• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Is A "Free Market" System is Sensible?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • No

    Votes: 19 61.3%

  • Total voters
    31

ll StarTrekFan ll

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Red Shirt
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 , 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. http://www.cbafaq.com/minimums.htm

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. www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2017/

B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/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 in the Hell 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?
 
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.

No one is paying to watch those people do their jobs. I have no problem with entertainers (or others) making large sums of money, I do have a problem with them trying to hide from their obligations to society.

Why in the Hell 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.)?

Believe it or not, people like pro athletes and the Kardashians are an important part of our society. They are much needed diversions from the problems of the world.
 
I have little issue with people like musicians and actors profiting from their own performance. If their presence or creative efforts add substantially to the profits generated, someone will benefit - it should be (at least partially) them.

Entertainment is, however, something of an exception in that you have a choice whether you partake or not. Many other things in life such as food, shelter, medical care and basic transport are not in that 'optional' category and should not therefore be subject to the free market in the same way.
 
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 , 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. http://www.cbafaq.com/minimums.htm

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. www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2017/

B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/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 in the Hell 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?

Separating popular culture from loftier arts, culture, philosophy, humanities, etc. is largely subjective, as today's classics were just yestercentury's popular art. In a few hundred years, the Beastie Boys may be regarded as classical music.

Kor
 
No one is paying to watch those people do their jobs. I have no problem with entertainers (or others) making large sums of money, I do have a problem with them trying to hide from their obligations to society.



Believe it or not, people like pro athletes and the Kardashians are an important part of our society. They are much needed diversions from the problems of the world.


People will pay more and risk more for brief distractions from the human condition that for almost any other thing.
 
I voted no but I don't see why you can't have a little bit of socialism mixed together with some free market concepts. Why can't the system take care of the basic needs of people and then let the free market dictate what people want to spend on luxaries. I also mean a real free market not this modern one were all the big corporations buy out the little guys and you get to point were a handful of companies control everything.

Jason
 
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 , ect. ect).
OgUzsnx.gif

Came here for a rational dialog on the dangers of an unfettered free market, but all we got was another rant about how athletes, rap artists, Hollywood celebrities, and pop stars I don't like suck and don't deserve all the money they make. Why pick such a miniscule aspect of the free market economy to explore? You add up all those salaries from the NBA or NFL combined and there are single executives with more accumulated wealth than the bunch of them. You've targeted your ire in the wrong place.
 
OgUzsnx.gif

Came here for a rational dialog on the dangers of an unfettered free market, but all we got was another rant about how athletes, rap artists, Hollywood celebrities, and pop stars I don't like suck and don't deserve all the money they make. Why pick such a miniscule aspect of the free market economy to explore? You add up all those salaries from the NBA or NFL combined and there are single executives with more accumulated wealth than the bunch of them. You've targeted your ire in the wrong place.

Even if you wanted to use sports as a example I wonder why not use something like a salary cap the NFL and NBA have to show how you can create a system that controls spending and puts limits on how much someone can make, yet still benefits everyone. Some players still get super rich but even those who are at the bottom still make tons of money as well.

Jason
 
It's bread and circuses. I've got a whole rant about that, but... not now.

Consider movie "stars". A good movie ('good' being subjective) will rack up millions. After everyone's been paid, guess what? The movie co is still making millions. The "star", rightly or wrongly, thinks they deserve a share of that, so their fees and backend go up. And so on, ad infinitum.

What could be done instead. Stars keep fees down and movie cos expend their profits, beyond a certain amount, on medical and educational aid, housing, and so on. Or put ticket prices down (which will encourage more to go, but I digress).

Can that work? Even I, a wild eyed democratic socialist, don't think so.

Besides. in my country, the real problem is the multinationals avoinding paying any tax at all. I've paid more tax than BHP, Toll and Apple in Australia.

Big corporations, The real poison.
 
The market economy is fine for wants.

Not so good with needs (see Housing, Healthcare)
This is a good way of phrasing it, I think. Extremes tend to fill current holes by digging new ones. Perhaps mankind will eventually mold a good middle ground. Eh, who am I kidding.
 
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)
 
A socialist system would be far preferable to our current "free market" capitalist system. I put "free market" in quotes because the market is anything but free. The larger corporations get, the more restricted the market. The idea that a free market can exist and benefit everyone is a lie, as most people confuse "free" with "unregulated." An unregulated market only benefits those who control it, and that would mean the largest corporations with the most power.
 
A socialist system would be far preferable to our current "free market" capitalist system. I put "free market" in quotes because the market is anything but free. The larger corporations get, the more restricted the market. The idea that a free market can exist and benefit everyone is a lie, as most people confuse "free" with "unregulated." An unregulated market only benefits those who control it, and that would mean the largest corporations with the most power.

"Capitalism" as it is generally used, is consistent with both a "Free Market" system and various forms of "Constrained/Regulated Market" systems. I am arguing for a form of "Constrained Market" system (in the short term) as I think they still have usefulness and are feasible to implement in the current climate/Zeitgeist. However, it is important to note that the type of "Constrained Market" system I am proposing is very different than typically conceived of by people such as Sanders, Green Party, ect. ect.

Now, the economy already is "rigged", so all you would have to do is "rig" it in a different direction (as well as the imperative of getting people more interested in productive, creative, activities rather than frivolousness--note, rigging the economy would in it of itself shift peoples interests due to the incentive structure). That is, jobs that have high utility value (e.g. "Blue Collar" laborers, Architects, Scientists, ect.) objectively contribute far more to society than Justin Bieber (although the current system incentive structure would suggest that this is the other way around). The current Market system is based on preference value while I am arguing for a utility value system.

It would still be a market system, there would still be an abundance of greedy, self-interested people, ect. ect, However, by necessity, the work they would be doing if they wanted to increase their wealth would be productive and actually benefit society rather than frivolous--e.g. Models would not be paid much at all in such a society while being a Construction worker, many "Blue Collar" intensive labor, Scientist, Architect, ect. ect. would be paid well (just nearly flip everything on its head, roughly speaking)). This is why I said such a system is feasible in the short-term given the current climate/Zeitgeist. It would essentially be like a Social Democratic society but rather than the type of "Inverse Capitalism" that Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein/Green Party, ect. promote, it would be based on a productivity/utility incentive structure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current system is taking as a given the notion that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than a utility value system (while this is not at all obvious and I have raised a large number of profound concerns of the logical consequences in valuing people's individual preferences rather than their productive contributions).

In fact, most of my argument is centered around this fundamental Philosophical point
 
The problem is that value of station just flips the hierarchy in a different direction, while keeping inequality as the foundation. That is not a stable base upon which to build a system. Emphasizing the value of crucial stations over what you might consider valueless stations is one thing, but that just showcases the same errors in thinking that come from people who say art is useless and has no value. You just exchange one value judgment for another, the hierarchy is preserved, and "some people are more equal than others" continues to persist.
 
Isn't it about striking a balance between a free market and regulation over that free market so that the end consumer isn't screwed by the companies?

You sometimes hear some popele saying to others get a real job, well all jobs are real jobs. Just as we need Doctors, Nurses etc.. we need people who pick our crops, put them on shelfs so that you can buy them etc...

There are only X amount of those higher paying jobs and Y people who need jobs and Y is greater than X. And those persons in those higher paying jobs don't always see the how Y lives and as they make the decisions they often m ake decisions that will benefit them more. They may throw a bone to others but that bone will always be smaller than what they give themsevles.

Healthcare in the US is a topic which could take up it's own thread and has. The basic argument against the US model of Healthcare is.

You might be able to afford it today but can you say that will always be the case for the rest of your life.

You may have Healthcare through your work today, but can you say with 100% certainity that you won't be dismissed at some point in the future?

Can you be sure you don't have a pre-exisitng condition that hasn't been diagnosed and even if you are free of one, should you have children in the future can you be sure that they won't be born with a pre-exisiting condition?
 
IMO, "free market" is code for "I want to be rich as hell, no matter who or what I have to screw over."
To me, it comes down to labor costs. Free marketeers want slaves. It doesn't work any other way.
Take Henry Ford, for example. He went and paid his workers enough so that they too could afford
the cars they were making. The rest of corporate America lost its collective mind! How DARE he
pay people!! A rising tide DOES NOT lift all boats, as most of the boats in question are tied to
the bottom by various constraints, real or imagined. Mundane things, like food and shelter on
little to no wages.

And "free market" doesn't even REMOTELY affect health care. You could pay anywhere from
a dollar to $500 for the same prescription in the same city! Also, just TRY to get any hospital
to give you a rate chart! So much for shopping for healthcare; it's actively discouraged by
the industry.

No, "free market" is anything but, and an illusion created to justify a small group of folk
being enriched by the fruit of others labor. :crazy: :thumbdown:

My $0.02. :)
 
And "free market" doesn't even REMOTELY affect health care. You could pay anywhere from
a dollar to $500 for the same prescription in the same city! Also, just TRY to get any hospital
to give you a rate chart! So much for shopping for healthcare; it's actively discouraged by
the industry.
.


Fortunatly I don't have that problem when it comes to healthcare living in the UK as a pay a flat rate of about £8 (US$11) per perscription. And if I need treatment I never see a bill as the HNS is funded through general taxation. Sure the HNS isn't perfect and I may have to wait for certain treatments but I don't have to warry about will I be able to afford a needed treatment.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top