I don't understand how democracy and the free market works. How can all countries and all businesses all be successful all of the time. All news reports seem to point to this utopia as being an achievable goal but surely if one business wins a contract then their competitors loose. If we simplify the model to an imaginary village containing just ten people each of which has their own product to sell. We have say a butcher, a tailor, a builder, a blacksmith and so on. If the blacksmith's uplift on his product is payed for then the builders costs go up which in turn makes the blacksmiths cost go up thus forcing his products price up to pay for it. This simple model is surely true for a village of ten people or for a world of 10 billion. For people to win in this "game" - there must be loosers. Why do news reels avoid this obvious reality. I would like to hear statistics quantifying how many companies/countries are winning and how many are loosing. These figures would always surely reveal the winners to loosers ratio must remain balanced. Is there a system by which all players can win. Maybe I'm missing the point. A recent example of this was seen in the U.K where a contract for railway carriages was awarded by the U.K government to a German company. There was uproar in the British press at the governments decision to buy abroad but as both Germans & English people are in the European Union - surely we should care about our brothers in Germany with equal concern as we do our fellow countrymen. The financial success stories on this planet are those who have beaten their competitors in the costs verses profits race and then held their margins long enough to stash some cash away. That cash can then be invested in say properties to rent, providing constant income from the loosers who become tenants of these dwellings. What I,m saying is that for the rich to exist there must always be the poor. Can anyone enlighten me to an alternative model please.
THE FREE MARKET
- Thread starter greywolfe
- Start date
Well, there are loads of arguments here, each of which could fill many books and already have, but without taking sides, here are a few points to consider.
1) Not all business is zero-sum game strategy with a winner and a loser. The very essence of 'trade', in theory at least, is that both sides get something. If everyone wants different things, both can walk away from a deal saying 'I won.' There's no reason in theory, in your village model why people can't keep doing deals with each other ad-infinitum subject to supply and demand of commodities and skills etc. course, plus you could have instances where people work together for a common goal, again not a winner / loser thing. Of course there are dozens of other factors that complicate this in the real world though.
2) To a certain extent, winning and losing are not mutually exclusive because a) you win some, you lose some as they say. Losers, don't jut disappear, they go on to play again and win, and b) winning and losing are often subjective terms. You can win by degree and lose by degree and have Pyrrhic victories.
3) Wealth and poverty are relative terms. You can measure them in real terms or with regard to each other, but you need some parameters, temporal, geographical or otherwise or you can easily end up comparing apples and oranges. This is often done deliberately in political and economic arguments.
4) Wealth and poverty are also subjective relative to time and space. If you can't afford a car or a computer and and don't have an indoor toilet for example, does that make you poor? Ask the same question to a) a 'working class person' in the UK in 2012, b) a 'middle class' person in the UK in 1948 and c) a 'middle class' person with no immediate money worries in Burkina Faso.
...And all of that is to be considered before even starting to look at any specific economic models.
1) Not all business is zero-sum game strategy with a winner and a loser. The very essence of 'trade', in theory at least, is that both sides get something. If everyone wants different things, both can walk away from a deal saying 'I won.' There's no reason in theory, in your village model why people can't keep doing deals with each other ad-infinitum subject to supply and demand of commodities and skills etc. course, plus you could have instances where people work together for a common goal, again not a winner / loser thing. Of course there are dozens of other factors that complicate this in the real world though.
2) To a certain extent, winning and losing are not mutually exclusive because a) you win some, you lose some as they say. Losers, don't jut disappear, they go on to play again and win, and b) winning and losing are often subjective terms. You can win by degree and lose by degree and have Pyrrhic victories.
3) Wealth and poverty are relative terms. You can measure them in real terms or with regard to each other, but you need some parameters, temporal, geographical or otherwise or you can easily end up comparing apples and oranges. This is often done deliberately in political and economic arguments.
4) Wealth and poverty are also subjective relative to time and space. If you can't afford a car or a computer and and don't have an indoor toilet for example, does that make you poor? Ask the same question to a) a 'working class person' in the UK in 2012, b) a 'middle class' person in the UK in 1948 and c) a 'middle class' person with no immediate money worries in Burkina Faso.
...And all of that is to be considered before even starting to look at any specific economic models.
Cochise
Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,479
I think you are mistaken in assuming the current situation is a free market. In fact it is an oligopoly, which has been created by failure to apply the laws regarding monopolies, cartels and other elements of fair trading.
A 'Free market' does not imply no rules at all, what it is about is freedom of access to the market. That is, no arbitrary rules preventing individuals from a particular country or race from trading. In order to be a functional 'free market' some sort of level playing field has to be established.
In any functioning society, any sort of freedom carries with it a responsibility to act fairly and reasonably, and there have to be civil sanctions (formal or informal) and in the last resort laws to compel people who refuse to comply.
Like 'equality' , 'free market' is given an extreme interpretation by some people with an agenda. There can never be total equality, there should never be a totally free market unfettered by any restraint. We have the necessary regulations and laws in place, but they are ignored due to corruption and immorality. If this continues of course the system will either collapse or be forcibly destroyed.
A 'Free market' does not imply no rules at all, what it is about is freedom of access to the market. That is, no arbitrary rules preventing individuals from a particular country or race from trading. In order to be a functional 'free market' some sort of level playing field has to be established.
In any functioning society, any sort of freedom carries with it a responsibility to act fairly and reasonably, and there have to be civil sanctions (formal or informal) and in the last resort laws to compel people who refuse to comply.
Like 'equality' , 'free market' is given an extreme interpretation by some people with an agenda. There can never be total equality, there should never be a totally free market unfettered by any restraint. We have the necessary regulations and laws in place, but they are ignored due to corruption and immorality. If this continues of course the system will either collapse or be forcibly destroyed.
Ringo
I like to not get involved in these matters
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 3,022
- Location
- Stockholm
Hi Greywolfe,
Please can you stop posting in bold. It just makes it harder to read and I gave up after a few lines. It doesn't make the argument stronger, just more irritating to digest. It looked like a wall of text.
Please can you stop posting in bold. It just makes it harder to read and I gave up after a few lines. It doesn't make the argument stronger, just more irritating to digest. It looked like a wall of text.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,323
- Location
- Eblana
Cochise said:
Well put Sir!