Riddle me this, Batman. How can someone support capitalism, but not support truly free markets? When you go to the store and make a purchase, who is exploited? Probably not the one who says, "thank you," right? But who says it? Both? Why? Because mutually beneficial transactions are not only possible, but they take place every minute of every day. You want that product more than you want the money. They want the money more than the product. You both get what you want. What's the problem? The fact that the store owner is making a profit? Why is that bad? He uses that money to pay his employees and continue to provide the community with products they want. Truly free markets do work. Excessive regulations, not profit, is the problem. And for those who say money can't buy happiness, you're usually the first ones who need to try to find out for yourselves. If capitalism is so bad, explain the fall of fascism and communism.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal





When I say capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church............

Once upon a time, the United States of America had that. Or something close. And it worked well.

How can someone support Capitalism and not support truly free markets? The answer is simple, they don't want free markets if it means they won't get fair markets. How can the players play the game when it has no rules or the rules are unfair? This is not a free market but gambling and the odds are against you and for the big corporations.

A free market is naturally a fair market. Joe has a horse. I have a cow. I need to plow my field, he needs milk. I give my him my cow in exchange for his horse. Mutually beneficial transaction.

it won't work across the board without certain provisions for its regulation... at least not for basic commodities... well, most especially not for basic commodities...

what about monopoly? it would be very hard to self impose a fair price/exchange in an unregulated free market...

Actually, it will and it has. The cow and horse analogy again. If I'm not willing to part with my cow, we can agree that I can use his horse to plow my field in exchange for an agreed upon amount of milk. That's still mutually beneficial.

What if Joe kills you for your cow? In a truly free market nothing is preventing this from happening.

but your analogy is assuming that the supply and demand of each commodity are static entities...

Estelle, it is now his cow.

Pansy, that's not really the case. Supply and demand. If horses are in short supply and high demand, and cows are in high supply and short demand, I'll offer Joe more than just my cow in exchange for his horse.

How will you establish a Monopoly without Politicians make you Favorite Citizen!
You are thinking Cronyism!

A coercive monopoly is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant.

The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry,the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/monopoly.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

but other suppliers may offer him a better deal... that may put you out of business...

i dunno... an extensively free market seems like a bad idea especially in sudden changes that can affect the economic climate...

your analogy seems too simple to apply globally...

not that i disagree with capitalism, it can work... but there is always that matter of self-preservation, and self-interest... i just think that there needs to be some provisions that will ultimately prevent or minimize abuse...



i see your point about monopoly... but not all not all countries have the same amount of resources, nor availability of each resource...

Too well for the "Progressives" and Second-Handers!

so,you think Slavery by Government is the answer?
That a Central Government is more efficient than Free-Market Forces?
USSR was a great example of it,Centrally organized Economy,and Static!

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ <----Most of the answers to the questions you're asking are right in there!

Government intervention does not keep economies going. It kills economies. Conrad, rightly, cited the Soviet Union as such an example. If I make poor business decisions, I should go out of business.

sorry if that's what you think i was trying to say... not at all...im not being absolutist here...and im not an economist, nor do i have much background on business and political theory...

i'm just saying that i think it's important to have some form of provision to regulate commodities, services and the like (not exclusively government, independent bodies as well)... not just the exchange of, but also the quality and quantity of such...i just don't think that an extensively unregulated free market can be consistently beneficial and applicable to all populations...

The dirty little secret of a free market system is that it simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates amd mentains the rules and regulations that allow it to operate efficiently. .

We have been conditioned to believe what you believe. We need government regulation so I don't screw you over. Free markets are inherently fair markets because you can choose if to do business with me or not. When government regulations kick in, the established entities are the ones who make the regulations to limit competition. Is that either free or fair?

so... it's kinda like why Tesla's free electricity machine wasn't "allowed" to materialize....

so, if i have less resources and abilities than you, you can come into my territory and offer your "better" commodities and services to the population...there really wouldn't be much to stop you from eventually putting me out of business and make my economy's demands more or less dependent on your supply...