Is it not hypocritical and contradictory to demand free markets when firstly the UK and then the US rose to world dominance in manufacturing with extremely protected markets?
Even now those who shout loudest in favour of free markets don't really want them - they still really want protectionism.
Yes, if someone shouts loudest for free markets but still wants protectionism then they are a hypocrite, but I don't see many people pushing for both of those.
For your first paragraph, no it's not hypocritical at all. Why would it be?
What! nobody has ever said they want a free market whilst complaining about competition from China!
Who exactly are you talking about? If they claim both sides, then yes they are hypocrites. I just don't see it very often. Do you have someone specific in mind?
Only the vast majority of people who claim to be in favour of a free market.
Do you have any examples or links? We must hang around vastly different kinds of people, because I don't see that hypocrisy among free-market people.
So how many free market people do you know who are in favour of unlimited immigration?
Those are separate topics. We are talking about markets, protectionism, regulations, tariffs, taxes, and so forth.
No, free trade is trade without any restrictions including the sourcing of labour.
No, now you are trying to change the definitions of things. The market doesn't refer to immigration. Sourcing isn't even the same thing as immigration. Why don't you specify what you want to talk about, because you've been very vague and jumped from general hypocrisy, then to competition, then to immigration, then to labor sourcing.
The term free market refers to allowing people to create, buy, and sell goods and services at whatever cost they determine they want to, without having any force about having to do certain things. So forcing someone to sell a product for less than they want to is an example of a controlled market. You can't just change the meaning of things.
No, 'fraid it's you trying to change the definition of things.
The term free market refers to allowing people to create buy and sell goods without any outside interference and to source all materials and labour in the most advantageous way. Therefore if the cheapest way of manning your factory is with Mexican labour then a free market would allow you to do that without restraint.
It would also allow key industries to be owned by people of any nationality.
Sourcing is not immigration. Sourcing is part of the free market, it is an economic activity.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ … arket.html
Free markets have nothing to do with immigration, only with being free from government control of exchange of goods and services.
Erm, services aren't labour!
You're showing classic signs of the hypocrisy that I mentioned in my OP.
Read the links I provided. They explain what a free market is vs. a controlled or regulated market. None of it has to do with immigration.
But now you seem to be changing the subject again... I really have no idea what you are trying to say. We were in agreement with your first post(with regard to everything except percentages), do you just like to argue?
From one of your links (my emphasis)
"A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used,"
If the government says that I can't use my labor to grow marijuana, that's an example of the government controlling a market. That's not immigration.
It doesn't matter, this is going nowhere. We disagree on the definition of what a free market is. You are using a definition that is contrary to the norm to try and make me out to be a hypocrite. It doesn't look like we can resolve this. Why don't we just agree to disagree, instead of insulting?
They want government bailouts only for those who are "too big to fail."
Google "I pencil" It won't take long to read.
"The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed."
And capitalism and the free market is the greatest crusher of creative energies.
What's the matter?
All you free market supporters struggling for an answer?
I favour free markets but I don't favour protectionism. I don't even buy the notion that protectionism serves to improve a nation's productivity over others.
So name me a successful free market.
I'll save you the effort, all successful markets have been highly protective.
Successful in what way? Protectionism protects specific industries but harms others. If the particular piece of protectionist legislation protects industries with bigger turnovers than those it harms, it will likely register a positive GDP statistic. One might then conclude that it helped the economy, but only if you see that helping big business over small business is good for the economy.
Here's an illustration by David Friedman:
"There are two ways we can produce automobiles. We can build them in Detroit or we can grow them in Iowa. Everyone knows how we build automobiles. To grow automobiles, we begin by growing the raw material from which they are made–wheat. We put the wheat on ships and send the ships out into the Pacific. They come back with Hondas on them."
From the US' perspective, it doesn’t really matter how the wheat gets transformed into cars once the ships sail off into the ocean. Whether it’s through trade or transformation, the result is the same. And if it doesn’t matter how the wheat transforms into cars, then the fact that Japan might subsidize its own auto industry is quite irrelevant to the Americans (it’s relevant to the Japanese, as it makes them a poorer society, but that’s a different story). If it’s cheaper for Americans to get cars by growing wheat and selling it than by making the cars themselves, then that remains true regardless of whether other countries practice free trade.
OK, what about the import tariffs on Japanese cars?
And what about the subsidies give to the Iowa wheat growers?
Which is an example of protectionism that is bad for industries in America that other nations would otherwise like to invest in. Free trade would be more economical and meet the demands of the market better in this scenario.
But it wasn't bad for UK and US industries when they were at the peak of their success!
It wasn't only the US and UK though was it John? Many countries employed restrictions on imports and still do.
Free trade now only serves to enslave poorer workers from countries that compete by keeping wages extremely low.
No, of course it wan't just the UK and the US but they are two countries where many argue in favour of the free market whilst still heavily dependent on trade restrictions.
I can't offhand think of any successful free market economy.
If there was true free trade there would be no poorer workers in under developed countries!
I think trade without restrictions would bring quality down along with wages as trade itself would become a free for all.
Trade restrictions are not all about protectionism anyway.
If restrictions on trade are not protectionism then what are they?
There are also trade restrictions for political reasons, although many of these have seemed to have been relaxed.
Would you for instance sanction the sale of weapons to North Korea?
Again, what do you mean by "bad"? In order to test our theories we need something tangible.
Bad = not good.
When the UK and US markets were growing at their fastest both were heavily protected markets. They still have quite a high level of protectionism.
On what basis are you judging "good" or "bad"? I'll spell it out for you: are you defining "growth" as GDP? Or something else?
So what can you draw from that about the efficacy of free markets? Are you saying that, because we had growth with regulated markets, that means free markets don't work?
Really? You think you can falsify a hypothesis without even testing it? Lol, that's funny.
That would be like saying "I killed a burglar with a knife, which proves that guns don't work for killing people".
Well you give me an example of a successful free market economy. To clarify, that means a country whose markets are run entirely on free market principles.
Why don't small-scale examples of free markets count? It's funny to watch how much you jump around. Why don't economies that are more free than controlled count?
Lol, having a discussion with you is hopeless.
I was thinking very much the same thing.
I see you still fail to give me even one example of a country with a successful free market economy.
I'm not sure how you can feel that way. I respond to all your questions and points. You keep changing the topic, don't answer my questions, and act like killing someone with a knife means that a gun can't do it better.
So, does a mostly free-market count at all?
And again, why doesn't a small-scale free market count?
I keep changing the topic!
Who, exactly, introduced guns and knives?
You haven't posted a single response that is in the spirit of the question and you have failed toanswer any of my questions.
Again, a simple one, an example of a country with a successful free market economy?
Yes, you keep changing the topic.
I didn't introduce guns and knives. It's called an analogy.
You've changed your question, and ignored mine. Why should I answer yours when you don't accord me the same respect?
I answered the first question you asked me.
I answered your second question though not in the way you wanted.
And then the discussion broke down into insults and evasion on your part.
You asked me for examples of a free market. I said I could give you examples of the principles of a free market. You said go ahead. I went ahead.
Then you changed your mind and said it had to be a country, contrary to your earlier agreement.
I asked you what the word "market" means to you, and you started with the attitude. Up until then, things were going much better. I asked a question in return, and you didn't answer it. I asked another, and you didn't answer it. I re-asked those questions, and you didn't answer them, but gave me one of your own.
And that sums it up. If you look back, the evasion was clearly on your part, and as far as insults go, well read it for yourself.
I can show you successful examples of free market principles. Probably no society in 1000 years has had a 100% free market, but those principles still exist in specific examples, specific industries, and in watered-down states.
I can also show you examples of controlled-markets failing.
Craigslist. Yes, the website is regulated by certain guidelines, but the actual market it created is largely unregulated. There are entire networks of CL traders who operate illegally without abiding laws and regulations, trading and operating in cash, and not reporting things. CL has created a very free market, with the exception of overt trading of drugs, slaves, and other high-profile goods. Lots of wealth has been traded around and made better use of because of CL.
TOR and bitcoins created an entire market almost 100% free of any regulations or oversight, and it is so efficient that people, without any prior experience, could purchase illicit items completely anonymously.
Elon Musk, despite government interference, has made huge advances in automobile technology and space travel, not to mention his contribution to the potential future of mass transit.
Any time two people voluntarily trade goods or services, that's an example of a successful free market. Even if it is done under regulation, it is an example of free market principles surviving in spite of regulation.
Computers as we know them came about largely because of free-market contribution.
What more do you want?
Examples of controlled-market failures exist if you look at any state-created monopolies, or products/services where the government set artificial price ceilings.
Who said it was a country? It's a market. Those are not the same thing. I said I would provide examples of free market principles and I did.
You have an interesting way of constantly shifting the topic.
No, I made the mistake of assuming that others would read the question I posted, not make up another to answer.
You didn't ask about a country, now did you? You asked about a market.
And you gave me examples of individual businesses, not markets.
Like many things John the ideal of something is not exactly what you get when its put into practice.
Free market economics is an ideology and as with many ideologies it doesn't work without constraints. There are no countries that employ a free market economic policy because of the constraints.
It doesn't stop politicians and business leader sounding off about it though.
Ah right, more or less the point I was making.
There we go John the tablets must be working again.
I think it would be difficult to have a world free market economy because of the different politics of each individual nation.
If all politicians of every nation agreed to a free market they would lose political control over their nations.
Why don't you tell us what you think the word 'market' means?
I provided the examples you agreed to, so don't complain now. Craigslist is a market, Ebay is a market, the local farmer's market is a market. A market is wherever trade is happening.
Lord save us from pedants!
A free market economy, right? Not Fred Smith working in his shed or anything like that, and if you think ebay is a free market, well . . .
You didn't ask about a free market economy. I clarified that I could easily provide examples of free-market principles, and you agreed to that. Did you forget that?
A small, mostly unregulated marketplace is a great example of free-market principles, or do you disagree?
I said Ebay is a market, not a free market. I was explaining the difference, once again, between a market and a country. Is English your first language?
And I did provide one example of a completely free market.
Let's just stop John. It honestly is impossible to discuss with you. You constantly shift the topic, going back on your own statements. Have a nice day.
I think that as I mentioned two countries in my OP, my intent would be perfectly clear to the vast majority of thinking people.
The best economy is the free goods economy where everything is free. Those who are behind a free goods economy care more about their own ability to provide for others. They care more about the ability to give their goods to strangers. They love all people... more than themselves. They live for the happiness of others. They produce their goods by materializing them at will. The cost of this sort of production is very cheap and this savings is naturally passed on to others. They really could care less about profit. In fact, profit is seen as evil. It is seen as proof of greed. They watch each other very carefully checking for any evidence of greed. Equality is another balancing factor in a free goods economy. No one should have more than anyone else. Checks and balances enable a free goods economy to thrive and survive. But not checks, ATM cards or cash. (The markets are free too.)
Why we say hypocrisy? System needs to be changed or lot of introspection can be done to bring change.
globalization is a process and can not be reversed. Outsourcing killed many jobs in west and it is difficult to turn the clock.
backward nations of yesteryear are becoming heroes of globalization and domestic development and even source of funding. For India and China takeover of loss making companies in west has become a general practice and successful turn around of ailing companies there, is a another miracle.
Everybody in heart in heart wants monopoly and protection for their businesses.
In India we enjoy free economy , earlier it was controlled economy ,protects local industry and they reap benefit by selling substandard product to Indian customers , now we have choice , we import what we like with quality.
If anything goes to hyper level then some breakdowns are inevitable, but can be repaired.
A free market by its very nature is not a protected market. A free market is free because no one has to pay rent or mortgage for it. Are they protected? Of course not. Anything free is taken for granted. Take the son of the owner of Hollywood Sports Cars. Richard V. was given every car he ever had. He crashed every car he ever had. Eventually he tried to major in Brain Biology which he chose due to the numerous concussions he received. His father shouldn't have given his son these cars for free. He should have expected his son to at least make monthly payments for the first car and then he would have valued it more. Same with the markets. Since they are free they are not taken care of and become easily run down. The plumbing never seems to get repaired and thats why the restrooms are always closed... what? oh the markets are not actually... huh? Then why are the restrooms always closed?
by pgrundy 9 years ago
I guess the Fed felt like it had no choice but to pull this latest giant intervention out of its butt at the 11th hour, but our national debt is twice what it was last year even without Fannie & Freddie included and now we're going to throw 85 BILLLION at this irresponsible insurance company...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
enterprise- capitalist system while many CONSERVATIVES do?
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
Some say that capitalism pretty much causes *hell on earth*. How could we bring about *heaven on earth*, instead?
by Nick Lucas 6 years ago
By reading forum post or watching the news one can easily answer this question. As a nation we face so many problems because we have lost a sense of who we are and have become divided as a result. Our country has always stood for a free market, the Constitution, and freedom. ...
by My Esoteric 4 years ago
My position is this: A truly "free market" will never remain "free" for very long; it will quickly turn into monopolies and oligopolies who make sure the market is never "free" again.What is yours?
by Leslie Mccowen 6 years ago
An interesting debate is going on here in Massachusetts.Last week, a portion of Boston lost power for 3 days.The mayor is arguing that N-Star electric should pay for the damage done to the ciy, the cost of police, and the loss of business revenue due to no electricity.N-Star...the one and only...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|