how is the free market responsible for social inequality?

[bally-b]

i believe this is a view held among social democrats. can anyone shed some light on this? im just interested in hearing peoples opinions and also the fact that i am unsure how an unrestricted free market economy is able to directly affect social institutions in society.

thanks for your time!

[Warren T]

IT ISN'T. IT IS JUST A FACT THAT LIFE IS NOT FAIR, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT LIBERALS CANNOT COMPREHEND.

[badmofaux]

Your premise is a little off.
It's not a free market. And, it hasn't been for quite some time.

So, what we're currently dealing with is not a "free" market but a restricted market that is controlled by dominant corporations that have purchased influence over our government. This kind of crony-capitalism functions as a 'de facto' oligarchy in which a select few control the entire market and any opportunities to be gained in it.

This system will always create a widening gap between the richest elites and the poorest of the poor. And, the people in the middle will get pulled steadily toward either end.

[Eliot K]

In a free market, business can lower wages if there is a surplus of workers. This results in a group of people (low-paid workers) who may be unable to afford living a decent life.

Also, in a free market, businesses can save money by externalizing some costs. For example, with no regulation, I can sell you fruit juice, make it sweeter with anti-freeze, and toss the garbage into the river.

The result is that people who depend on the river suffer, and people drinking the juice suffer, but there is no recourse except suing me. But, in a free market (as envisioned by Republicans) they are not going to get justice, because businesses have the power to limit access to the court and put a limit on how much can be paid to injured parties.

A free market with controls, such as minimum wages, limits on hours worked per week, safety regulations, environmental regulations, full access to the courts for everybody, there is likely to be less social inequality.

Finally, If regulations - such as tax laws - are structured in favor of the wealthy, then there is a continuing, overall transfer of wealth from the many to the few, leading to social inequality.

Some people would call a system of strongly progressive taxation ("tax the rich") as being anti-free market. yet, it is the fairest, easiest way to return money to the consumer economy and increase social equality.

[ggraves1724]

First of all, the premise of social inequality will always exist no matter the system. My opinion for the United State is; we are all spoiled and have watched or been part of government hand outs for so long, the phrase social inequality, like racism, has really lost it's real meaning.

There has been some argument whether or not economic inequality is a good thing or bad. An example is: Just before a big economic boom or bust there is social inequality. You would be guessing above the greatest minds in the world if you or anyone had the real or right answer to this question.

[jesswzmn]

bally....

under capitalism, there is no social equality, for the very nature of the free market implies that there are winners and losers, those who make it big, the average, and those who are just unable to compete for whatever reasons, or those who have misfortunes. This was always the case.

What has happened is that the social inequality is worse than before because capitalism has been corrupted...it has been hijacked. What we have going on now is not free market but rather a collusion market where the playing field is no longer balanced but rather heavily tilted in favor of the rich and the big rich corporations they own. the field is so tilted that the notion of country and sovereignty of countries has been replaced by the enhancement of profits. This is why so called democracies are going down the toilet economically because those govts no longer serve their people..rather they serve money....and money from anywhere...so that for example...the govt of the USA is more of a servant of British petroleum than it is a servant of joe citizen...it serves McDonalds market interest in china more than it cares whether citizens here have jobs, etc....

Social inequality is rising not because of free markets but because of the corruption of free makets.
What do i mean by corruption? well...lets take outsourcing of jobs....if employers and workers in the USA negotiated wages and made thigns here in the USA ..that would be the free market, but when the govt allows factories to be closed here in the USA and the goods to be made in china and brought back to USA....this is bypassing the free market and saying that employers have an extra advantage ..to scour the globe to find the dirt cheapest labor possible ..something americans workers cannot compete with...this is not free market...its racqueteering. Same thing for illegal aliens....the fact that illegals are allowed to impact the labor market and drive down wages and benefits....is making a mockery of the free market. Bringing in people from outside the market into the market who are not citizens of the country and do not have rights..etc...is not a level playing field..its corruption and racqueteering. Its also against the very core of fthe type of country that we are ...which is supposedly a country where the govt serves the people. If govt truly served the people, would the govt allow outsourcing of jobs, or the illegal aliens invasion? of course not.....those things exist becasue the govt does not serve the people.....the govt serves whoever is benefiting the most from those policies. Lets see...who could that be? who could that be???

[Annoyingbubble402]

it is responsible in the laws