no it doesn't opportunity can be there it is up to the individual to take advantage of it or not . if you have a job opening and no one takes advantage of that opportunity it doesn't mean that job opening doesn't exist
What do you mean? I already gave you the definition. From Wikipedia; No. These are legitimate production costs. Not by an Economic Rent Tax. What one does with one's earned income is not the subject of an Economic Rent Tax. Yes, monopoly profits would be taxed. - - - Updated - - - Tariffs are not an example of an Economic Rent Tax.
No. But if the loan generated a return in excess of opportunity costs, the excess returns would be Economic Rent. cost Economic Rents Economic Rent is "a term for the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of its opportunity cost." - Wikipedia
More like they stole a whole load of land off the natives then went on to steal the resources of Latin America and then made a huge amount supplying arms in WW2,thats how America got rich.
No it did not. How could they collect USD in taxes before they spent them into existence? For a Currency User income must precede spending. But for a Currency Issuer spending MUST preceding taxation/borrowing.
Every hyper-inflation has been caused by either a collapse in the balance of payments or by the destruction of the nation's productive capacity.
I mean the same thing that Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Johann Heinrich von Thünen, Thorstein Veblen, Simon Patten & others meant.
It has to be free of government intervention, otherwise it is not a free market by definition. Intervention is not acceptable because that allows for special interests governing outcomes instead of individual actors.
Just to be clear, to have a market "free of government intervention" is to have no government at all, no institutions, actions, etc? If not, how can government exist without intervening into the economy? If so, I give you credit for consistency but I don't think you understand the implications of it. For starters, without government intervention none of the following would exist: Corporations Private Property it is government that grants & enforces property titles/deeds & defines the rights & obligations they signify Government money & National Unit of Account Contract enforcement & dispute resolution
I'd take this a step farther. Assume the government cannot intervene in the economy and it choose to do so. Then it intervened in the economy by stating that it did not plan to intervene. This contradicts the government does not intervene in the economy. Ergo, governments MUST intervene in the economy. Free market advocates who are aware of this argue that the government should only strengthen property rights. I guess you could argue that we could live in an anarchist state and not have a government. I'd still argue agreeing to not have a government is a government decision! We're deciding our policy on government is not to have one! So the above argument applies.
The natives in the US had that land, and did not get rich. Latin America had those resources, yet did not get rich. North Korea sells arms, and is not rich. What creates wealth is what you do, not what you have.
Free markets are those where all participants are free from coercive influence and information flows freely. All markets that do not meet these conditions are corrupted, manipulated or otherwise impeded and can be best described as less than free. Markets where all participants are subject to the same conditions, such as government regulation to prevent corruption manipulation or other impediments, can be considered as free markets if such regulation does not allow any participant an advantage.
Nonsense. The New World was home to people of great riches & cities of great splendor. The city Tenochtitlan serves as a great example. A soldier in the small band of Conquistadors that were the first Europeans to set eyes upon the city, Bernal Díaz, wrote: "And when we saw all those cities and villages built in the water, and other great towns on dry land, and that straight and level causeway leading to Mexico [i.e. Tenochtitlán], we were astounded. These great towns and cues [i.e., temples] and buildings rising from the water, all made of stone, seemed like an enchanted vision from the tale of Amadis. Indeed, some of our soldiers asked whether it was not all a dream. It is not surprising therefore that I should write in this vein. It was all so wonderful that I do not know how to describe this first glimpse of things never heard of, seen or dreamed of before. . . . "And when we entered the city of Iztapalapa, the sight of the palaces in which they lodged us! They were very spacious and well built, of magnificent stone, cedar wood, and the wood of other sweet-smelling trees, with great rooms and courts, which were a wonderful sight, and all covered with awnings of woven cotton. "When we had taken a good look at all this, we went to the orchard and garden, which was a marvelous place both to see and walk in. I was never tired of noticing the diversity of trees and the various scents given off by each, and the paths choked with roses and other flowers, and the many local fruit-trees and rose-bushes, and the pond of fresh waterþ. Then there were birds of many breeds and varieties which came to the pond. I say again that I stood looking at it, and thought that no land like it would ever be discovered in the whole world.... But today all that I then saw is overthrown and destroyed; nothing is left standing. "On each altar was a giant figure, very tall and very fat. They said that the one on the right was Huichilobos [i.e. Huitzilopochtli], their war-god. He had a very broad face and huge terrible eyes. And there were so many precious stones, so much gold, so many pearls and seed-pearls stuck to him with a paste which the natives made from a sort of root, that his body and head were covered with them. . . ." - True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo (1492-1580)
Then "free markets" have NEVER & WILL NEVER exist. This contradicts you previous definition. It is also incredibly vague.
Quite possibly but that is what is required for a truly free market. I doubt that there are many here besides myself who have adopted such an absolute definition but almost all use the same tenets of non-coercion and the free flow of information in their screwy definitions of free market that fit their particular agenda. Many definitions of free markets bandied about these days posit that any market subject to external influence is not free. While there may be some truth to this in a narrow and relative sense, because markets subject to external influence like government regulation or oversight may operate under reduced coercive influences and improved information flows, the belief that government regulation always impedes the freedom of markets becomes less believable. At its most simple and direct, the government exerts its most egregious interference in the freedom of markets by making coercion by force, i.e. robbery and piracy illegal. Archaic forms of coercive market influence that they are, for some reason governments all over the planet have sought to outlaw or otherwise regulate their practice for thousands of years. Additionally, the operation and regulation of public markets and exchanges, along with the establishment of public highways and ports, creates venues that make markets viable and cause information to become more available. I don't know where Frank650 got his definition of free markets, which is what I responded to, but it is quite obvious that he must be using a dictionary assembled by imbeciles.
On the contrary, I find the definition cited by Frank to be what many say a free market is but what they mean is a market free only of the government intervention that they dislike. The Classical notion of "free markets" was a market free of Economic Rent (Unearned Income).
They had lots of gold, and did beautiful stone work. But, they had fewer advancements than the Egyptians during the age of pyramids.
Egyptians had wheels that roll over the ground. The Mayans had wheels of time that were not understood until very recently. Since this is one of the only glimpses we have of their advancement the notion of who was more advanced is, at the very least, a subject of question.
The role of government is to protect individual rights, private property, contract law, etc. I'll give you some concrete examples of what I mean by government interference in the free market: 1. Subsidizing the price of sugar in the U.S. via regulations. 2. Paying farmers not to grow crops. 3. Closing markets to competition. 4. Bailing out companies with tax payer money. 5. Favoring corporations that align themselves with political interests. 6. Anti-Trust actions (show me one natural monopoly). 7. Deciding who you can sell to and at what price. 8. Banning products like 20 ounce sodas. 9. Punitive sin taxes. 10. Limiting health insurance discounts for healthy behavior (working out, losing weight, etc.). etc.
The role of government is to operate in the best interest of the public. Here are some examples of government interference in the free market: 1. making robbery and piracy illegal 2. making it illegal to poison people or otherwise endanger them 3. making it illegal for merchants to cheat, lie or otherwise deceive consumers 4. issuing currency 5. regulating banks 6. entering into trade agreements with other nations 7. collecting taxes 8. building infrastructure 9. firefighting 10. providing welfare and social security
Vilhelmo, I believe the quote Im a proponent of free markets but not a free-for-all market is attributed to Senator Elizabeth Warren. Im a proponent of aggregate consequences by markets self determining independent entrepreneurs and Im not opposed to governments identifying and prohibiting explicitly drafted practices that they determine to be contrary to their jurisdictions public safety, economies, or societies. Such laws and regulations appear within all USA levels of governments. Im a proponent of a global trade policy for the USA that has consistently experienced global trade deficits of goods in excess of a half century. Cheaper foreign goods are beneficial but they do not compensate wage and salary earning families for lesser numbers of jobs and the purchasing power of the median wage due to the trade deficit. Their earnings purchasing powers are less because our policy is preferential to nations that cannot or will not better compensate their own laborers. Refer to the discussion thread entitled Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage, http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=226393&highlight=trade+deficit or google Wikipedias article entitled Import Certificates For the policys justification refer to the thread Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations GDP, http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=259858&highlight=trade+deficit or google the paragraphs entitled Trade Balances' effects upon their nations GDP within the Wikipedias article entitled Balance of trade. Respectfully, Supposn
A trade deficit is a GOOD thing! It means the nation "gets" more than it "gives". Who wants to "give" more than they "get"?
