Do free markets promote a healthier economy and society or do we need regulations of industry to produce the highest amount of prosperity?
I believe a free market society promotes prosperity throughout a countries society and economy.It promotes competition,and in turn,forces companies to expand there horizons and create new products for society,as in a command economy,its the government which chooses what products should be manufactured.In a command society,what influences a worker to work harder or to his/her full potential if your just gonna be paid the same anyway.In a free market,There is room for promotion and individual growth,which in turn,influence worker to be more open minded and efficient in the field.A free market economy is an economy where the market is free to operate based on peoples wants and needs rather than just what the government wants and what they feel is needed.In a free market,the economy is driven by a government that practices a laissez-faire,rather than controlling its economic policy. Results of a Command economy 1.Soviet Unions government didnt allow Soviet industries to produce enough consumer goods. 2.This caused the east to suffer hunger and insufficent amount of clothing. 3.The Soviet Union was involved in a war against Afghanistan between 1979-1989.This took huge sums of money from consumer goods to support the war. 4.The Soviet Union began to lose the Cold War due to its Command Economy. 5.Because of the free market economy,the west was able to make great improvements and produced more goods that were available to the public. 6.People under communism, werent able to experience those new goods.They were either not sold to the public in that area,or the goods were to expensive for people to buy. A free market economy is an economy where the market is free to operate based on peoples wants and needs.
The way the problem is worded tilts the argument towards free market. It is still arguable as is, but opponents of free market wouldn't rate each system by prosperity alone. That is exactly the argument against... too many other important things fall through the cracks, most notably (but not limited to) environmental concerns.
Free market must be mixed with laws to prevent thefto to promote the highst level of innovation and work. Maintaing a free market bases pay on usefulness to a company thus through many levels each person who outperforms his peers for a higher raise through many levels increases the GNP. People naturally work towards the goal of bettering their status but lack thereof cause a loss of dicipline resulting in a minimal contribution to society in a regulated environment. On a large scale the reduced copmetition of an individual makes little difference but on a wider basis of reduced opportunities and efficency causes an econemy to deteriorate in the fassion fo the USSR.
what we NEED is balance. Free market with good restrictions. restrictions that make sense. Ones that provide for both company owners, and workers alike. Prosperity for all.
This post is going to be opinionated, I do apologize. If the debate heats up I'll get to the business of making my case, I can link sources that point out the flaws of free market economics all day. First I'd like to take a step back. Free market, laisses-faire, objectivism, libertarianism, whatever you call it, I've never heard it defended to my satisfaction. I understand the rationale. It is said that in a free market it is impossible for the strong to exploit the weak. However this only works within the political borders in which everyone is using the same system. Across those borders, the unregulated market will out-compete and sap resources form the regulated market. This is what China is doing to the US right now. This is the basis for the argument that we should drop our regulations, to put an end to this. I see too many problems that owe their existance to commercial ambition. The government is not the enemy of the people unless something is wrong. In a democracy, the government is supposed to be the representative of the people, the advocate of the people amongst the corporate powers. There are many ways for this to go wrong, few ways for it to go right. The Soviet Union lacked checks and balances on power, it went wrong. The problem in the US is campaign finances and corporate personhood (corporations own our government). Without going into too much detail, I submit that two things in particular will do more good for the US than anything else: 1. Make it illegal for businesses or individuals to donate to any politician 2. Get effective tariffs back in place. Thariffs will make us competative again without having to resort to free market approaches and making campaigns publicly funded will turn the government back into what it's supposed to be - an advocate of the things that a free market would let fall through the cracks, such as the middle class and the environment. Regulations would then reflect emphasis on these otherwise unprofitable considerations.
I know I've got several responses to you lined up and I'm sorry that I'm doing them out of order. I will get to all of them in due time. I would also like to apologize for the OP. I did not realize that was a slanted question. I do feel as though you may have read it as one even though the question is neutral. I feel that economies are for the purpose of the prosperity of the people. 'tis well. China does maintain a freer economy which is why it is more competitive than ours. The strong can exploit the weak in a free market economy but if they do so their workers will leave and find a better job. For instance, if you work in a mine for 12 hours a day and are paid 35 cents for that you won't be too happy. Say theres a lumber mill down the road that hires workers for $5 a day. You will sooner switch to the easier job with a greater pay because the conditions are better and the economic benefit is better. If a company pays less that what is needed to live on then working for that company is unsustainable and the company will fail from a lack of employees. If that same company pays the base pay that is needed to survive then it will be outcompeted by similar companies that pay larger sums and receive more skilled and dedicated workers. The company that pays more will have more willing people ready to employ and therefore will have a larger pool to choose from. If NO company, anywhere, pays more than the base survivable income then entrepreneurs will readily compete with the industry and workers will be drawn to the new company. In essence, the free market provides better wages. The government that governs least governs the best. Tariffs?! Really?! Logically lets explore this. China offers steel at the bargain price of 35$ per lb. Their market is freer so businesses are able to sell their products at lower prices. Because of this lower price American interests buy this steel over American harvested steel, which due to regulation, offers it at 45$ per lb. Even though we offer the same product we must sell it at a higher price to make a profit. So naturally people will flock to the Chinese steel to save money. This increases China's GDP and standard of living. What happens next is where it gets interesting. U.S. steel lobbies congress for a tariff. Once the tariff is obtained American interests can no longer buy Chinese steel so American interests are forced to buy the cheapest alternative which we will assume is American steel. Because of the switch all the American companies which now buy American steel must raise their prices to make a profit and thus become less competitive allowing industries in other countries to outcompete the U.S. (because remember an American tariff only affects American's). On top of all this China will impose its own tariff which will impede Chinese interests from purchasing various American goods (specialized technologies in most cases). So America's GDP goes down, the cost of living goes up, and the wages a person earns stays constant or goes down which diminishes the standard of living. In our economy you may make more money than you would in a free market. In our economy if you make $90,000 you would probably earn only $35,000 in a free market economy. This is JUST a number. $90,000 can buy $90,000 worth of product in our economy but a free market economy wage of $35,000 could buy $90,000 worth of product so you are making LESS money but your purchasing power goes up! $90,000 wage in our economy = $35,000 wage in a free market economy. The free market does not ignore the middle class or the environment. It props us the middle and lower class by providing better jobs. The environment is well protected. Assume you are a logger. You will cut down trees to make a profit. If you cut down all of the trees your job is lost so it is more sustainable to cut a section, replant, cut a different section, replant, return to the first section and cut. In fact, this technique is used in countries without regulation! Why? It is more sustainable, cost-efficient, and gives them a positive public image which encourages people to purchase their products! On the subject of pollution. Don't confuse the 1880's - 1930's as a free market. It was a corporatist economy. A true free market would not allow for pollution because if a company polluted say a river and people fell ill because of it, justice would be obtained through our justice system and settlements would be reached as a result, as well as a public backlash at the company which would lose sales and do more harm to their company than good. In most cases it is more efficient to recycle wastes because some recycling companies buy the waste that they would throw out.
Your environmental examples don't hold up. In the lumber one, yes of course it's usually in the company's interest to manage the resource, but only of the target species. There's a lot more in a forest besides trees. Same thing for the fishing industry, yeah they will eventually get to a point where they are forced to manage their catch of the target species, but what is the free market incentive to address bycatch? In you pollution example, the problem is in the public drawing the connection between pollution and polluter. It's not always obvious and usually takes government investigations to turn up the culprit. Cover-up is much more profitable than clean-up unless there is threat of regulatory penalty. There are all kinds of tricks to manipulate public image, very few of which involve actually acting responsibly. Sorry I don't have time to do the research to address the rest of your argument, I'm in quite a crunch for schoolwork right now.
Entrepreneurs can buy tracks of land and preserve them for profit. They can charge an entrance fee. In fact, private parks have a HIGHER upkeep and less pollution than government parks do! The fact is people are people whether they are in the private or public sector. Can a privately owned company pollute? Of course it can. Can a publicly owned company pollute? The soviet-union has some excellent examples. The only difference is you can hold the private industry more accountable than the government. Go into more detail about the destruction of the "non-target" species. Bycatch can be thrown back if it is not profitable or if the fish is endangered and it is illegal to catch it. Just because you have a free market doesn't mean you have anarchy. The compassion of the crew can lead them to throw a fish back. It depends on people and people will do what people will do. If a captain deems the bycatch worth the lower primary target quota then thats a decision he must make. It could be that it is less profitable to do this and the next time it happens he'll throw it back to save money. But if he makes money then he'll probably want to start fishing for the animal he caught as bycatch and make it his primary target. No it doesn't! Government investigations only occur if someone's political standing is at stake and that can only happen with an awareness of the public. Usually, yellow-journalist-esc reporters do these investigations for their own personal fame. Then the government gets involved to save their own personal political career. Community experiences a problem -> If its news worthy the news network reports it -> a journalist does an investigative follow up or did his investigation for the original. If you think it is impossible for consumers to turn against businesses, remember, the reason why we have regulations is because consumers turned against a business. Also a free market doesn't not allow environmental regulation or even fines from the government. Even though it doesn't need it. So you're telling me you hold no negative opinion towards any company for any reason? Even if that were the case and you really didn't have a negative opinion of any company it averages out because some hold only negative opinions of business. It's like guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, one person may guess 800, another 1200 but if you average out the answers from a diverse and large amount of people you approach a number that is incredibly close to the actual number leading to the phrase, "The wisdom of crowds." This has been verified scientifically. Story of my life.
This assumes we're dealing with a skilled workforce. The most notable government interference with wages, the minimum wage, is kept in place to protect unskilled workers. Not all environmental concerns are going to affect corporations in such immediate ways, and even if impending disaster does loom within the near future massive short term gains may blind corporations to any danger. Look at cars and gasoline. In America, in the 1940's, General Motors bought and dismantled huge amounts of public transit as a way to encourage car sales. Now here we are stuck dealing with peak oil, and the massive use of an environmentally destructive product. I think that's also a good example of how public and corporation relations can be beneficial in one way but parasitic in another. What's to stop a corporation that sells tires from buying a road and intentionally keeping it poorly maintained? Normally companies pollute in areas where the inhabitants wield no real power, like ghettos and third world countries. You can't really claim equivalency here. A government's purpose is to assist the common interests of its society, a corporation's goal is to maximize profit. If a government does something bad or is just generally evil you would consider that a malfunction of government. A corporation doing something evil is just a byproduct of its natural function. This is actually a problem I have with the whole free market thing. A lot of the system relies on people being perfectly rational actors at all times. But this isn't the case, people do stupid self destructive things all the time.
Great argument for reform. Bycatch is defined as total mortality, not total catch. You can't bring animals from the bottom of the ocean to the surface and just throw them back in... they all die from pressure. This happens all the time due to bottom trawling. In fact, even in shallower water, shrimping has the worst rates of bycatch (mortality, remember), averaging 5 pounds per 1 pound of shrimp. While a fishing boat may catch many different species that they can market, many more are caught that are not marketable to them, yet they are still killed. This is the biggest threat to many species such as sea turtles. And the compassion of the crew is to no avail. Journalists don't report directly on environmental problems, they report studies of environmental problems. Who funds the science? Taxpayers. Again, for all the inadequacies of government, I trace the problem to campaign finances. It's an issue of reform, not a call for economic anarchy (which free market is.) touche That is exactly what free market arguments are all about!! To that first line: whatever... that's a stretched statment and you know why. I think anyone who cares to open their eyes can see the damage-controll PR function, but most people don't. Forgive me but while The Wisdom of Crowds may be able to count jelly beans, my confidence is thin in their capacity to call out and administer justice to corporate parisites.
Minimum wage protects workers in the same sense that Lion protects it prey. Would you agree that having a job is better than not having a job? Some money rather than no money? I think thats reasonable. Everybody needs to eat. When you impose minimum wage you help the people out in the short term by increasing the amount of money which is great; everyone loves money. Minimum wage, however, puts small businesses out of business because they simply cannot afford to pay the government mandate. Businesses that don't go out of business must raise the prices of their goods in order to be competitive and make a profit. So let's say you make 10,000 a year before minimum wage and milk is sold for $0.35 per gallon. If you double the wage of the worker the worker makes 20,000 a year! Awesome thats so great...but the milk went up in price proportionally to the amount the milk company must pay its employees so in order to make a profit milk has gone up to $0.70 per gallon. Have you really done anything to help out the worker? No. Have you really done anything to help the workforce? No you hurt them by driving small businesses who couldn't afford it out of business. And some companies may raise their prices even higher than what the minimum profit quota, putting consumers in the hole even more. Let's assume a struggling milk company only payed its workers 8,000 and offered milk at the same price as the other company. The company will not be able to compete with the other company after the government mandate and will go out of business. You increased unemployment and allowed for the other milk company to gain majority control and possibly a monopoly on the system. Minimum wage just makes it harder for entrepreneurs and small businesses to succeed. Companies do frequently exchange short term profits for long term expense. This is true. I would like you to remember that gasoline is a byproduct and whether you like it or not it is less harmful in its gaseous form than its liquid form. John D. Rockefeller the greatest recycler in human history used this useless byproduct and created a market for it. One which crowned him the wealthiest man in the world. The free market does reward recyclers. At the time it was unknown that CO2 harmed the atmosphere. Rockefeller knew two things: Gas was useless and going to waste and that it was a pollutant in its current form. He did the moral good with his limited knowledge, however, even with the knowledge of the greenhouse effect I would rather have cars burning gasoline, than liquid gasoline ending up in runoff in massive amounts. Assuming roads were for sale. I'd say avoid that road or buy tires from another company that doesn't cheat you. Why is the free market synonymous with anarchy? I've brought up environmental regulations already and have stated that the free market can do it but we can also impose regulation. The government must provide for the common welfare and if no company has the incentive to recycle and not pollute the government can impose environmental restrictions! If that makes a free market no longer free then I'll restate my argument as such, "An almost completely free market that has all the bells and whistles of a free market but some environmental restrictions as well." Seeing as the word "free market" throws you guys into a hissy fit. I would presume that the company that moves it self overseas and offers jobs to the people of that area so that they can make a decent wage and have the ability to provide for their family rather than risking their lives in the jaws of a lion is the morally good thing to do. No its not. The approval ratings of the Iraq war are incredibly low, yet our government which functions as our common interest will not obey our common interests and pull out. So the government doesn't do what you want it to do...ever. A government can survive without your immediate cooperation a business can not!! This is why businesses are more accountable and can be more easily shaped by the whims of the people. If a government or corporation does something evil then I would suggest that they are both malfunctioning. Regardless of profit motives human morality does come into play. If you cannot find appropriate equilibrium then you are a malfunctioning business. It really doesn't. Complete redneck morons shop at WalMart. They are aiding the free market. You don't need an omnipotent knowledge of a business to know if they sell goods cheaply. Now if those goods flimsy and no good then its a waste of money to buy them and you won't! Why is this so hard to understand? EVERYONE has a profit motive. In the instance of walmart, if they win - we win. They offer high quality goods at exceptional prices. McDonald's has a fleet of trucks that run on the grease from their fryers! No government regulation required. They saw profit in recycling and went for it. --Pred - i'll get to you after class. No its not. Because if you hold them accountable by strict government oversight or worse government nationalization of the business then you lose all power over the business. Funny how adding something to our government, which supposedly bows to the people, decreases our ability to control it. Ah I see. Sorry I thought I knew what bycatch was. What would you have us do? Shutdown the shrimping industry and lose thousands of jobs to satisfy - what means exactly? At any rate, the ecological and economical benefits of keeping bycatch is much higher than throwing it back (Zhou and Yimin 1996). Chinese industries have been created to make marketable profit off the bycatch via entrepreneurs. 28% of the worlds bycatch comes from the Gulf of Mexico and guess who is responsible for 70% of it. Cuba. We cannot drop commercial fishing. It feeds us. What we need is innovation to prevent bycatch and healthy international regulation to prevent overfishing and the decimation of fish stocks. Hey kids, can you count how many absolutist statements were made?! Three!!! Yay! 1). Sure they can. 2). Environmental problems aren't always studied and people are aware of the problem long before the study comes out which is all a reporter needs. 3). Yes taxpayers do pay for scientific research which is not against the free market but it doesn't come exclusively from us. The NIH and NSF are the two largest grant approving organizations. This isn't about corrupt politicians. This is about whether in theory or in practice a free market or command economy is a better system of economics. I say the you eliminate the risk of corruption in a free market. Lobbying is the result of corporatism not free market economics. Says you. It is not stretched. If you are going to sit there and bullshit me that businesses can't have bad PR because they can just cover it up then I'm going to call you out. The wisdom of people will be required no matter what. I would rather have a genuine democracy than a sham. A genuine democracy is everyone making their own decisions and allowing those decisions to average out to a net good for the people. Not a few politicians deciding what the people should or should not have and taking bribes from companies ensuring that some businesses are given the shaft for personal gain. - Pred, I'm going to be honest. When you feel like debating be my guest. I want to have this discussion with you but if you are going to persist in this form of dialogue then I won't participate with you. Your whole reply didn't feel genuine. It felt like a sarcastic approach to an argument you view has no possible defensible position.
I fear that this debate, as is the case of every good debate, is rooted in underlying ideology, which facts are notorious for bending to. I wrote that last post at 3 AM this morning because I couldn't focus on my paper I was writing for school until I got it out, I had a hard time checking my sarcasm at that hour. As I hinted at, I really can't do the research for this debate that it deserves right now because I'm just don't have the time. I'm confident that I can find quality sources to back up everything I said, as you can to back up yours. That is precisely one of the greatest problems we have always faced... truth is at a premium. If I had time, I would delve into some specific supreme court actions such as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Sorry for such a shitty answer. I really do feel like I get something out of these debates, I don't come here to preach or convert, I come here to better myself. I am loyal to the truth, not my position. We can move on from here... you said something to the effect that free market doesn't necessarily exclude regulation. What do you mean by that? Do you disagree that free market is economic anarchy?
I do. I view the government and economy as separate entities with separate goals. In essence I view the free market as a way of pushing economics out of government and command economies as a way of making economics inclusive. The economy is a vast and intricate system that no one truly understands. Only 30% of mutual funds ever make a profit and mutual funds are governed by "world-class economic advisors." The most successful stock porfolios (and this has been documented) are not created by stock brokers but by the wisdom of crowds. People will interview 100 random laymen (50/50 between men and women) and ask them to pick their five favorite stocks from a list of say 20. The questioners will then invest in the stocks that the crowds selected and report larger gains, whereas stock brokers who focus solely on their experience and computer programs will experience large losses. In my opinion, putting the economy in the hands of a few government selected officials in the fed is irresponsible and renders the free market cut off at the knees. Personal choice in the market place is required for a free society and the fed is one way of limiting our freedoms. The wisdom of ignorant crowds is more reliable than twenty year veterans of stock trade. The wisdom of crowds is where its at. -- To the topic at hand. It is not economic anarchy. People impose the restrictions on the economy based of their personal wills and whatever the mean average of these wills sums out to is what the economy will do. The government can impose environmental regulations when the will of the people simply isn't enough. So long as they don't regulate the monetary system (or do something stupid like take us off the gold standard...) it isn't a violation of the free market.
The reason those people would choose a particular stock as there favorite is most likely (considering they are selected at random and have varying knowledge of the stock market) because it is the place where he/she shops and or spends money, and since it is an unbiased statistical survey, it reflects what most of society would invest in therefore the more successful business. It doesn't mean that we don't need trained officials to help predict outcomes.
See? Common ground, lol. The extent of how much "simply isn't enough" is very speculative. I am skeptical, can you really blame me? edit: sorry to bring up old **** but NSF and NIS are both taxpayer funded.
Peter Lynch, the legendary money manager of Fidelity's Magellan fund, gave this advice to laypersons: invest in what you know. What's surprising in is if you are partially ignorant you are more well equipped to make money in the stock market that someone who has been in the business of selling stocks their entire life! Trained officials cannot predict outcomes. The future isn't written and even the swankiest of computer programs only answer correctly as much as chance would predict it would. What is certain is when the human brain does what it does best (fills in the gaps) it succeeds and when it is used collectively it excels. Regardless, most large businesses invest in science and education. Oil companies in geologists, Google in computer scientists, etc.
That part I highlighted right there, that is minimum wage, the base amount needed for a person to survive. I don't care about economics theories in this case, not at all. I have an economic theory that states a maximum wage cap coupled with decent minimum wage would prevent the obscenely rich from hoarding wealth and allow the lower classes to drive up the overall demand for goods. But none of this matters because first and foremost the right to live must to be respected and acknowledged. Economic implications play second fiddle to this basic right. Of course, there is no real decision to make here, minimum wage and economic stability can coexist. As early as the 1600's England had "poor laws" that essentially kept you alive if you couldn't survive otherwise; they provided a minimum level of subsistence. The idea that modern America with all its natural resources, its wealth, its power, its technology, can't do the same is ludicrous. If a job cannot be provided at a wage that allows the person working it to buy at least the basic needs for human survival then it does not deserve to be "a job". The very idea that companies have a right to offer unlivable wages - because it's what the market demands or is "fair" for the kind of labor present - is antithetical to the concept of gainful employment and human decency. What is this supposed to prove? The idea that corporations are inherently evil is not a part of my argument. But the idea that the invisible hand of the free market always leads to beneficial outcomes is a part of yours. So countering my example of corporate evil with an example of corporate good doesn't really mean anything. This is a catchall for any argument I could possibly make. A company can't do bad thing because consumers would punish company for doing bad thing by not giving company any money. This of course is the opposite of reality where corporations have been known to intentionally harm potential consumers yet still remain profitable. This is literally the exact same argument used to justify black slavery in early America. But beyond the whole white burden thing, I could make the argument that a corporation swooping into a underdeveloped country and using the natives to extract all of that countries resources, before the natives have a chance to establish a infrastructure capable of using those resources, is essentially economic colonialism. Also the idea that we somehow have a right to treat people in another country badly because their lives were already terrible is pretty reprehensible. What you mean is that the populace can vote with their money, that every dollar is a vote, that's how we control them, with our money, right? Basically what you're proposing here is a return to a system of democracy where certain votes count more than others, akin to the three fifths compromise, where black Americans only counted as 3/5 of a person. Except you're dividing us by class, not by race. Why regress back to this archaic and unjust form of voting when we could simply vote, through government regulation, for what we want? Also it sounds like you're for government regulation if it means preventing a business from acting immoral. Let me know if this is your position, otherwise I'm liable to throw another hissy fit (oh god it's too late, it's already happening, my hands are trembling) Yes and people buy cigarettes, keeping afloat a company that is doing everything it can to harm them and as many other people as possible. Businesses once refused to hire employees of certain ethnicities, missing out on untold amounts of worker potential. Luckily government was willing to step in, in both those scenarios, and fight for the common good. Actually that's a good question, what about a company that refuses to hire someone because of their race? Any government intervention needed there?
You responded to the introduction to my argument. Don't fool yourself. I refuse to respond AGAIN to a flawed argument you already proposed. Respond to my response and I may consider your points. I've read them thorough so I know very well what you are talking about. I'm also very aware that my previous response can be adapted well enough, if you attempt to understand it conceptually, to solve all your proposed conundrums. It was just an example of a company doing the morally proper thing to do. And it wasn't just any industry, it was from the oil industry and it wasn't just any company, it was standard oil which was the proposed "most evil" company in the early 1900's. John D. used corrupt business practices but for all the bad he did, what he did do was provide jobs, provide a product and did an excellent job at reducing the amount of waste that would go into our soil by converting it into a fuel source. The invisible hand may or may not always lead to what is best but we can do something to make things better. We don't have to let the invisible hand spank us. Environmental regulations are not a contradiction of free market economics. Minimum wage may not be a contradiction either but it does ruin a lot of good business and does make the standard of living drop. Yeah but with enough public awareness they do not remain profitable for long. Look at it this way. If the government owns your road and the road is ****, you still have to pay taxes (or be jailed) and you still have to buy replacement tires (helping an industry). If a business owns your road and the road is ****, you don't have to give that company any money and you can avoid that road for one that is more well maintain. This isn't an argument for roads owned by business; I would like you to consider the thought that businesses have more vulnerabilities than government. I don't hate government. I love government, I love the constitution, I just believe that we should only follow the constitution and reduce the size and costs of government to make us more powerful, productive and to increase our standard of living. Don't call me a racist because in all cases you will lose and I will show you to be more racist than I. I've had these debates before, "the free market is racist wahhh." Don't start this **** with me. You will lose. If you believe that the slave trade was a choice and was allowed by the government of the people of those countries then you have another thing coming. They were captured and force to work overseas. They had no standing government to prevent it and tell the slave trade industry no. A diamond mine cannot be installed unless the government approves that overseas business and it cannot be maintained unless people make the choice to work for them. If it is forced labor then it is the governments responsibility to remove the company and if it can't do that it is the duty of the world to eliminate the evil. I never said that! "Their lives sucked therefore we should treat them badly" is not an argument I made. If you provide a person with a job and money you provide them with a means to provide for themselves. How that can be interpreted as evil is beyond me. "How can we allow companies to migrate to foreign lands and suck the resources from them?!" I think that is the argument you make. Consider this. The earth and the supply trade on it are a closed system. If you harvest a mineral and use it for a product it costs a certain amount. No matter what you do with a product it always matches up with equilibrium. For instance for a company to mine diamonds it must: acquire necessary legal documentation, purchase land, hire workers, train workers, purchase machinery, allocate costs and overtime to increase or decrease production as the market sees fit, provide company benefits (if provided), ship product overseas, refine product, market product, successfully sell product at an appropriate price, repeat process. So who benefits from all this? The jobless people who now have one thanks to the company, the shipping line, the refinery, the marketing team, the salesmen who sell the product, the government(s) who reap the tax rewards, the previous land owner who sold the land to the company and THE PEOPLE. The people were provided a product they needed and otherwise would not have unless that company went through all these measures to acquire it. The people of that country the business "colonized" are provided money which can be used to purchase food, medicine and luxuries that the jobless citizens before would have otherwise not been able to afford. Now these people may have lost a natural resource that they had either no use for or no means to acquire but they have gained so much more. With an issued credit they can now buy whatever they want! They can buy products from other countries, their own country or invest it to obtain more credit in order to start their own company and continue the cycle. So essentially you took a jobless citizen (one that subsists on what we can make) and you allowed him to exist on what EVERYONE makes. He can access medicine now and provide ample food for his children. How do you view this as a negative? Here it is, another insinuation of racism but now with a twist: class wars. Listen if you are going to insist on bringing up racism and analogies to it in order to degrade my arguments please do so in a responsible way. You're on thin ice, my friend. We have a chance to learn from one another, take the opportunity. I don't know when it occurred to you that a person under the free market could only be considered 3/5 of a person but whatever; I'll deal with it. Picture the free market as evolution. If one company refuses to adapt to a niche or cannot, another company will. If a niche (industry) is open and that niche (industry) would result in a species (company) survival, it will fill that niche (industry) and provide for itself (capital) and its young (a product). So let's say Company A offers a product. The product is too expensive for poor people to afford, therefore the poor cast their "votes" by purchasing from a cheaper Company B. There is no problem with this scenario. This is similar to saying, "The middle class cannot afford high priced jewelry and a Ferrari. The rich can. Therefore, the rich will purchase these products and the middle class will not." However there exists a problem. If a company cannot survive off only the rich it must offer an affordable product to the middle class. Therefore the company WILL offer that product or go "extinct." If a company cannot survive off the middle class exclusively it will offer products to the lower class or upper class. These products may be lower quality but such are the REQUIRED costs of any economic system. If there is no company that needs to provide for the poor to survive then niche companies will provide for them. These companies will become monopolies of the poor essentially and will be able to extend their power to the middle class and out compete other companies. It is, in all cases, beneficial to provide a product that is accessible to ALL people. It maximizes profit. Cigarette companies are immoral. The harsh chemicals they add are there to addict. Addiction is not a part of free market economics. It is a branch of government concern. Therefore you should focus your efforts off of the free market and onto the government for the solution to that problem. Racism is a social issue that affects individuals. If, say, it is more profitable to hire a diverse range of workers then a company who hires a diverse range of workers will make a greater profit and out compete other companies who only hire exclusively from one race. It is important to note these facts. 1). That blacks represent 13% of the population. 2). That 13% of all jobs are occupied by African Americans. 3). That 99% of the senate is white (one black senator) and that 98% of the house is white. What conclusions can you draw from this? The government is racist whereas the free market provides what we would expect it to provide. Is there any intervention? No...well, we've got a black president but that's about it. Of course its hard to find a president thats 56% white, 13% black, and 31% other. Before we begin the racism argument which you have brought up three times I would like your permission. Should we debate whether free market economics is racist? I ask because I don't want to be stuck in a racism debate if that is not a legitimate concern.