4 ms·

Because Republican politicians tend to talk about "The Free Market" whenever they talk about regulations and laws. "We need to let the free market work!" Basica

Because Republican politicians tend to talk about "The Free Market" whenever they talk about regulations and laws. "We need to let the free market work!" Basically, it's just the brand identity the Republicans have created for themselves.

nickik 10y ago
The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. I seems to benefit both of them, the left have the perfect boggy man (neoliberalism is literally the source of all evil) while the right seems to use is mostly to oppose leftist schemes. The never talk about free markets when they are talking about their own policy.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. The Left has been pointing out that capitalist markets are coercive rather than free since socialists coined the term "capitalism" for the economic system whose coercive structures they were criticizing, something like 150 years ago. If you aren't noticing it, you aren't paying much attention to the Left. This often happens when people, for example, mistake the dominant faction of the US Democratic Party (center-right neoliberal capitalists) for "the Left."
phkahler 10y ago
Right. In reality a free market can exist under most regulations, particularly ones that are evenly applied. If everyone has to play by the same rules competition should still exist and the players will learn to work within those rules. Regulation != death to free markets.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  IMO, it only starts to get really messy when you start mixing public and private funding. Example: A rule about prohibiting certain types of discrimination from health insurance companies vs. a publicly funded option. As you said, various health insurance companies can still compete around the same set of rules, etc. It may affect some of the economics of who can afford to play the game, and how they play, etc. but it's still pretty fair. Compare that with a publicly funded option that by virtue of its ownership does not have to weigh the same risks or set it's prices by the same rules, or even worse: one that wins what is essentially a government-enforced monopoly. Suddenly not so fair for private companies to compete against it.

nickik 10y ago

The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. I seems to benefit both of them, the left have the perfect boggy man (neoliberalism is literally the source of all evil) while the right seems to use is mostly to oppose leftist schemes. The never talk about free markets when they are talking about their own policy.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The Left is always there to point out how false everything they say is, on this point however they stay silent. The Left has been pointing out that capitalist markets are coercive rather than free since socialists coined the term "capitalism" for the economic system whose coercive structures they were criticizing, something like 150 years ago. If you aren't noticing it, you aren't paying much attention to the Left. This often happens when people, for example, mistake the dominant faction of the US Democratic Party (center-right neoliberal capitalists) for "the Left."

phkahler 10y ago

Right. In reality a free market can exist under most regulations, particularly ones that are evenly applied. If everyone has to play by the same rules competition should still exist and the players will learn to work within those rules. Regulation != death to free markets.

TallGuyShort 10y ago
IMO, it only starts to get really messy when you start mixing public and private funding. Example: A rule about prohibiting certain types of discrimination from health insurance companies vs. a publicly funded option. As you said, various health insurance companies can still compete around the same set of rules, etc. It may affect some of the economics of who can afford to play the game, and how they play, etc. but it's still pretty fair. Compare that with a publicly funded option that by virtue of its ownership does not have to weigh the same risks or set it's prices by the same rules, or even worse: one that wins what is essentially a government-enforced monopoly. Suddenly not so fair for private companies to compete against it.