From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13sp4m2h137oo9b@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Don"  wrote in   
   > news:fqbq7801cdt@news4.newsguy.com:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   >> news:13sef0ce4nkuo22@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>> [snip ] .... 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   
   >   
   > In theory, yes, but in practice, ther eare complications.  Not that there   
   > "should" be, just that there are.   
   >   
   > THe market is not "free" if, in the above example, the local producers   
   > are forced by law to follow certain standards, but then an import is   
   > allowed in that is *only* less expensive because it's manufactured in a   
   > place which has no such laws.  In practice, the local manufacturers are   
   > placed at a disadvantage in terms of pricing.  So, that market is not   
   > free, but rather, stacked in favor of the mfgr who does not follow the   
   > same laws.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Except where the gov.t has stacked the odds.  For example, I prefer to   
   > buy US-made goods, but over recent years, it's gotten to the poin twhere   
   > it's almost impossible to find goods that are *not* made in China (and   
   > more cheaply/shoddily), never mind made in the US.  It has nothing to do   
   > with where I spend my money or even *want* to spend my money - it has to   
   > do with politics and pork and pocket-lining and the politics of egotism   
   > that go on in Washington.   
   >   
   > Not a "free" market at all.  The practice simply does not reflect the   
   > theory.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And it doesn't skew the market to make (for good reasons)domestic   
   > manufacturers follow various laws, but then indiscriminately allow in   
   > goods produced by mega-polluters using nearly-slave labor in nations that   
   > have no such laws?  What's free about that...?  THat's the part I don't   
   > understand.  People talk about this "free market" but, by and large, it   
   > doesn't really exist.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Er, a $12K car incurs less tax than does a $45K car.  A home costing   
   > $124K incurs less tax than does a house coting $265K.  Food isn't (and   
   > should not be!) taxed.  So I'm confused as to how sales tax is a higher   
   > ratio for the poor...?   
      
   If a person earning say $25k a year purchases a $12k car the sales tax on   
   that car is a larger proportion of his income than a person that earns $100k   
   per year buying the same car.   
   I'm against sales taxes.   
   I'm for User fees.   
   If you use a state park, pay for it. If you don't, then don't.   
   Sort of like, if you want to go to Disneyland, pay for it, if you don't,   
   then don't pay for it.   
   With things stacked the way they are (the rule of 8) you'll find that the   
   cost of the state park will be so high that no one can afford to go to it.   
   They'll go to Disneyland instead, or stay at home.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)