Study: The Average Americans Opinion Regarding the Economical Issues in the US

[Linkedblade]

Counter argument: industrial revolution.

And you have to take into consideration that it wasn't a completely free market during that period, there was some government control. Imagine how bad it would be without none whatsoever.

Biggest problem was that complained wages were low. Then in turn unions were formed. Unions are worthless and lead to many problems (Re: Tenure).

People complaining their wages are too low are silly. Look at other parts of the world wehere wages are low and those families do just fine.

[Raidenx]

I wouldn't have such a hard time with Laissez Faire if it didn't shit all over the environment. If everyone is cutting costs like crazy, the natural response is to dump your waste in the cheapest way possible to compete. With no regulation, and no tax on companies to pay for the cleanup, how do free-marketers propose we keep our land deteriorating?

Anyone heard of the Cuyahoga river? It used to catch fire semi-frequently because of all the chemical waste. Businesses cannot he trusted to do what is best for the public good when they must compete in the free market. Environmental costs would soon outweigh the potential economic benefit of eliminating government deadweight.

If you have the time you should watch this debate. They specifically mention the river somewhere in the middle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVW1t900Jg

---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 12:10 AM ----------

Biggest problem was that complained wages were low. Then in turn unions were formed. Unions are worthless and lead to many problems (Re: Tenure).

People complaining their wages are too low are silly. Look at other parts of the world wehere wages are low and those families do just fine.

Unions are perfectly legitimate in a free market, so long as they don't get specific privileges from the government.

[Linkedblade]

I wouldn't have such a hard time with Laissez Faire if it didn't shit all over the environment. If everyone is cutting costs like crazy, the natural response is to dump your waste in the cheapest way possible to compete. With no regulation, and no tax on companies to pay for the cleanup, how do free-marketers propose we keep our land deteriorating?

Well what about if the people boycotted the company doing all those negative things to the environment? They wouldn't be able to stay in business if they continued to do such things. So there options would be: change their policy or go out of business.

You have to remember in a Free Market the consumers are just as important, if not more important, than the companies.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Other - Parts of A but leaving out the whole profit control thing. There's no reason to limit profits for a company, there are only reasons to regulate certain aspects of a companies behavior. For example, preventing them from having unsafe working conditions. Cutting their profits means cutting the wages of employees and less investment money for the company. I do, however, think that wage iniquity could be addressed.

[Linkedblade]

Unions are perfectly legitimate in a free market, so long as they don't get specific privileges from the government.

And a union without government help is just a club where people go to complain.

[zorkuus]

Biggest problem was that complained wages were low. Then in turn unions were formed. Unions are worthless and lead to many problems (Re: Tenure).

People complaining their wages are too low are silly. Look at other parts of the world wehere wages are low and those families do just fine.

They didn't have a issue with only wages being too low. There was also child labor, out of control pollution and monopolies (yes there were) etc.

Companies do bad stuff even now when we have regulations and they know they might get caught. How would they magically become so much more responsible without any regulation, you tell me?

Well what about if the people boycotted the company doing all those negative things to the environment? They wouldn't be able to stay in business if they continued to do such things. So there options would be: change their policy or go out of business.

The company could just counteract by creating a monopoly (as they did during the industrial revolution). Not every person is so strong minded that they will stick by their principles even if someone is shitting all over them for years on end, people would eventually just give up trying to challange this entity... or they would fight back with the same means as they did previously: by wanting to remove total free markets.

[Deathcries]

I just want to keep collecting my .gov check and let the working man take care of me. I know where I fall in.

[Raidenx]

And a union without government help is just a club where people go to complain.

Sure, but if they think organizing will make their working conditions better then they should do so.

[Catta]

I voted a, for socialism response.

However, what needs to happen, is the government needs to realize where tax money is being wasted.

1 - Politicians get paid WAY TOO MUCH for the little work they do, on top of their amazing benefits and pension. Cut this shit down by like, oh, say, 50%?
2 - Military spending needs to be chopped severely, however I think soldiers (both enlisted and officers) should be paid more with better benefits.

Do they pay their staff out of their own pocket or?

[Deleted]

Well what about if the people boycotted the company doing all those negative things to the environment? They wouldn't be able to stay in business if they continued to do such things. So there options would be: change their policy or go out of business.

You have to remember in a Free Market the consumers are just as important, if not more important, than the companies.

I know right, laissez faire, they should just allow kids to buy cigarettes, if they get ill the burden of responsibility falls on the consumer, dont be so silly...

[Baracuda]

Isn't C what lead us to where we are today?

[Raidenx]

They didn't have a issue with only wages being too low. There was also child labor, out of control pollution and monopolies (yes there were) etc.

Companies do bad stuff even now when we have regulations and they know they might get caught. How would they magically become so much more responsible without any regulation, you tell me?

Yes, and with all the regulation we have now companies surely dont do bad things.

Child labor only became a problem because capitalism brought everyones living conditions up so much. Child labor was never a problem for the thousands of years before that. When businesses realized that adults were more efficient in the long run they hired them instead.

---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 12:19 AM ----------

Isn't C what lead us to where we are today?

No. It's called cronyism, when the government and corporations are one in the same. Huge Corporations are a state creation.

[Catta]

Yes, and with all the regulation we have now companies surely dont do bad things.

Child labor only became a problem because capitalism brought everyones living conditions up so much. Child labor was never a problem for the thousands of years before that. When businesses realized that adults were more efficient in the long run they hired them instead.

Well also social mobility is stifled with child labor. If they are out working they arent in school so they wont get to the higher educations.

[Sivick]

It's clear to us that by watching europe that austerity does not work. that said i don't trust the corporations with a free reign on things to fix it by themselves. We already screwed up my prefered plan. We should have bailed out the people in debt instead of the financial companies and thrown the bankers who caused all this in jail.

[Raidenx]

I know right, laissez faire, they should just allow kids to buy cigarettes, if they get ill the burden of responsibility falls on the consumer, dont be so silly...

why not? The parents should be responsible for their children.

[Catta]

why not? The parents should be responsible for their children.

Children should not suffer because of their parents ineptitude. They still do but thats not a reason to not try and prevent it.

[Raidenx]

Well also social mobility is stifled with child labor. If they are out working they arent in school so they wont get to the higher educations.

And the aforementioned social mobility came from the creation of capitalism in Britain. Wages went up extremely quickly when the markets were freed due to the abundance of resources in the market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A
---------- Post added 2012-12-03 at 12:22 AM ----------

Children should not suffer because of their parents ineptitude. They still do but thats not a reason to not try and prevent it.

I guess. I'm not opposed to bans for children, but companies shouldnt get the lions share of the blame.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

why not? The parents should be responsible for their children.

Because it is unreasonable to expect a parent to be with their child at all hours of the day. It is also unreasonable to expect a child who is taught not to do something to never do it.

[zorkuus]

Yes, and with all the regulation we have now companies surely dont do bad things.

Erm... I just said that they do, you quoted me saying so.

[Kraenen]

Biggest problem was that complained wages were low. Then in turn unions were formed. Unions are worthless and lead to many problems (Re: Tenure).

People complaining their wages are too low are silly. Look at other parts of the world wehere wages are low and those families do just fine.

No they don't. What the hell are you smoking?