The bad intervening started after we made the financial markets more free and they started to take over and screw everyone in the a so there you go. 'Free' markets screw everything up for a little bit more profit and intervention is apparently nessesary.
I'm not saying we're not in trouble. I'm saying that intervention is not the real problem. The whole capitalistic free market idea becomes broken when taken too far, that is the problem. The regulations are only a symptom. A wall street puppy will sell his grandmother for a better position. I don't think his grandmother would like that so this free market idea is at odds with most peoples lifes.
Remember Enron? Thats the type of dogs that need a free market to 'operate' in.
They will sell their own countries supplies if that makes them some more money. They honestly don't give a shit.
Less intervention can only happen if corporations have a size limit and an influence limit.
Otherwise some corporations will grow big enough that their hunger for profit will undermine society.
You are just not seeing it. The market has never been *truly* free despite what governments tell you. They want to rule, nothing else, they'll tell you anything to stay at the helm. Hence all the problems.
Of course there is risk every time so sane ppl divide the risks.
If you get too attached to one company, you may get burned when it falls, but that is your problem after all. Other than that, in free market, bad companies bancrupt, good ones survive, that's all. When there are all those laws ant interventions crippling market, somebody can get advantage over others which they may not be able to bridge. When somebody looses too much, government will go and save him. That's all the wrong which will result in worse and worse.
To be honest, I am tired of explaning obvious. As the situation will get worse, you may see the reality despite all the government brainwashing. You should hope you will see it sooner than the others, which will be your advantage.
LOl you're such a small thinker for someone who wants to change society.
Tell me, in what way am i a victim of my government ruling my life?
And sure, in a free market a bad companies go bankrupt. But that is the market definition of a company. The goal of a company is to make profit and so a bad company is one that does not make (enoug) profit. Simple.
The problem is that society defines what is a bad company differently.
What can be very good from a market point of view can be very bad from a non-corporate normal persons point of view.
If you define 'bad' as 'bad for society' then it turns out that there are lots of successfull bad companies.
Did Shell care that they were poisoning a population over profit? LOL you've got to be kidding.
Did Enron care that people were without electricity? Sure as hell not, they were working the market for extra profits. Did their victims (normal everyday people expecting their power) have any real choise in this? Nope, because this was done without their knowledge. Did Enron ever consider not doing it? LOL., they are in it for the profit. They will do ANYTHING they think they can get away with. They are only humans.
So why create an environment that cultivates these companies that feel absolutely no responsibility to the world? Why would i want that? In fact, why would anyone want that unless they own the company themselfs? Why would i want to give multinationals even more power to control my life than they already have? (advertisement from corporations has a much bigger influence on peoples daily behaviour than government has)
I don't know, seems i don't realy need them. So how will your free market prevent them from doing what society doesnt want?
How will free market dynamics make sure the players don't try to stab each other in the back, simultaniously.
So for me there is no reason to give these parties an increasingly free market to play on.
I don't want to be the victim of a corporation doing 'better' for itself.
I think in fact that the market as it is today needs to be capped and/or stratified cleanly.
The bigger a market party the more societal responsibilities they will need to consider or else their operation should be limited.
More freedom when the area of effect of the company is smaller.
Society should have a debate about risk and risk should not be decided by market forces.
As an example, i could make a soda that has some cheap ingredient that will allow me to outcompete the market leader.
I also know that the chemical involved will lead to a genetic dysfunction in second and third generation children.
But who cares! I will probably be dead by then to get blamed! I can get filty rich now and enjoy succes. Hey, you liked my cheap drink? Your own damn problem.
If you would let the market decide the usefullness of this drink to society then you will be too late becasue the market will only react after a few generations. In the mean time everyone has been drinking the poison for 40 years.
So why would any sane person in society give a company the complete freedom to operate on such premise?
