Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The emancipation proclamation was not the free market. The civil war was not the free market. Slave owners could buy whips and chains on the free market. The problem with libertarian ideology is that it fails to take the real world into account. It's nothing but a utopian dream. It's like communism, in the sense that it could only work if people were different than they really are. In real life the world is full of people who are a mixture of good and evil. Any governmental ideology that doesn't take that into account is doomed.
Banks and insurance companies have gotten very fat discriminating against minorities, women, you name it. Discrimination is a broad term and there too many ways to discriminate. Charging exorbitant fees and prices is a form of discrimination. Slavery continued to exist because it supported, not an economic system, but a social system, and people were afraid of the prospect of unleashing four million Africans into society.
I'd say yes, capitalism and free market can be seen inherently progressive untill...
you stumble upon someone who's so conservative that he can even go against the economic law of maximizing the profit, contentin himself to earn less to be able to not to serve for instance gays or blacks.
It happens
so I don't think anymore capitalism means progressivness.
For the free market to destroy racism, sexism, whatever other ism, the market would have to be so competitive and tight that one small deviation and profit loss from discrimination would result in the company going under. The market never gets that tight, so any profit losses from discrimination can be easily brushed under and the company continues.
People say it's because we don't truly have free market that these isms still exist. There wrong, it's because we don't have a perfectly competitive market. And perfect competition doesn't exist, and never will. If you don't believe me, look at the assumptions required for perfect competition and start applying them to various industries and you'll see why it's natural, not governmental constraints that limit it.
More dogma. You simply make a pronouncement, and then dismissively wave off any evidence to the contrary as 'not being a real free market' - the No True Scotsman fallacy in action.
You fail to see the forest for the trees. The market is a very useful force. But it is a limited one, which has its place while also being inadequate in some regards. But instead of regarding it as such, you seek to have it as an object of reverence, an ideology, an all-perfect idol.
And that's just a fantasy. Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I can take one look at the Jim Crow era and understand that the free market doesn't destroy privilege, racism, or discrimination.
Quite true. The Civil Rights Act, and its accompanying curb on denying - for example - service based on race made the markets less free than they were prior to its passage. And yet it resulted in decreased racist business practices. Furthermore, it helped shift the public opinion that it was acceptable to deny service based on race to one where it is now held by a large majority that this is not acceptable. People love to claim that government can't change the way people think, and they're welcome to their dogma, but the fact is that prohibiting discriminatory practices often shapes public thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallrick
We have never had a free market and never will.
Quite true. All economic systems are blends of market forces with artificial constraints. The "free markets!" crowd doesn't really have a problem with this, though they will claim they do. Do most of them want crack, meth and heroin legalized? No. Do most of them want to permit the sale of surface-to-air missiles? No. Do most of them want to repeal the Civil Rights Act? No. Do most of them want to repeal child-labor laws? No. Do most of them want to privatize all roads and airports and law enforcement and the military? No.
They talk a good game and posture as though on principle, but in reality they embrace the usual hybrid economic system that virtually everyone embraces. Then it all delves down to a discussion of where to put the barrier between market forces and institutionalized limitations. But where precisely to draw those lines are only arguments of utility and practicality, not of principle.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,596,781 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
For the free market to destroy racism, sexism, whatever other ism, the market would have to be so competitive and tight that one small deviation and profit loss from discrimination would result in the company going under. The market never gets that tight, so any profit losses from discrimination can be easily brushed under and the company continues.
People say it's because we don't truly have free market that these isms still exist. There wrong, it's because we don't have a perfectly competitive market. And perfect competition doesn't exist, and never will. If you don't believe me, look at the assumptions required for perfect competition and start applying them to various industries and you'll see why it's natural, not governmental constraints that limit it.
Phil P has a good grasp on things. I'd only add that Free Market Above All types assume that people are perfectly rational, or that free markets can make people rational. They don't. As someone else said, some people are willing to take a lower profit in order not to serve "those" types (the current gay discrimination laws in NC and MS are perfect examples of this). The only way free markets have even a fighting chance to make people rational is in the unlikely event that a business' long-term profit margin is so low that the owners can only survive at the most basic humane levels without endangering their own business' survival.
First of all, you're making the false assumption that every single individual is a potential source of profit. This is not the case. There's a reason Apple's target audience is upper middle class. They are looking for poor people becasue poor people are not profitable. In regards to race, a business may discriminate by choice because members of a certain race may not be profitable. There's the aspect of social status (not wanting to be the business that serves coloreds) and an issue of economic inequality. If employment discrimination is legal (which it was; it was not mandated, but legal to do by choice) and a society already has a prejudice against members of a certain race, then it's safe to assume that this race will have lower rates of employment and therefore less economic value to a business. So turning them away will not hurt profits.
Not all atrocities. Nor is limiting the issue to atrocities reasonable. The KKK is not a government funded group, and they committed atrocities. No, it's not on the scale of the Holocaust or the Native American genocide, but to reduce counts of racism to such extremes is an unreasonable argument.
There is no logical connection between government and discrimination. It is government that passed the 14th amendment. You could argue that it was passed due to social pressures, but then why would it not be those same social forces the created the need for such an amendment in the first place?
While I think your government policy point is a good starting point for a solid argument, to claim that government is the source of racism because these policies exist is frankly absurd. Government official are elected by the people; if the government is racist, then the people made it so. As part of this, it's well known that business influences government in many ways. The desire to discriminate must exists within these businesses before legal protection would be created.
Slavery did exist in a free market. When humans are seen purely as a commodity, they can be bought and sold as any other product would.
The free market did not end slavery. A wide array of social forced fought to end slavery. Among them could have been a capitalist mindset, but as would the case be with a force like Christianity, they're was a camp on the other end that supported it. Bare in mind, the goal of capitalism is to maximize profits, usually in the short term. Having labor that works for free maximizes profits, especially when no regulation exists to ensure the labor is treated fairly.
Indeed, there are things that are not mentioned in the article. Among them is capitalism's unwillingness to value human life unless it is either profitable or mandated from an outside force, the fact that capitalist industry (particularly in regards to agriculture) is objectively unsustainable and destructive, or that most new technological innovation comes from publicly funded projects since the private sector will not invest in something that will not be profitable in 3-5 years.
Those hate groups sadly, have been allowed to exist. After close re-examination at the statues, and the mindsets going on currently with the political waves, including several intakes on an international scale, it's quiet clear the agendas. The state of the government is the reflection of it's peers, as mentioned above who vote for it, meaning what?
Capitalism is an age-old tradition. The laws, rules, mindset, it all comes to bear in mind. When you are brought up a certain wayyou think that way. It's an entrapment of paradox complex.
Start-Ups/Disruptions have added an unplanned spin to these traditions. Quiet frankly, there is a stronger need for protection for developers and the wild west. Capitalistic companies have gotten quiet piqued!
On the other hand, why are all the deports, talk of racism and what-not happening and centering around DUMPF?
And why is it in 2016 the market has been aiming specifically at certainimages? Is it all just coincidental?
A lot of your assumptions require perfect economic efficiency, perfectly rational economic actors, and actors who prioritize financial results ahead of all other considerations. None of those things exist in the real world. The real world is far from being perfectly economically efficient, even in the freest of makerts, economic actors are never perfectly rational - some are expressly irrational, even, and economic actors do not always prioritize financial results ahead of other considerations. Just as the most basic example, it is economically irrational for most owners of BMWs to own a BMW. That doesn't mean they won't keep buying them, though, because they buy them because they prioritize non-financial considerations ahead of financial considerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
....
The target audience isn't upper middle class. People who are upper middle class are not the only people who can buy an Iphone. Apple doesn't ask for your W2 before it decides to sell you one of their products. The only thing standing between you and an Iphone is $600, and that is $600 anyone can have or spend.
You seem to have some difficulty grasping fairly simple principles. Marketing to a target audience, which Apple absolute and explicitly does, does not mean refusing to sell to other people who are not part of that catered-to audience. Apple is very open about the fact that it targets as customers people in the upper-middle class. That does not mean they turn customers away, but their advertisements are designed to appeal to people with high discretionary incomes than average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Centering your business around not serving customers who have money to pay for your business is NEVER a good move period. In no warped reality is it ever sound business practice.
Racism is cultural and has very little interplay with economics. Most businesses do not have a need to have every possible available resident as a customer. They can survive on a fraction of available people as customers. They can decide not to serve customers for all sorts of reasons and still survive. You presume that businesses are so desperate for money that they will put grabbing every customer ahead of their own personal comfort level. If someone is racist, they can make a living not serving races they don't like as long as that attitude is socially acceptable. What drives a racist business out of profitability isn't choosing to avoid serving a minority, it's when that attitude becomes intolerable to the majority who then refuse to patronize discriminatory businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
If all black, Asians, or Latinos make great workers, and you REFUSE to hire them. That is hurting no one but your business. If you read the article, the author specifically addresses this point, especially when he talks about South Africa. Blacks in South Africa would be better workers in many cases and negotiate lower prices which undercut white workers. So business owners were the main ones trying to end apartheid in South Africa.
Economically it only hurts your business if they are better workers in a way that would to the bottom line to a degree that was measurably better than the quality of white workers you hired, AND if that measurable difference allowed a competitor to overtake you. Those are both big ifs, ifs that do happen in real life, but not in all situations, and probably not even in most situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
America has a similar issue with minimum wage. Read it's history, and you will see whites who wanted their positions protected by the government often tried organize unions to exclude black and other minorities.
Unions in the early days played off racism as a way to limit the supply of labor, but their desire to limit the supply of labor wasn't driven by racism, it just used existing racism to further that goal. Now they use things like licensing and regulation to limit the labor pool. And that's not always a bad thing for businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
The KKK wasn't officially endorsed by any government. But the government had no issues turning a blind eye or even charging the KKK with murder and other heinous crimes. The KKK was fully protected by the power of the state. If it wasn't, the local authorities would have made it a priority to disband the KKK. The operated with impunity for decades
You seem to be absurdly ignorant of the history of the KKK and what interplay was between the KKK and various levels of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Government creates races. Then the government creates privileges for one race over the other. Then in turns gives race B privilege which upsets race A. None of this is possible without government. The entire concept of racism comes from government.
Government does not create race. That's an absurd claim. Government can track race, it can protect or hurt race, it can encourage a blind eye to race. Occasionally governments will abuse race as a rallying cry (i.e. Hitler). But government does not usually "create" race - humans draw their own distinctions regardless of any influence from the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Yes, this is why it's important the government keeps limited powers. Because racist and ill intentioned people can abuse the government to marginalize people. This is why I am a stauch free market advocate. It is the closest thing we can have to a true meritocracy.
Racism exists with or without government, regardless of economic system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
This was not the free market. It was mercantilism. Government protected slave owners. Under the free market, slavery can't exist. Why? Because if a slave revolts and take over a plantation or run away, the government can't legally do anything to stop it.
Government protected slave owners, but if it hadn't then slave owners would have protected themselves. It only ended when government not only stopped protecting slave owners, but actively protected former slaves from further enslavement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Slaves stopped making good business sense. With automation and industrialization in full effect, there was no need to have manual slave labor. They could never out produce rising machinary for lower cost. The results slavery just flat out was not economical, expensive, and outlived it's relative value. Cradle to the grave slavery was expensive in that you had to feed them, clothe them, and keep the slaves healthy. This was too high of a cost.
To the degree what you say is correct, it's true. However the economic end of slavery did not bring about the end of racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Nonsense, technology has risen ONLY because of the private market. It is the private sector that is pushing innovation, not the public sector. I can't believe you would even say something like that.
This is simply false. Yes, free markets benefit technology, but there are many, many, MANY examples of groundbreaking technology that exists because the government fostered it, either through direct funding of research or by creating a market that would not have existed in a free marketplace.
Yeah, which isn't everyone. That was my point. I'm not sure how you missed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
The target audience isn't upper middle class. People who are upper middle class are not the only people who can buy an Iphone. Apple doesn't ask for your W2 before it decides to sell you one of their products. The only thing standing between you and an Iphone is $600, and that is $600 anyone can have or spend.
Do you not actually know what a target audience is? Every product, service, and even brands/companies have target audiences. It does not mean they will exclude people who are not in that audience from buying. The target audience for Sephora is women, but they will still take my money if I were to shop there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Centering your business around not serving customers who have money to pay for your business is NEVER a good move period. In no warped reality is it ever sound business practice.
No one does or has centered their business around specifically not serving people. That's absurd. But it has been done with no detriment to their business.
A modern example would be bakeries not willing to bake cakes for same sex weddings. This however does have detriment as the discrimination is being taken up in civil law. Which isn't the free market relieving discrimination, it's the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
If all black, Asians, or Latinos make great workers, and you REFUSE to hire them. That is hurting no one but your business. If you read the article, the author specifically addresses this point, especially when he talks about South Africa. Blacks in South Africa would be better workers in many cases and negotiate lower prices which undercut white workers. So business owners were the main ones trying to end apartheid in South Africa.
It was only the racist whites who wanted to keep this, because they wanted laws to protect their employment. This is not free market, this is government coercion. The market is not setting rates, the government is.
America has a similar issue with minimum wage. Read it's history, and you will see whites who wanted their positions protected by the government often tried organize unions to exclude black and other minorities.
They wanted black workers because they could pay them less, which they were willing to take because fewer people would hire them. Surface level analysis will not work on me, sorry.
Same deal with many labor intensive jobs here in the US. Illegal immigrants are targeted to work for these jobs becasue they can pay them less. The reason they can pay them less is becasue from a technically standpoint, they aren't US citizens and don't need to be paid to minimum wage standards, which is a government created policy, one that would not even exist in a completely unregulated market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
The KKK wasn't officially endorsed by any government. But the government had no issues turning a blind eye or even charging the KKK with murder and other heinous crimes. The KKK was fully protected by the power of the state. If it wasn't, the local authorities would have made it a priority to disband the KKK. The operated with impunity for decades
Most of what you said is completely untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Government creates races. Then the government creates privileges for one race over the other. Then in turns gives race B privilege which upsets race A. None of this is possible without government. The entire concept of racism comes from government.
How does the government create races?
Yes, this is why it's important the government keeps limited powers. Because racist and ill intentioned
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
people can abuse the government to marginalize people. This is why I am a stauch free market advocate. It is the closest thing we can have to a true meritocracy.
The free market abuses people all the time. Child labor, slavery, 16+ hour work days, starvation level wages, horrendous working conditions; these were all remedied by the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
This was not the free market. It was mercantilism. Government protected slave owners. Under the free market, slavery can't exist. Why? Because if a slave revolts and take over a plantation or run away, the government can't legally do anything to stop it.
Actually they can. The slaves would likely be viewed as thieves if such a thing occurred. There are obvious reasons as to why this wasn't common. Even so, the government would certainly take actions, or turn a blind eye when the mutinied slave owner kills all of his slaves, since they were LEGALLY his property and could do as he wished with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Slaves stopped making good business sense. With automation and industrialization in full effect, there was no need to have manual slave labor. They could never out produce rising machinary for lower cost. The results slavery just flat out was not economical, expensive, and outlived it's relative value. Cradle to the grave slavery was expensive in that you had to feed them, clothe them, and keep the slaves healthy. This was too high of a cost.
This may be true of the North, but not of the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Nonsense, technology has risen ONLY because of the private market. It is the private sector that is pushing innovation, not the public sector. I can't believe you would even say something like that.
Read this and prove it wrong if you can. I'll wait.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
