3 ms·

1. The argument for constant overproduction, and non-availability of a real free market is called: starvation. If to many farmers give up, and speculants on fut

1. The argument for constant overproduction, and non-availability of a real free market is called: starvation. If to many farmers give up, and speculants on futures can hold grain back, people starve. Has happened several times. One could argue, that this has positive outcomes as well- ideologues are less energetic on a purely capitalistic diet. PS: Because there is always a counter example that markets could work- here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton 2. That example is one of a working market yes. But as you can see in medicine for rare diseases, no, not everybody gets a chance to buy what they need. In a pure free market, you have to pray for a rich person to get the same exotic sickness as you, to get help. 3. Yes, but the result of those wrong micro-judgments, piles via insurance upon society. Or its getting paid by having horrendous security payments, to keep those struck with the avalanche of their bad decisions, becoming poor from taking whats yours (The US approach). 4. Invisible effects, which i stated a nice example and you in intellectual dishonesty submitted, include very small accumulating negative effects or negative effects on the allmende, which come back later. 5. No, the food czar can be gambled too. I heard from some colleagues how in factory bakery's, when the health inspector arrives, clothing is adjusted and other violating points are "fixed" for the time of the inspection. But there is room for improvement there. In a free market, if all bakers just agree on the lowest common level of product, they churn out health bomb after health bomb and nothing happens to them. At which point i presume you would point to the jurisdiction of the nightwatch state- which by virtue of the free market could be bribed out of existence. My perfect ideal is not very perfect, its just a acknowledge that there must be machinery that reigns in corroding elements, while leaving the positive aspects of the market largely intact. I will leave you with the nice results a free market has created, and which you will hail as a great opportunity to sell health apps and bypass surgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States I may take the right with others so inclined to opt-out this ideology.

woah 9y ago
You make a good point. Communist countries tend not to have a lot of obesity.
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  Eh, i m not arguing pro communism, im arguing for some bureaucratic oversight as it happens in the EU and Germany. Its fascinating that fanatics always see just the other extreme. There are shades of grey, and i m arguing for a quite sophisticated machinery printed in black and white - in such a fashion that it looks grey if zoomed out enough.
nickik 9y ago
1. Over-production happens because farmer in modern politics are efficent at lobbying politicans. In actualy market economies we basically don't have starvation. Speculation might cause starvation in countries that are not well integrated into the market, but then again without a world wide market for grain (that enables speculators to exist in the first place) many of those countries would just not have access to that supply in the first place. 2. Almost all technology is first limited and expensive and the gets cheap and mass produced. There is no magic way around this problem, its simply impossible. Medicine is a difficule topic and economically very different because of intellectual property being such a complicated subject. That said, if you look at the long term, the massiv expantion of live in countries is defently connected to the efficent distribution of lots of medicine to all levels of the population. You seem to focus on the problem we have now but ignore the trend. Even a bad and cheap AIDS treatment now is better then almost anything available not that long ago. 3. It's hard to determain what the best solution here is. The problem is just to complicated. Their is some level of balance that society needs to find. Whatever process of law generation your society have needs to come up with this balance. I want argue that the one the US or anybody else has is perfect, but they seem pretty functional overall. More so then alternatives. 4. "if all bakers just agree". Your argument totally fails into the water if you say 'if all just agree', the hole point is that they can easly just all agree. The larger the market, the harder it is to agree. Even if they agree, every single one of them has a insentive to break the agreement. If you actually study the history of this sort of agreements you will see that they almost always break down even if the emerge (witch they almost never do).

woah 9y ago

You make a good point. Communist countries tend not to have a lot of obesity.

Pica_soO 9y ago
Eh, i m not arguing pro communism, im arguing for some bureaucratic oversight as it happens in the EU and Germany. Its fascinating that fanatics always see just the other extreme. There are shades of grey, and i m arguing for a quite sophisticated machinery printed in black and white - in such a fashion that it looks grey if zoomed out enough.

nickik 9y ago

1. Over-production happens because farmer in modern politics are efficent at lobbying politicans. In actualy market economies we basically don't have starvation. Speculation might cause starvation in countries that are not well integrated into the market, but then again without a world wide market for grain (that enables speculators to exist in the first place) many of those countries would just not have access to that supply in the first place. 2. Almost all technology is first limited and expensive and the gets cheap and mass produced. There is no magic way around this problem, its simply impossible. Medicine is a difficule topic and economically very different because of intellectual property being such a complicated subject. That said, if you look at the long term, the massiv expantion of live in countries is defently connected to the efficent distribution of lots of medicine to all levels of the population. You seem to focus on the problem we have now but ignore the trend. Even a bad and cheap AIDS treatment now is better then almost anything available not that long ago. 3. It's hard to determain what the best solution here is. The problem is just to complicated. Their is some level of balance that society needs to find. Whatever process of law generation your society have needs to come up with this balance. I want argue that the one the US or anybody else has is perfect, but they seem pretty functional overall. More so then alternatives. 4. "if all bakers just agree". Your argument totally fails into the water if you say 'if all just agree', the hole point is that they can easly just all agree. The larger the market, the harder it is to agree. Even if they agree, every single one of them has a insentive to break the agreement. If you actually study the history of this sort of agreements you will see that they almost always break down even if the emerge (witch they almost never do).