From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13sef0ce4nkuo22@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Edgar"  wrote in   
   > news:47c6febf$0$25999$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:   
   >   
   >> "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   >> news:13se15j6slfm058@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>> "Don"  wrote in   
   >>> news:fq3rmg0168v@news3.newsguy.com:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:13s91ctdmcvbh17@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>> [snip]   
   >>>>> You know small business, but the corporate world is as altogether   
   >>>>> different animal.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What you described is a corporeaucracy, and abomination and should   
   >>>> be banned.   
   >>>> Its best to try to avoid such things entirely.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The free market works under a different premise based in value   
   >>>> judgements, demand and supply.   
   >>>   
   >>> I think, tho', that too many poeple do confuse "corporeaucracy"   
   >>> (a.k.a. capitalism) with "free market".  The thing si that, from what   
   >>> I can tell, "corporeaucracy" can't proliferate without gov.t   
   >>> assistance in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and the bending of   
   >>> certain laws.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's why I object to the term "capitalism" - capitalism is not the   
   >>> same thing as "free market".   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> It is correct I think, that the free market is not hindered in any way   
   >> by the government, if we are talking about pure "free market" but at   
   >> the same time, it is not controlled by anything except those things   
   >> Don mentioned. Thus human dignity, respect, and morality never come   
   >> into play at all. Neither does health and safety.  What value judgment   
   >> would discard a working yet unsafe factory that can easily replace   
   >> that cheap labor, for something that protects and values human lives,   
   >> at the expense of profit?  Again I think the answer is somewhere in   
   >> between.   
   >   
   > IMO, what you're describing is Capitalism, more than the concept of a   
   > free market. More to the point, tho', unless i'm reading you wrong (so   
   > please clarify), you imply that all ethics flow from government, however,   
   > ethics flow from the individual outwards to the population at alrge and,   
   > in a democratic sytem, from the people to the gov.t.  IN truth, the   
   > ethical practices you rightly advocate *can't* come from the governemntm,   
   > because, unless the individuals who hold governemntal positions already   
   > posess ethics, tehy will simply abuse their positions to do, and   
   > promulgate (for their frineds) the very things you descry.   
   >   
   > I do not propose that a "free market" should be anything other than   
   > ethical, and I think that it's absurd to insist profit and ethics are   
   > irreconcileable.  I think there *is* such a thing as "reasonable profit",   
   > and that it differs for the sort of obscene gouging that can be practiced   
   > by an oligarchy of capitalist/corporate megaliths.   
   >   
   > At the same time, I'm not sure whether "free market"is the same thing as   
   > "uncontrolled market".  If the US has a minimum wage and minimum   
   > pollution control standards and environemntal guidelines for teh use of   
   > raw materials, it it really a "free market" to permit the importation of   
   > cheap stuff made by heavily-polluting sweatshops in other nations which   
   > get their materials with no regard whatsoever as to environmental impact   
   > or sustainability, AND to allow that chap stuff to be priced so taht it   
   > undercuts the work of local manufacturers to the extent that they go out   
   > of business?  SOme poeple esay that a "free market" includes "zero   
   > tariffs", but it that *actually* a free market, since it's no secret that   
   > it's cheaper to make thigs when the quality is substandard/shoddy, and   
   > there is no sort of reinvestment of capital into theings like living   
   > wages, pollution control, or resource sutainability?  Is it "supporting a   
   > free market" for a nation to demand those things of its artisans and   
   > companies, and yet turn around and *encourage* those very things by   
   > creating import laws that end up putting more ethical companies out of   
   > business (and thereby alse destroying local conomies)?   
   >   
   > Now, if Architect A and Architect B both work in Anyville, and Client Z   
   > has to opportunity to look at their portfolios, get estimates, and   
   > comparison shop, that is a free market.  If I go to 5 furniture stores   
   > and 3 woodworking-artisan studios to find a side table I like, and all of   
   > th eproducts are produced in accordance with national laws concerning   
   > pollution, wages, and so on, that is a free market.  But if I go to the 5   
   > furniture stores, and *all* I *can* find is stuff made by hyperpolluting   
   > sweatshops, because gov.t policies have destroyed the US furniture-makers   
   > ((becasue, by obeying US laws re: polltion/wages/etc., they are more   
   > expensive than the cheapshit imports)), sorry but that is *not* a free   
   > market, is it a gov.t subsidy of companies which do not have to abide by   
   > US laws.   
   >   
   > IOW, "free market" is IMO not a simplistic term -   
      
   At its base, it IS that simple.   
   Free: without coercion   
   Market: exchange   
      
   I don't think that it   
   > by definition means "everyone does whatever the hell they want" because,   
   > if that were so, then a company could redeuce the amount of ASA in it's   
   > headache pills by adding drywall compound.  And really, people are *not*   
   > all inherently ethical, so something like that *would* happen.  THat's   
   > not a free market.   
      
   Everybody *geting to do what they want* is far better than *some* getting to   
   do what they want.   
   If you hear that a very nice restaurant had 100 incidents of food poison in   
   the past year will you patronize them?   
   If you hear 100 people got sick in your city last year from drywall dust in   
   ASA will you purchase it?   
      
   The very premise of the *free* market is what makes it so successful.   
   That ALL people, merchants and patrons, are *free* to make choices in the   
   things they purchase and sell and the services they hire and provide.   
   No one is *forced* to deal with any of it.   
   Faulty services and products will be rooted out and abolished by the very   
   people that purchase them.   
   Shoddy service and product cannot be prevented, no more so than any other   
   human ethic-moral infraction, like crime for example, but you can eliminate   
   them and enact restitution to the harmed as they occur.   
   The placing of tariffs skews the market and in many case harms the very   
   people they are meant to help.   
   Same with taxes, especially sales tax, that is a flat fee across the board   
   which is a higher ratio for the people with less income.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)