S
Sochi
Guest
Perhaps you would then enjoy Somalia, the logical end of free market?
- Status
S
sallybutler
Guest
I’ve come to the conclusion that what most people mean when they say ‘free market’ is you have to follow rules that benefit me and not you.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Wrong conclusion…
In a Free Market we trade our goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to our own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.
In a Free Market no one or group can use physical coercion against anyone. Economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a Free Market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the force of government, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand.
S
sallybutler
Guest
So where does this free market utopia you describe exist? When, if ever, did it exist?
A
adawgj
Guest
You mean the extreme end. Laissez Faire is really the only way to keep an economy going.
Keyne economics works for a short while. Trickle down never works because it’s putting faith on whether the rich spring a leak in their money bags. However regardless of what economic theory works, the rich will be rich and the poor, will be poor. I say we put our mind on the poor first. A good way of helping people not be poor is opportunity. A free market provides opportunity. (Ok yeah some common sense regulations are necessary, I never disagreed with that) however, too much regulation will bring no opportunity to the poor. Compassionate capitalism is the way to go.
I
ishii
Guest
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=19863&stc=1&d=1398604051
Pope Francis has his doubts.
LOVE!
Expanding economy, low taxes and regulations help increase employment.
But its the wrong question entirely. The question is, does trickle down charity work. (trickle down charity = govt. entitlements). And the answer is no.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I think the US has had a free market much longer than Somalia but we have the rule of law, Somalia doesn’t. The free market works best when there is the rule of law. I don’t see the conditions in Somalia here in the US. I suppose perhaps inner cities like Detroit might come the closest but they have been run by the left for decades.
Ishii
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear cargau,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.
Many of my fellow citizens here in Britain are more than willing to work but find that many jobs are so poorly paid that they could not meet all their outgoings. Expensive private sector rents have to be paid (vast amounts of social housing stock have been sold off), children have to be clothed and utility bills have soared through the roof lately, making it increasingly difficult for the working poor to keep their heads above water. Indeed, the working poor must have ‘top ups’ from the Welfare State to augment their impoverished wages, otherwise it would be impossible for them to survive in today’s modern Britain where unbridled Capitalism and greed prevails. It is all very well telling a man that he must be content with his wages, but what if he is facing eviction this week because he has been unable to pay his ridiculously high rent to his affluent private landlord? What if he has been unable to put nutritional food on the table and has consequently become unwell, so much so that he can no longer hold down his job? What if his children feel socially excluded because they are suffering such a degree of want in today’s prosperous Western society - children, especially those from Capitalists families, can be jolly unkind to their peers who come from ‘have not’ families. This can be the occasion of much emotional damage in the young and they can grow up feeling different and somehow inferior. These issues cannot be left entirely to the charities to resolve, although I would freely accept that they have a role to play to some extent, as do our local Catholic churches. However, the charities just do not have the financial wherewithal to meet all of the many needs of the nation’s poor and vulnerable citizens. Indeed, they themselves are starved of cash and our desperately struggling to keep afloat.
This is why, dear friend, that Capitalist greed and self-interest has failed the poor so miserably and why ‘market forces’ has left them undernourished and in abject poverty by Western standards. No, all cannot be left to charitable giving as this does not take into account man’s fallen estate and his consequent ‘I’m alright Jack’ mindset. In a civilised progressive country the government must take responsibility for the delivery of social services, such as Social Security, medicine, education and retirement benefits, otherwise the poor and weak will suffer untold misery, both mentally as well as physically.
Work is certainly a positive reinforcement in giving a man a sense of self-worth and purpose, provided that he is, of course, able and capable of holding down a job. If he is afflicted, for example, with say acute Social Phobia then he will not last very long in today’s ruthlessly competitive world of work. However, I am glad that you accept this and grant that such poor souls require government relief if they are to survive. Here in Britain this is still at happening at the moment, though my countries harsh and punitive welfare ‘reforms’ mean that many mentally sick people are being declared fit for work or a ‘work programme’ when clearly they are not - have spoken regarding this at great length in other threads on these boards. Some ultra right-wingers would, I believe, like to see the end of the Welfare State because they begrudge their taxes being directed to support the work shy - which to their mind is virtually anyone claiming Social Security benefits for more than six months. They would even accuse the mentally ill of overstating the gravity of their affliction, just to stay on sickness benefit entitlements!
Look, dear friend, I am all for a chap striving to reach his highest level of potential and I do not believe that the existence of the Welfare State acts as some disincentive. If that were the case then surely multitudes of the working class would simply never work at all and draw Social Security. Most decent people diligently seek employment and want to do so as a matter of self-respect. You will always have your feckless freeloaders because man is a fallen creature disposed to sin, including sloth and irresponsibility. Having said that your worker is entitled to a decent living wage - “the labourer is worthy of his hire”, to quote St. Paul.
God bless and goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Zoltan Cobalt,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.
Unfortunately, unbridled Capitalism here in Britain is woefully failing to lift the poor out of poverty, which is one of the reasons for the ubiquitous so called ‘Food Banks’, are now such a common feature of ‘prosperous Britain’. Even the working poor are unable to meet all their essential bills and are having to choose whether to eat or heat during the cold Winter season. Multitudes of people would find it risible that Capitalism has raised their standard of living. On the contrary, they would say that it has contributed to their poverty by encouraging employers to think only of their own prosperity and well-being.
More families here, dear friend, have seen their incomes drop below the basic standard of living. More than ten million of my fellow-citizens do not enjoy an acceptable standard of living and that is disgraceful in a country that boasts of the seventh richest world economy. Whilst our Chancellor, Mr. Osbourne, may speak of an economic recovery, that only affects the very wealthy in real terms, the poor are just geeting poorer and their wages are failing to keep up with essential bills. According to a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the number of households with between one and four children scraping by on less than the minimum income needed has soared from 3.8 million to 4.7 million in just three years. The grim truth is that low income families and those in receipt of Social Security have insufficient funds to make end meet. Moreover, given the iniquitous and inequitable cuts to State support, this grinding poverty is bound to increase and with it much social unrest and anger. The hardest hit have been working age people without children, especially the under 35 age group. All they have faced is growing unemployment, Social Security cuts and soaring private sector rents from greedy landlords. So much for unbridled Capitalism. Alas, those at the bottom will not benefit from this ‘economic recovery’ in the foreseeable future, indeed I venture to say that their plight will only get worse.
Moreover, dear friend, so called ‘zero-hours contracts’, agency work and short-term contracts mean that millions here do not know from one week to the next how much they will earn or even if they will have any job at all. Notwithstanding, those at the top have had their income tax cut and huge bonuses have returned to the City long ago. Yes, at long last the economy in Britain is beginning to grow, but just as we did not fairly share the pain, any gain looks like it will be just as unfairly shared out - and so must it ever be in a Capitalist society that favours the rich and powerful. There is one clear policy which can help deepen recovery and share out its proceeds and that is higher wages. We must pay the living wage in sectors that can afford it, plan for better-paid and higher skilled jobs and spread the collective bargaining that give the workers a real voice. In short Britain urgently needs a pay rise, but as long as unbridled Capitalism prevails I am not holding my breath.
On the whole, dear friend, the sympathy of Holy Mother Church is with the workers, who have less means of defence. The Capitalist has a moral obligation to voluntarily begin to rectify the many abuses which undoubtedly exist with his economic system. Certainly, social inequalities will always, like the poor themselves, be with us and the various grades of ability and genius necessarily demand various grades of remuneration. However, there must always be a fair days pay for a fair days work - ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’ - and employer greed can never be an excuse for slave wages, especially in a civilised Western country.
As a Catholic, dear friend, I fail to see how any of the faithful could be vehemently opposed to the more equal distribution of wealth by the state to ensure that the burden of the poor is greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated.
God bless and goodbye. May I wish you and other contributors/viewers of this thread a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
O
oldcelt
Guest
Trickle-down economics was, in my opinion, best described by then candidate George H. W. Bush, when he called it "Voodoo-Economics. One need only look at the income disparities in say 1981, and compare them to now. It is a system built on mountains of debt that benefits only one economic class.
I think we all know which class that is, but just for a hint, it is not the middle or the working poor. That the biggest promoter of the system is so highly regarded remains a mystery to me.
John
I think we all know which class that is, but just for a hint, it is not the middle or the working poor. That the biggest promoter of the system is so highly regarded remains a mystery to me.
John
F
freeRadical
Guest
What’s trickle down economics?
O
oldcelt
Guest
Well and thoroughly stated. No unbridled system that I am aware of has ever failed to be exploited by those with the means. Regulation is an absolute necessity if we are to have even a slight degree of economic fairness.
It has always surprised me the number of professing Catholics here who argue for a Laissez Faire system of economics.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Why is it a surprise? The Church has long supported free markets and free enterprise.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, but only in the context of proper regulation. The Church has never supported the abolision of all regulation.
F
freeRadical
Guest
People differ on what comprises proper regulation.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as proper regulation.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Never said there wasn’t. Why do you assume that people who are for free markets and free enterprise are against all regulation? What makes you assume that the government is capable of proper regulation?
S
sallybutler
Guest
Who is capable of proper regulation?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The context in which I first answered you was your response to oldcelt, who posted:
to which you responded:
Since you were using this to refute oldcelt’s criticism of Laissez Faire capitalism, it is natural to assume that you are justifying Laissez Faire capitalism, which is:
This clearly does not include regulation to limit air pollution, for example, since that is not strictly a violation of property rights, but is a violation of everyone’s right to breath clean air.
So I think I was quite justified in assuming that you were against regulation other than what is necessary to protect property rights. If that is not what you are saying about regulation, then please clarify.
As for your second question, who is in a better position than a legitimate government to determine regulations for the common good? Of course one may disagree with specific regulations and argue that they are ill-advised. But he would have to do that on the merits of the particular case, and not on some general principle that government cannot ever institute proper regulation. There are clearly some cases in which it has.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Dear Portrait:
Happy days to you also.
I am not much of a student of the current British economic condition so I rely on your posted views.
However, I believe I can state truthfully that unbridled Capitalism DOES NOT exist in the United Kingdom. It did during the “Pax Britannica” and the standards of living were at their highest. I think it was WWI and the increase of socialist statism that began your economic slide.
Capitalism is not designed to “lift the poor out of poverty”— it PREVENTS poverty.
Your pal
Zoltan
- Status