Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.

[jem]

but thats the thing its not who they are its what they choose to do and then share the details.

There is a distinction. Most people can't really change their race... people can choose to share or not to share their sexual preferences. When and if they really discover a gay gene... I will amend this statement to those who have the gay gene.

and then on top of that...

in the America I would prefer to live in... people can choose to be gay and people can choose who they make cakes for. If I were a baker I would have no problem making cake for gay people. I would just sell the little figurines separately if I had a problem placing the figurines. But that is me and that would be my choice. If someone else makes another choice... I say leave them the hell alone or tell your friends not to do business with them.

Don' t use the govt to mess with them.

 

[jem]

have you ever seen a perfect communist govt either. They all turn into authoritarian govt very bad for individual rights.... so why do you keep arguing for more govt control and the letting the IRS target people.

there is no chance of that working out well in the long run.

Are you meaning, in your thread title, by "free market, economic principles" to assume the actual existence of conditions which satisfy Walras' general equilibrium model requirements?* (In the Walrasian model, markets left alone, are expected to respond according to supply and demand and will spontaneously seek a price-supply-demand equilibrium.) Or are you using the term "free-markets" euphemistically? If the former is what you mean, then I am going to suggest two things for your consideration: 1. For the Walras' model to reach fruition, a laissez faire attitude of government is one of the hidden requisites;
2. There are zero examples in history where a laissez faire attitude of government did not preclude a breakdown of the perfect competition requirement of the Walras, general equilibrium model.

Thus, history has taught us that in the macroeconomic world there is no such thing, in the pure sense, as a stable, "free market economy"; but there is little harm in using this term as a euphemism for minimally, regulated markets so long as it is understood to be a euphemism. Sadly, it isn't often understood; thus we still run into calls for "free markets" without any qualification, despite the impossibility of their stable existence, at least in the macroeconomic world.

______________________
* In Walras' model, among several other requirements that are also never met in practice, there must be perfect competition. This requirement leads to an enigma. Laissez faire, i.e., non-interference, is a requirement of perfect competition, but laissez faire always leads to imperfect competition.

 

[BONECRUSHER]

Are you meaning, in your thread title, by "free market, economic principles" to assume the actual existence of conditions which satisfy Walras' general equilibrium model requirements?* (In the Walrasian model, markets left alone, are expected to respond according to supply and demand and will spontaneously seek a price-supply-demand equilibrium.) Or are you using the term "free-markets" euphemistically? If the former is what you mean, then I am going to suggest two things for your consideration: 1. For the Walras' model to reach fruition, a laissez faire attitude of government is one of the hidden requisites;
2. There are zero examples in history where a laissez faire attitude of government did not preclude a breakdown of the perfect competition requirement of the Walras, general equilibrium model.

Thus, history has taught us that in the macroeconomic world there is no such thing, in the pure sense, as a stable, "free market economy"; but there is little harm in using this term as a euphemism for minimally, regulated markets so long as it is understood to be a euphemism. Sadly, it isn't often understood; thus we still run into calls for "free markets" without any qualification, despite the impossibility of their stable existence, at least in the macroeconomic world.

______________________
* In Walras' model, among several other requirements that are also never met in practice, there must be perfect competition. This requirement leads to an enigma. Laissez faire, i.e., non-interference, is a requirement of perfect competition, but laissez faire always leads to imperfect competition.

PIEZOE...once again you have proven to be very "book smart". Could you please put your response into more of a "street smart" explanation! If you and I were both abandoned in South Central Los Angeles without money-phone-connections,etc...could you get us out alive with your academic "smarts"? All kidding aside...some of this was over my head...but I did get the message...I think! No need to respond to this...just felt like being a clown.

 

[stu]

Nice try stu, but I see it exactly the opposite.

That much is clear. However it is the case society at large and the law do not agree with the way you see things.
Noticeable how young people and recent generations generally seem far more enlightened and relaxed about gender than many older dinosaurs. But then everyone knows what happened to the dinosaurs.

 

[piezoe]

yes, once again in my old age I am setting up a new aquarium in my new apartment. I'm a real natural guy and always rely on bacteria and algae, and everything works perfectly until you introduce a fish. If it wasn't for humans, the whole earth would work perfectly. Governing humans by natural law looks good on paper. But it's a real bitch if you are trying to raise healthy humans. Almost everything they do is anti balance.

But on the other hand could we say everything we do is natural for us to do? Maybe it is in or nature to screw all the other species up. Though a lot of them went extinct on their own without our help. Maybe to a Penguin we are Gods and they dedicate their poop to us.

 

[piezoe]

have you ever seen a perfect communist govt either. They all turn into authoritarian govt very bad for individual rights.... so why do you keep arguing for more govt control and the letting the IRS target people.

there is no chance of that working out well in the long run.

But I'm NOT advocating for more government control, nor less. I have said more than once that I believe we shouldn't think in terms of how big or small our government is but how efficient and useful it is. I have no idea what you mean when you say "letting the IRS target people".

Jem, sometimes I get the idea you don't really read anything I post before launching a response. If you do read my posts, then you don't understand them, which I admit is likely my fault.

 

[ETcallhome]

But on the other hand could we say everything we do is natural for us to do? Maybe it is in or nature to screw all the other species up. Though a lot of them went extinct on their own without our help. Maybe to a Penguin we are Gods and they dedicate their poop to us.

believe me, Life would be a lot more easier if it was not my nature to take care of every less fortunate animal. And I really believe once everybody experiences abundance like I have, they will quickly realize it's power and limitations and will slowly want to pass it on before it goes stale.

And it goes a lot deeper than that. I've been thinking about it a lot lately. If I was God Almighty I would take one look at my life and determine it was pretty much selfish and wasted and not worth saving. You hear it all the time from the the right wing nutcase Darwinians who frequent this site. And who can argue? It is the natural law of the jungle.

But Gods law is quite different. For some unknown reason He wants to save everybody, no matter how weak they are (maybe out of vanity because He created them.)

Does it translate into politics? I don't know.

I know it is good for most people and anybody like me that I am not God because I have very little patience for the weak (although I will show them some mercy if they are a plant or a non human animal.)

But I can say with quite some surity if I was God and running things, and it is anything like the way He runs my life, taxes would be way way more higher.

 

[piezoe]

PIEZOE...once again you have proven to be very "book smart". Could you please put your response into more of a "street smart" explanation! If you and I were both abandoned in South Central Los Angeles without money-phone-connections,etc...could you get us out alive with your academic "smarts"? All kidding aside...some of this was over my head...but I did get the message...I think! No need to respond to this...just felt like being a clown.

Thanks for trying to read it anyway. If you do a search on Walras, general equilibrium, you're bound to turn up a Wiki article. It's probably not worth your time though. The bottom line is no true "Free Market" can exist for long other than on perhaps a small scale locally. So when someone says "whatever happened to Free Markets?", the answer is "They never existed in the first place."

And it would be taking a big risk to depend on me to get us out of a jam in South Central L.A. without money or other resources other than brain work. This reminds me of a true story however, where operating my brain on auto pilot did the trick to get me out of a threatening situation. Late at night walking home on a dark street, as I neared my driveway gate, I became aware that someone was following me. A large person suddenly appeared to my left and said "Hey dude" (Actually I thought they said something else, but later I realized that is what they had said.) I turned toward them, and when I realized that I did not recognize this person I kept on walking. Then suddenly a much shorter person who looked to be perhaps late Junior high or Early High School Age appeared next to me on my right and was matching my steps. All of a sudden this smaller person, when I was maybe only ten feet from my driveway, swung his fist at my head hitting me squarely on the nose. Without thinking and going on instinct, I stopped dead in my tracks, looked down at the individual that had just socked me and said, rather emphatically and sternly, as a school teacher might in admonishing a child, "What is the matter with you!" I suppose this is not at all the reaction he was expecting. I then turned and walked directly to my driveway gate. I did not quicken my pace or run. At my gate I looked back to see if my assailant was still there. He was not, and neither was his large buddy. They had both faded into the night. I suppose this was their unsuccessful version of the "knockout game." I did get a bloody nose out of the encounter. Had I had anytime to think I would have reacted differently and possibly with far worse results..

When a businessman uses the term "free enterprise" he may be using it as a substitute term for laissez faire, just as he may substitute the term "free markets" for laissez faire, meaning virtually the same thing in each case, i.e., the operation of a business without interference from government. But to the lay public the term "free enterprise" can mean something quite different, namely the freedom to enter a market and compete on level terms with other market participants. This duel meaning of "free enterprise" has been the source of much unnecessary disagreement in discussions.

 

[ETcallhome]

which brings us back to the proper role of government.
And if my backyard is anything like Bernies world I would agree. Just give me all the sunflower seeds and wait in line for your benefits. I can tell you if you just dump the whole 25 pounds out there most of it will rot the first rain.
But that still leaves the question, "Where do Sunflower Seeds come from?"

 

[piezoe]

which brings us back to the proper role of government.
And if my backyard is anything like Bernies world I would agree. Just give me all the sunflower seeds and wait in line for your benefits. I can tell you if you just dump the whole 25 pounds out there most of it will rot the first rain.
But that still leaves the question, "Where do Sunflower Seeds come from?"

When I was a kid I thought they came from Wilson's grocery store two blocks down the street, but now, as an adult, I realize that would be a poor answer to your question. This is just another of endless examples of how we are constantly being forced to change our thinking so long as we keep on learning.