Would it not be more beneficial for me to help you to develop so that we can do business? Profit is a good thing. If you don't have the goods I want, perhaps you can perform services in exchange for my goods. You need eggs? Feed my chickens. We both win.

Without limited liability laws the economy would not have access to the capital It needs, to grow and prosper. .

that's the point...you would have to be the one to self regulate that matter if there is no third party to determine guidelines for the best possible outcome... what if, unscrupulously, what you need is my population, because it is in high demand in your area? which i am willing to sacrifice because i do not have the resources to sustain them anyway?

haha! oh the irony..

This conversation is actually a great example of a free market at work. You obviously want to understand why I believe what I do. You are purchasing my thoughts. The price is your questions. The more you ask, the more I answer, much like at a store the more money you spend, the more you leave with. An economy really can be that simple. And the American economy once was. Or at least very close.

that's because i am buying the idea of what you are saying, because i do not have much resources of knowing about the matter in the first place... but the matter of fact is, if there were no pre-defined meanings of capitalism and free market and such and such to regulate the conversation, all hell could break loose...

if you were really only referring to the American economy, then that would support my previous opinion that an extensively unregulated free market cannot consistently be beneficial to all populations...

oh, and i wanted to know your answer to the question about what to do with the population you and i were unscrupulously willing to barter in exchange for commodities...

Government has always been about force, control of the masses, even in the US. Religion too, is simply another form of governance. Tithes instead of taxes, deacons instead of governors, priests/preachers instead of senators, popes instead of presidents.

Reality is in fact myth, creation thru manipulation, not a natural succession of progress, faith, or human understanding.

Money has always created influence and power, greed has created the death of individualism, freedoms, and the potential of success for the common man/woman. Today we are "rewarded", nothing is earned (just ask our current president). If we play the game we might be "allowed" to succeed by the grace of governments or those who rule with power over us.

As media/propaganda grows to a global scale, controlled by money and influence, the basic reality is altered to fit the scenario of the ruling class or classes controlling the governance of man.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

There are many famous quotes and warnings issued thru the ages in this regard...

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

Free markets are a fairy tale since the Industrial Revolution, the creation of banks and their debt system. Money is a tool, and bankers control that tool and turned it into a weapon for slavery and control.

Capitalism is fascism under the guidelines of governments. Governments are created by man. There is always another man or group of men with more power and money to manipulate the system they feel exists below them, and the ever present desire/need to advance their control even further..... by whatever means..... usually through corruption, and manipulation of the greed of others, using the tool of choice.....MONEY/WEALTH, or the illusion of it.....called debt!

Actually, that's not true, and history bares out its fallacy. There was a reason the Sherman Anti-trust Acts were passed at the beginning of the 20th Century. Large corporations (i.e. Standard Oil of Ohio, Carnegie Steel, JP Morgan Banking) had gotten so large that they were able to actually stop the creation of new business - and their competition in this so called free market - from even opening their doors.

They did this much in the same way the Saudis are currently trying to put "frackers" out of business. You cut the price and even take a short term loss if necessary, in order to put start up companies with smaller margins out of business. Morgan did it with the banks (still are if you ask me), and Rockefeller did it with petroleum just to give examples.

If not for government intervention, these giants would have owned the entire marketplace and we'd of all been working for the "company store." Remember those, especially in the coal industry? Tell me how that is free market, to be so large that you can force your employees into your debt?

Deregulation has caused three recessions and two major depressions. The entire concept of "too big to fail" is counter-productive of the free market system and, in my opinion, the Sherman Trust laws should be used again.

The truth is America hasn't been a capitalist system since the 1890's. Our best growth and prosperity - the 1950's - actually occurred under a system that was more socialism that capitalism. Tax rates for the wealthy were as high as 91%, and the money was used to give housing and education to veterans, and build the infrastructure upon which our country moved its goods. Wages were considered reasonable, as the average blue collar job paid a modern equivalent of $35-40 an hour. Unions were strong then (more socialism) and the concept of a "reasonable profit" pervaded. CEOs only made 20 times what there employees did (as opposed to the 3800 times they average today) so we had a stronger buying class.

The thing about capitalism that is forgotten is that it is not the corporations or the wealthy that create jobs. Neither one of these has ever created a job that wasn't absolutely essential to the profit model. What actually creates jobs is a strong buying class. When employees make a decent wage, they buy things - houses, cars, tvs, clothes, trinkets. It is the ability to make purchases that causes an economy to grow, and if left to its own devices, capitalism will not stay on that course, because it has basic greed at its core.

yes... liability... very important word in politics and other applied social sciences... where many want to escape from such ... to have their cake and eat it too...

like that "bubble" in investment schemes... reminds me of tulip bulbs...

In a free market money is God. You can sell anything in a free market, other people, children, women, whatever ...and you would give your life for this God with no limits. You love money way too much. No thanks we don't want your free market god.

It doesn't have to be a free market to have everything for sale. There's an old adage: Everything and everyone has a price, and you'd be surprised how cheap you'd go. That's why greed is considered a "deadly sin," we all have it.

The big monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were able to shut down competition not because of free market capitalism, but because politicians can be bought. Is there ever a guarantee against corruption? No. But government intervention guarantees there will be corruption. With free markets, however, the choice to conduct business is there. If you have something I want, do you just give without receiving anything in return? Probably not. You will name a price. If I believe the price is too high, I won't make the deal. For example, I was at an event some time ago where there were beer vendors. The price of the beer was $13 per can. I like beer, but I'm certainly not going to pay that price for it. I chose not to drink beer that night because the vendor would not negotiate the price. Going back to the example of feeding my chickens in exchange for eggs, my incentive to be fair is that my chickens are taken care of. Whoever is feeding them has the incentive of receiving the eggs. Is it possible that someone would steal more eggs than the agreed upon number for the work? Yes, that could happen. But if I find out, that person will be fired and not receive any. If I don't hold up my end of the deal, I now have to feed my own chickens, which means I have less time for whatever else I may have been doing.

Thank goodness most of us would like a system that upholds fair Capitalism and can see the pitfalls of free market Capitalism. When your freedom comes at the expense of other people's freedom that's where I draw the line.

but these are optional commodities... free market may work on a small scale basis, which is why it was the ideal form of barter system in the earlier times when each population was self-sustaining and free market economics happened on more novel items exchanged...bigger and more extensive economies however, need regulation...

if you were really thirsty, you'd buy that beer even for more than it's worth... but since it's regulated not to go above $13 (for example), you can have some left over to buy more than just one...

and if you didn't have more than $13, you might end up having to exchange something far more precious to you, just out of desperation to quench your thirst...

too many factors will make free market fail... kinda like utopia... dog eat dog world... never gonna be properly regulated by either party unless there is a set limit for which to set standards against and abide by...

One person's freedom need not come at the expense of another's, and the apparent assumption that that's what I'm advocating is missing the point. Why supposedly freedom loving people oppose certain freedoms, or freedoms for certain people, is beyond me. Your assumption is that because I support free markets, which worked fine in the United States for its first century of existence, that means I support the buying and selling of people, as suggested in your precious comments, is a fallacy. You assume, obfuscate, and throw everything against the wall hoping something will stick, but nothing does. You imply that capitalism only works without economic freedom. Quite the opposite is the truth. Capitalism cannot work without economic freedom. What you are advocating is a form of fascism, which is a proven failure, as is communism, socialism, and any other economic system.

Capitalism has proven itself to be an extremely efficient economic model...Supply and demand works!...The problem is not in the construct, the problem is GREED!...When you have an economic model that gives control to the "owners" of capital, democracy will always suffer because political and economic systems are INTERDEPENDENT...Participants in BOTH systems can use their positions to compete for POWER and that is where ALL the problems begin and end...Dump the idea that a free market is good and government is bad (or vice versa) because both serve a "necessary" purpose...What's needed is an objective set of rules that specifically dictate governments role because, like it or not, capitalism today requires structure, security and ADAPTABILITY...It's governments role to frame these REQUIREMENTS in a way that is designed "for" the people because government "by" the people does not, and never will, guarantee assurance that it is indeed operating "for" the people....

I mostly agree with this. My support for free market capitalism should not be confused with a from of anarchy, which, in theory, would be ideal, but in practice only results in chaos. The problem with government setting the rules for any economic system is that said government will continually adjust those rules, not to advance economic liberty, but to advance the role of government.

I hear you loud and clear and have since the beginning of this thread ...I am NOT anti government, I am anti BIG government...But when it comes to capitalism, one can (AND SHOULD) embrace the concept and still be willing to admit that it is (has become?) as corrupt as politics....You cannot point the finger at one without pointing the finger at both because they are interdependent and you cannot solve a problem until you understand the cause...

Ok, so we were on the same page, just reading different paragraphs. If I implied that you thought I was pro anarchy, that was not my intent. I was merely saying that government intervention in a capitalist system eventually results in it becoming no longer a capitalist system.