ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Economics

The Free Market or Debt

Updated on September 8, 2012
Liberty and Free Markets for all.
Liberty and Free Markets for all.

What is a Free Market?

Most people these days are taught to believe that free markets are bad and causes corporations to do unethical practices. Now that people hate corporations they are looking to government to pass regulation to stop these greedy people. This is not correct though. The only corporations to be wary of should be the ones that receive benefits from government. People should be scared of government-business partnerships. Basically, Government funds these corporations with tax payer money which gives the corporation a huge benefit over his competition. When government funds companies and programs like these it eliminates competition. Not only is competition gone, prices are raised and quality goes down. There isn't an incentive for that company produce a well built product efficiently when the government is giving them free money which in return puts competitors out of business. When you eliminate the competition there isn't anything to compare that product or service to because it is the only one. This causes a problem. There is a solution.

In a free market no one should receive any benefits from government or tax payer money. Essentially, tax payer money can be described in three ways: first taxing income or products, second borrowing the money, and third printing. When people are taxed on their income, they end up losing money are not able to buy as much or live as comfortably. When the government borrows money it in return puts the country into debt. Lastly, when government decides they want to print money it decreases the value and your purchasing power is diminished. So think about the government printing money and then putting that money towards education. Sounds good right, the government prints money and pays for education. Well not really, the government just inflated the currency, and in return school costs are raised. This occurs because when money is printed it is less valuable because there are more dollars in circulation. Where ever the printed money is allocated to is where the prices raise the most. So if government subsidizes energy, healthcare, housing, or education these will be the areas costs go up the most.

If we had a true free market and got the government out of the way competition would expand and so would prosperity. When government lets education, healthcare, and energy compete and removes all the regulations restricting those areas they will evolve quicker and we will grow as a civilization. Innovations in technology come about from individuals who achieve not government just throwing money at an area. When government just puts money into something usually cost goes up and quality goes down. For example, here in San Francisco we have a train system called BART. BART is a public transportation system run by the government. Now BART takes in about $300,000,000 a year yet seems to spend $600,000,000 million a year. How is that sustainable? If this was a normal business it wouldn't last very long. It is because the government is able to steal money from the public they are able to fund a non profitable business and putting people more and more into debt.

There are so many things to think about when it comes to our current government. They can do so much more to improve things in our country. Instead they just doing the sames things that brought us into the problem. We as a country should really reconsider the direction we are going in. If you look at past empires you will see a trend with moving towards socialism. We are on that course also. Research and do what you can to change the hearts and minds of the United States citizens.


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • SportsBetter profile image
      Author

      SportsBetter 5 years ago from San Francisco

      Haha that is an oxymoron. Your right we don't call the shots. Not yet anyway.

    • MountPenglai profile image

      MountPenglai 5 years ago

      Excuse me for my typo I was in quite a hurry then, I meant to say that the middle class was weaker 100 years ago.

      I too appreciate having an honest conversion like this, at the end of the day people like us dont call the shots.

      I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist. In American terms that is in an oxymoron but not in the sense of World Political Terms,

    • SportsBetter profile image
      Author

      SportsBetter 5 years ago from San Francisco

      You say the middle class is much weaker than it was 100 years ago .. Why do you think that? I believe that it has to do with the inflating the currency. The dollar is weak and the whole world is using it as the reserve currency. Although we aren't meeting eye to eye I do appreciate your comments. I like being able to hear two sides of an argument.

    • MountPenglai profile image

      MountPenglai 5 years ago

      The Middle Class was much weaker than it was 100 years ago, before Keynesian Economics people in developed nations were much worse off. While Inflation has increased over the years it is not worse than the extreme poverty caused by an unregulated market. Companies do not make bad decisions because they they think they will get bailed out they just like they did in the 18th century try to cram as much profits as possible. It has been going well for the CEOS but not for the rest of the company. Take the too big to fail East Indian Company for example.

      though I will point out I certainly do not see Kenysain Economics as the ultimate solution by the contrary it was a temporary stop gap made by the most advanced nations to prevent revolution.

      However the past 30 years have shown how vulnerable Kenysians Economics is to being repealed or simply not being adapt enough to deal with rampant globalization.

      Capitalism has over extended it's self all together.

    • SportsBetter profile image
      Author

      SportsBetter 5 years ago from San Francisco

      Keynesian Economics is failing before your very eyes. It has been instituted since 1913 and ever since the value of the dollar has been decreasing. The dollar that was started by The Federal Reserve in 1913 has lost 98% of it's value. So Keynesian Economics being put in place for stability is actually false. It makes the markets unstable because people have a false sense of insurance. Companies wouldn't be making so many mistakes if they didn't feel The Federal Reserve would provide insurance for them to make bad loans. Plus The Federal Reserve is manipulating interest rates which is also making people invest unwisely. The Federal Reserve and Keynesian Economics is the problem our country faces. We need free markets and sound money, such as gold and silver. Gold and silver retain value. That is why a silver quarter is worth $6-7 dollars today. Because of Keynesian Economics people have lost their purchasing power and have eliminated the middle class.

    • MountPenglai profile image

      MountPenglai 5 years ago

      Socialism?

      What you are referring to (Keynesian Economics) are capitalist programs designed to deal with the modern industrial revolution and the market. Keynesian Economics was in result to instability caused by mass production, (bad labor conditions, public pressure)and again to deal with the Market. The idea that if government got out the utopia would commence is incorrect because bossiness function for profit. You expect the courts to deal with all of the issues of Lazzie Faire economies, courts without anything to back them up or corruptible and their judgments (if any were made) would be meaningless.

      Without any Government Intervention businessmen are going to create monopolies which will form without the government. There has been many attempts to solve the problems of Monopolies through the anti trust laws. Mergers as Exxon Mobil proved are going to happen whether you like or not when allowed which results in monopolies.

      Socialism on the hand is only when the Socialist Mode of production is used.

      The only nation that ever attempted to use the Socialist Mode of Production was Republican Spain (1936-1939).

    • SportsBetter profile image
      Author

      SportsBetter 5 years ago from San Francisco

      Well of course people are going to be greedy and do illegal things. It shouldn't be handled by bad regulation. What should be done is, if someone does something illegal they should be charged with something and brought to trial in court. It should be handled within the court system not through regulation. Free markets work and there will be a few bad apples but in the recent housing bubble that exploded no one was arrested and no one was held accountable for it. Government usually can't handle anything correctly and usually makes things worse. Free markets helped make us into a super power and more socialism is bringing us down. Too much government intervention has brought us into a recession.

    • MountPenglai profile image

      MountPenglai 5 years ago

      I agree the government shouldn't fund PRIVATE companies but still when you take away limits on speculation a recession is going to worse.

      While I understand your points I really do at the end of the day free market prosperity is impossible because of human nature.

    • SportsBetter profile image
      Author

      SportsBetter 5 years ago from San Francisco

      Government creates Monopolies when they fund private business. If a company becomes big because people bought their product that is different than a monopoly because they we're voted by the people for that power. The depression was manipulated by bankers. The bankers instilled fear that the economy was going to collapse and people made too many bank runs and the banks failed. Also banks were giving out loans where people had to have only 10 % and could borrow the other 90% but the banks could call the loans in whenever they wanted and they just so happened to do it when the banks were failing. Thus the great depression.

    • MountPenglai profile image

      MountPenglai 5 years ago

      Good read but I disagree, so called free markets without intervention always end up in monopolies:

      Sources:

      19th Century History/Great Depression