view doesnt work best for everyone. in the free market, you can do what is best for you, and everyone else can do the same.



edit- to the guy who said free markets lead to inflation, you are crazy. the creation of the federal reserve system in america by the federal government which prints money backed by nothing is what causes inflation, not people engaging in voluntary transactions.



edit- how is government babysitting going to fix the stupid, when the people in charge of the government are stupid?

Answer 6

Humans are basically stupid, as we can see from the results of the recent Presidential election.



If they want to eat hamburgers, let them. They will die sooner and be less of a drag on the economy.



Same with cigarettes. Or heroin.



Let idiots kill themselves.



The problem with "free markets" as presently practiced, is that they are not free.



Japanese and Chinese markets are not open to American products, while our markets are open to theirs, for just one example.



Likewise, if the Kyoto Treaty passes, China can continue to pollute as much as they want, while the US will be hamstrung.



Free markets work. The markets are not now free.

Answer 7

You're right on point.



Capitalism under a democratic state feeds off of the ignorance and "tunnel vision" of the middle and lower class majority. If people were properly educated, level headed, open-minded, etc. society wouldn't be half as destructive as it is.



Capitalism is just an extension of imperialism/feudalism, applied to individuals and groups. Democracy under this economic system, and with the social engineering that goes on, these things can only happen with a misinformed if not apathetic public. Exploitation of both workers and consumers takes place regardless of what kind of regulations you have placed on a free market system - someone has to be exploited some kind of way, or no profit will be made. What we have now is welfare-capitalism. Welfare capitalism does little to distribute the wealth, and does absolutely nothing to get rid of the caste system that is inherently a part of capitalism. All the "welfare" does is attempt to keep those in the lower classes contempt.



Capitalism is not the only economic system that allows for technological advancement. As a matter of fact, the ONLY reason technology is placed on the pedestal that it is under capitalism is because machines lower the number of actual humans are needed to do a job, which means there are less people that have to be paid for production (which means fewer jobs).



Capitalism is only "competitive" because it produces in excess. It makes more sense to produce according to need because it puts less of a strain on resources. Instead corporations use excess resources to produce more goods than needed, more than the demanded. If you produce according to need, there's little need for "competitive" pricing.



Peace

Answer 8

It's a balancing act. Pure free markets would lead to exploitation, environmental disaster, and a host of other problems. However, pure state control would eliminate competition, stifle new technologies, and take away incentives to achieve. So we need a little of both and as such the economy is going to have it's swings.

Answer 9

A completely free market, regulation free economic model has never survived for long and for one very good reason. At times in the past, in this country and others, when it was attempted it failed miserably. A unregulated, free market leads to inflation, a freeze on wages, price increases, and monopolistic tendencies.

Answer 10

Government interference in the markets have always proven to be counter productive and normally cause more problems then they correct.



I don't know how you see it as a socialist business model...it is the exact opposite.

Answer 11

yeah its messed up