Controlling how people think.

[epiphany]

The 'free market' has become a smoke-screen to hide exploitation. As such it might be time to curb such behaviour through regulation.

 

We need to be careful when using terms such as "free market". A free market by who's standards?

 

Adam Smith's? The small businesses threatened by corporate oligopoly (sorry, I hate that word too)? The large multi-national who requires the freedom to dominate the market and crush competition and lobbies the government accordingly?

 

Currently we do not have a free market because there are many regulations in place in which only the best capitalised and state-privileged firms can afford to truly flourish.

 

The corporate model, for example, is just one form of state privilege toward business that defines our specific system of capitalism. There are dozens of other possible implementations of a "free market" and not all of them involve handing out large subsidies and privileges to corporations. Indeed, not all free market models involve the legal recognition of the corporation and would argue they are freer as a result.

[ronthenekred]

I loathe that same one percent too. Most of it is inherited wealth. Someone just mentioned self-reliance on another thread. I stated that I agreed with self reliance and that the next step towards it should be for the state to claw back inherited wealth, thus allowing the people to be self reliant.

 

Wouldn't clawing back inherited wealth defeat the object of becoming self-reliant as an ideal? Self reliance is about managing your own affairs, not your own affairs being managed by the state removing what is yours, as that would make the state reliant on your inherited wealth.

[buck]

Wouldn't clawing back inherited wealth defeat the object of becoming self-reliant as an ideal? Self reliance is about managing your own affairs, not your own affairs being managed by the state removing what is yours, as that would make the state reliant on your inherited wealth.

I never thought I would agree with anything you say, but on this occasion I do. I will never be rich enough to give much back to my kids, but none of it should go to the government. My legacy to them is self reliance, and a belief in having enough to live on comfortably and no higher than you can afford.

[Fivetide]

We need to be careful when using terms such as "free market". A free market by who's standards?

 

We also need to be careful to read things in context and not get pedantic for the sake of it. Not only did I use quote marks to foreground the complexities of interpretation the phrase might be open to... If I'm posting in a thread about modern society, and posting about modern society, then I mean the free market operating in the society what I'm posting about in the thread about the society in which a free market exists. Just because there are other potential definitions, doesn't mean they have any relevance here. Currently we do have a free market because that's what the system operating in our society is called, by our society. Just because you can find other narrower definitions doesn't actually make them relevant to the debate.

 

The rest of your post is a series of non sequiturs which aren't worth repeating.

 

No offense.

[epiphany]

We also need to be careful to read things in context and not get pedantic for the sake of it. Not only did I use quote marks to foreground the complexities of interpretation the phrase might be open to... If I'm posting in a thread about modern society, and posting about modern society, then I mean the free market operating in the society what I'm posting about in the thread about the society in which a free market exists. Just because there are other potential definitions, doesn't mean they have any relevance here. Currently we do have a free market because that's what the system operating in our society is called, by our society. Just because you can find other narrower definitions doesn't actually make them relevant to the debate.

 

I was more building on your post, not challenging it or addressing you personally. No amount of quote marks will get people to look outside the current system when throwing around generalisations such as "left wing", "conservative" and "free market". Again, I'm not saying you don't understand the subtleties but you will draw in pointless arguments from those who do use narrowly defined terms.

 

I think there is a problem with using the term free market to describe the current system. Just because people (exc. serious economists) use it doesn't mean it's accurate. Many economists would call attention to the fact we misdefine terms in order to fit our simplistic view of the world. E.g. the financial crisis was a result of the "failures of the free market". This is simplistic tripe fed to the masses nearly as much as the argument that the Soviet Union collapsed therefore "socialism doesn't work".

 

There's being pedantic and there's preserving the true definition of terms in order to see a broader picture of the different schools of thought out there, outside the pop-economics most people get from the newspapers and TV news.

[Riche]

People allow themselves to be conditioned into thinking in certain ways. Adverts bombard you with their brand and how it makes your life better. The less bright you are the more you will be influenced. Sheeple like those at Meadow Hall are typical.

[Fivetide]

I was more building on your post, not challenging it or addressing you personally.

 

My apologies. It felt lecturey. But to be pedantic (lol) the 'true definition' is the one the general population uses, not the one found in an academic book.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

No Government ever creates any real employment. Only private-sector entrepreneurs do.

That's why less government and lower taxes are beneficial to real wealth-creation/creators.

[Fivetide]

No Government ever creates any real employment. Only private-sector entrepreneurs do.

That's why less government and lower taxes are beneficial to real wealth-creation/creators.

 

I disagree entirely - taxation is the most efficient way to prevent private sector companies (and usually the few individuals who own the companies) from hoarding wealth - the more wealth is taken from society in the form of profit, the less wealth there is to go round in the rest of society.

 

Lower taxation means easier exploitation.

[epiphany]

My apologies. It felt lecturey. But to be pedantic (lol) the 'true definition' is the one the general population uses, not the one found in an academic book.

 

Oh it was lecturey, but not necessarily towards you personally! Maybe I am a pedant, but I am a pedant with a cause (although no less annoying perhaps).

 

I think this is one of those "agree to disagree" things. Terms used to analyse the nature of politics and the economy were introduced by intellectuals/academics and therefore the true definitions lie in their writings if we're willing to look. The masses tend not to read this stuff and therefore the definitions get dumbed down, glossing over all the subtleties and complexities that were introduced over the course of history.

 

The result is false dichotomies (e.g. "capitalism vs socialism"), skewed perceptions of reality, and the false illusion that there is "no alternative" to the current system, which is very specific in its implementation.