5 ms·

> Yes, there are still rules and regulations they operate under, but this does not mean that they are not free. Under rules and regulations, an enterprise is n

by javert 13y ago

> Yes, there are still rules and regulations they operate under, but this does not mean that they are not free. Under rules and regulations, an enterprise is not free to allocate its capital at it desires, produce the products it desires, market them in the way it desires, and sell them to who it desires. The degree to which that is true depends on the scope of the rules and regulations. If the only one is that there is a 5% income tax, the enterprise loses 5% of its freedom to allocate its capital. In reality, in our mixed economy, companies operate under many, many restrictions. In areas like finance and telecom, we have full-on regulatory monopolies: an enterprise has no freedom without permission, and new permissions are not being granted. I am fully aware that academic economists consistently define things according to non-essentials, and the only thing I can do is reject that. A "free enterprise" must mean what the words "free" and "enterprise" mean in the English language. Anything else is a barrier to rational thinking. If economists want a word for an enterprise that can "do whatever it wants, but still operates under rules and regulations," they (properly) have to make a new word for it, not re-use existing words that mean something different. Actually, though, there already is a word for that: a "contradiction." An enterprise cannot be free and not-free. Unfortunately, many academic economists want to "earn" their bread and butter by peddling contradictions to students and the public, and they deserve the very highest moral condemnation for it. Why? Because that kind of behavior leads to recessions (such as the perma-recession we are currently in), depressions, and the rise of authoritarianism (fascism being one example from recent history). It leads to suffering and mass-killing. Source: Reality. To the degree that you are a victim of this, you should rethink your views. To the degree that you are a perpetrator (if at all), you should be ashamed of yourself.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>If the only one is that there is a 5% income tax, the enterprise loses 5% of its freedom to allocate its capital. Sorry, this is an extremely naive point of view. I'd even call it juvenile. The mature way to look at it is this: the enterprise is paying 5% of its income as tax in order to have the freedom of using roads, having access to security (police, firefighters, etc.) and use all the infrastructure established by government. >>A "free enterprise" must mean what the words "free" and "enterprise" mean in the English language. Anything else is a barrier to rational thinking. In the very English language you speak of, context defines a lot of the meaning. And the context here is a discussion of economic terms. You can reject that all you want. The fact remains that "free enterprise" means what it means, not what you want it to mean. I'm going to have to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, as it simply reads like a bunch of anti-intellectual nonsense.
- javert 13y ago
  So in a reality where 99% of government spending is not spent on infrastructure, you use the infrastructure argument to waive me off as juvenile? This is an ad hominem cop-out. > The fact remains that "free enterprise" means what it means, not what you want it to mean. You have ignored my point that your definition is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, our discussion is a discussion about politics and the economy, not an economics textbook or paper. So why don't you just make your argument in plain English? Because it relies on invalid definitions to get it to appear to make sense. That would be an unsubstantiated allgeation if I had not shown that your term is contradictory. I did. > I'm going to have to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, as it simply reads like a bunch of anti-intellectual nonsense. I don't think people who peddle contradictory terms deserve the title "intellectual," so I don't think my comments were anti-intellectual. If you actually see a contradiction between my analysis and reality, you should be able to state it simply. That you didn't point out such a contradiction, suggests to me that you don't actually see one. As a sidenote, I have enough respect for some economists to find it hard to believe that they are all using the term in the way you say. Of course, many economists simply (and reasonably) stay away from any political topic.

by javert 13y ago

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>If the only one is that there is a 5% income tax, the enterprise loses 5% of its freedom to allocate its capital. Sorry, this is an extremely naive point of view. I'd even call it juvenile. The mature way to look at it is this: the enterprise is paying 5% of its income as tax in order to have the freedom of using roads, having access to security (police, firefighters, etc.) and use all the infrastructure established by government. >>A "free enterprise" must mean what the words "free" and "enterprise" mean in the English language. Anything else is a barrier to rational thinking. In the very English language you speak of, context defines a lot of the meaning. And the context here is a discussion of economic terms. You can reject that all you want. The fact remains that "free enterprise" means what it means, not what you want it to mean. I'm going to have to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, as it simply reads like a bunch of anti-intellectual nonsense.

javert 13y ago
So in a reality where 99% of government spending is not spent on infrastructure, you use the infrastructure argument to waive me off as juvenile? This is an ad hominem cop-out. > The fact remains that "free enterprise" means what it means, not what you want it to mean. You have ignored my point that your definition is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, our discussion is a discussion about politics and the economy, not an economics textbook or paper. So why don't you just make your argument in plain English? Because it relies on invalid definitions to get it to appear to make sense. That would be an unsubstantiated allgeation if I had not shown that your term is contradictory. I did. > I'm going to have to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, as it simply reads like a bunch of anti-intellectual nonsense. I don't think people who peddle contradictory terms deserve the title "intellectual," so I don't think my comments were anti-intellectual. If you actually see a contradiction between my analysis and reality, you should be able to state it simply. That you didn't point out such a contradiction, suggests to me that you don't actually see one. As a sidenote, I have enough respect for some economists to find it hard to believe that they are all using the term in the way you say. Of course, many economists simply (and reasonably) stay away from any political topic.