Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Opinion Polls

Opinion Polls Political Opinion Polls - Polls created by the community


View Poll Results: Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?
Yes 8 53.33%
No 6 40.00%
Other 1 6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Thanks Tree71Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:38 AM   #11
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
So a person works hard, goes to college, saves his money and starts a business. He develops the business and works hard. He employs lots of people, then you come along and tell him it is the people he hired that deserve everything not him.

That is called a communist take over.
You didn't understand one word in the OP.
Thanks from imaginethat and xMathFanx
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:47 AM   #12
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,921
As to the OP. Basically, anything and everything is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. And currently, our society places a high value on unique talents.

Another factor is supply and demand. Logic says that garbage men are more important to society than doctors. The problem is I would have no fear of you picking up my garbage but I sure don't want you doing brain surgery on me. There are many who can pick up garbage, few who can do brain surgery so they can command a higher price.

And then we have the problem of bureaucracy being inefficient and so often stupid. Having some agency, governmental or otherwise deciding that a singer is worth $X while a football player is worth $Y and a physicist is worth $Z is a nightmare.

So let the free market reign, and use the tax system to socially engineer some nebulous, optimum overall situation.
Thanks from Sabcat
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:59 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
As to the OP. Basically, anything and everything is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. And currently, our society places a high value on unique talents.
This actually is not true (as, if it were the case, one would expect it to hold across the board--did you read my example on the path to becoming a Scientist in our current system?). Allow me to elaborate:

What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--which actually is why we are having this debate here and now. Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing.
xMathFanx is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:04 AM   #14
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
This actually is not true (as, if it were the case, one would expect it to hold across the board--did you read my example on the path to becoming a Scientist in our current system?). Allow me to elaborate:

What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--which actually is why we are having this debate here and now. Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing.
No, that in fact strengthens my point. Despite the rational realization that STEM people add so much to our society, they still can't find anyone willing to pay them superstar salaries. Thus their current salaries are their worth in our system. And I still fear any attempt to arbitrarily exert an external force to "fix" the situation.

You value science highly. What if I value art highly and feel that the presence of beauty is a greater good? Whose position will be applied and by who/on what basis will the decision be made?
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:24 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
No, that in fact strengthens my point. Despite the rational realization that STEM people add so much to our society, they still can't find anyone willing to pay them superstar salaries. Thus their current salaries are their worth in our system. And I still fear any attempt to arbitrarily exert an external force to "fix" the situation.

You value science highly. What if I value art highly and feel that the presence of beauty is a greater good? Whose position will be applied and by who/on what basis will the decision be made?
Although societies such as you mentioned are entirely concievable, you are failing to address the point (that I have discussed at some length now) that our society is based around Science & Tech. Currently, people are accepting all of the toys without any of the responsibility. In a society that held Beauty as the highest value (in the common sense of Beauty that is), although we may have more incredible works of art (e.g. sculptures, painting, ect.) we most certainly wouldn't have the overwhelming majority of our modern comforts (provided by Sci and Tech.)

That is, our society is functionally valuing Science & Tech. in the sense that they demand and take all of the practical products, however they simultaneously deny this is the case to the point of delusionary denialism. However, if the thought experiment I ever listed above were to come to fruition, this reality would quickly smack people in the face as they are swiftly sent back a few centuries or so in terms of technology and modern comforts. The system is essentially catering to the average persons ignorance, delusions, mammalian instincts/world view, ect. ect. (as they are in the overwhelming majority) and unless this is fundamentally challenged, then it will always inevitably produce a highly dysfunctional society (dangerously so--as is our current situation).

Last edited by xMathFanx; December 30th, 2017 at 11:26 AM.
xMathFanx is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:33 AM   #16
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
Although societies such as you mentioned are entirely concievable, you are failing to address the point (that I have discussed at some length now) that our society is based around Science & Tech. Currently, people are accepting all of the toys without any of the responsibility. In a society that held Beauty as the highest value (in the common sense of Beauty that is), although we may have more incredible works of art (e.g. sculptures, painting, ect.) we most certainly wouldn't have the overwhelming majority of our modern comforts (provided by Sci and Tech.)

That is, our society is functionally valuing Science & Tech. in the sense that they demand and take all of the practical products, however they simultaneously deny this is the case to the point of delusionary denialism. However, if the thought experiment I ever listed above were to come to fruition, this reality would quickly smack people in the face as they are swiftly sent back a few centuries or so in terms of technology and modern comforts. The system is essentially catering to the average persons ignorance, delusions, mammalian instincts/world view, ect. ect. (as they are in the overwhelming majority) and unless this is fundamentally challenged, then it will always inevitably produce a highly dysfunctional society (dangerously so--as is our current situation).
You still can't see that what you think is logical is not what is valued by people who are in the position to decide what someone is worth, ie the people who are paying them.

That is a hard fact. If it were not, George Clooney would not be making the money he is, nor would Tom Brady.

I'm not arguing against the logic of your position, I am arguing that getting there would be impossible because I think any attempt to externally enforce it would cause more grief than it would fix.
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:47 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.
Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries//page/1
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.c...ers/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

My basic argument is this:

The people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model). In order to ensure this, we would still operate under a "Market" system, but simply constrain the Market by switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure. Practically, this would be enforced by regulatory incentives.

The argument for a "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" is basically:

"If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this ("this" being the dynamic I described before), then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what is being promoted
Thought provoking question. I just answered a question on a physics forum wanting to know if entropy allows backwards time travel. I replied that would violate the Third Law of Thermodynamics and gave an explanation which readers on this forum would not understand. The Free Market System also violates entropy. Order always becomes disorder and never vice versa, and the free market system is order which also violates entropy. Be the first to prove that the Third Law of Thermodynamics is wrong and you win a Nobel Prize in Physics and worldwide acclaim.

edit: the recent cold snap in the Midwest is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat always moves to cold and never vice versa even though counterintutive

Last edited by Twisted Sister; December 30th, 2017 at 12:42 PM.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:51 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post

I'm not arguing against the logic of your position, I am arguing that getting there would be impossible because I think any attempt to externally enforce it would cause more grief than it would fix.
This is a very legitimate criticism as what I am proposing would necessitate large scale Government Constraints/Regulation on the Economy, and essentially telling people that they have fundamentally demonstrated (over an extended period of time) that they are too irresponsible to understand the dynamic that I have submitted and thus need to be coerced into fundamental reforms (through Gov. imposed Constraints and incentive programs).

Note, in a practical sense, this would not be any more difficult to implement than "standard" Social Democratic societies although importantly the Constraint/Regulation system would look very different indeed and would still allow for "Capitalists" as the term is typically used in the US (i.e. people can still become highly wealthy unlike is promoted in "standard" Social Democratic societies where they would be taxed at very high rates).

Note: I do not view this system as preferable to a "Free Market"/quasi-"Free Market" in principle, however the practical application has gotten highly out of control due to the choices of the majority of people in the system to such extent that we are in danger of self-destructing from a variety of potential causes (out of our own poor decisions collectively)
xMathFanx is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:55 AM   #19
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
This is a very legitimate criticism as what I am proposing would necessitate large scale Government Constraints/Regulation on the Economy, and essentially telling people that they have fundamentally demonstrated (over an extended period of time) that they are too irresponsible to understand the dynamic that I have submitted and thus need to be coerced into fundamental reforms (through Gov. imposed Constraints and incentive programs).

Note, in a practical sense, this would not be any more difficult to implement than "standard" Social Democratic societies although importantly the Constraint/Regulation system would look very different indeed and would still allow for "Capitalists" as the term is typically used in the US (i.e. people can still become highly wealthy unlike is promoted in "standard" Social Democratic societies where they would be taxed at very high rates).

Note: I do not view this system as preferable to a "Free Market"/quasi-"Free Market" in principle, however the practical application has gotten highly out of control due to the choices of the majority of people in the system to such extent that we are in danger of self-destructing from a variety of potential causes (out of our own poor decisions collectively)
Then we disagree. I would never want any government to have that much power.
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 12:07 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Then we disagree. I would never want any government to have that much power.
I addressed this in my OP, the "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" as well as the "standard" Social Democratic Market systems in other countries are demonstrably running the ecosystem and humanity off of a Cliff and those in favor of this path argue "so be it--if that is what the people decide".

I do not view this a viable position (Note: I do not view "standard" Social Democratic systems such as the Green Party's platform, various other countries, ect. ect. promote as a viable position either for the same reason--as it does not fundamentally address the problem but rather implements a "Robin Hood" scheme)

Also, I'm not at all suggesting that what I am submitting is the only possible solution, rather it is a potential solution to get out of our current rather dire predicament
xMathFanx is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Opinion Polls

Tags
free market, system



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Free speech" no longer free anymore? Or... Panther Education 125 November 26th, 2017 09:56 AM
German police in Cologne "protect" christmas market with mp5's without magazines Beasty Political Humor 2 December 23rd, 2016 05:22 AM
More Evidence Of Wage Theft In A "Free Market" (snick) Camelot Current Events 4 April 30th, 2014 10:34 AM
Did bill get "I have to do something big" out of Obama's system? leighredf Healthcare 56 March 23rd, 2010 08:51 PM
"I wouldn't call that a broken system." aMFliberal Crime and Punishment 24 February 12th, 2006 08:06 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.