Why do republicans favor the free market system?

[Mr. Know it all]

What Sith Lord said; eloquent.

[Puller58]

They do? News to me. I see it as a "pay to play" system. If you don't pay, (Campaign donation) you can't play. (Regulations on you and a pass for your competition.)

[Liberal Fascism]

Its creates competition, creating jobs, creating economic growth.

[ihatelibs]

Even the Chinese realize that capitalism is the way to go. That's why their economy has taken off and done so well in recent years. Look what happened to the Russian economy under communism, it fell, HARD. Capitalism works whether you like it or not.

[crabby_blindguy3]

The Republicans don't favor free markets--where did you get that idea? Or do you actually believe their rhetoric?

A free market requires oversight--to make sure that the participants "play the game according tothe rules." That's not some new idea--Adam Smith made that clear in "Wealth of Nations." He was very specific in that the idea of a free market meant that businesses could not have a favored position protected by the state.

That's the liberal (and Democrat) position--not the GOP. The Republicans are the ones who favor subsidies (including currently over $1 billion to Exxon, of all things). They actively block efforts to introduce new technology (the energy industry is an obvious example). They do not support the right of labor to organize and bargain as equals in the marketplace.

There's nothing "free market"--or even capitalist--about the Repubilcans or their agenda. It's actually a form of socialism, not capitalism--just one that favors government controls for the benefit of business, instead of for average people. But it's socialism nevertheless.

[hissinggeese738]

You are right. It should not say Republicans. It should read RICH PEOPLE OR RULING ELITES. Because they have the capital to go to third world countries and buy up all their natural resources etc. ITS CRIMINAL!!

[Joe L]

Well, the free market is the natural order of things. If I have something you want, I can charge you whatever you are willing to pay to get it. If somebody else wants it, you have to pay more than that person wants or I can sell it to him.

That is the essential premise of freedom. That I can work as hard as I want to produce something of value and, once it is so produced, I have the right to sell it for as much as the market will bear. If I produce something no one wants, then I will not be able sell it. Thus, the energy of the entrepeneur is focused on providing goods and services society is willing to pay for and the goods and services nobody wants will eventually die it. It is, simply, survival of the fittest.

For example, you will notice that there are not as many buggy whip manufacturers as there would have been in the 19th century. That is because the market does no demand buggy whips. There were no automobile mechanics in the 19th century, however, and the are multitudes of them now. The market has changed.

This system works invariably until the government gets involved and Democrats favor government interference in the market. The Democrats would advocate, because there is no market for buggy whips, that the government support that industry because buggy whip manufacturers are going out of business. The reason they are going out of business, however, is because their trade is obsolete. The Democrats will use taxpayer money to keep the buggy whip trade going despite the fact there is no call for their service. This is where the natural order of things gets screwed up.

Take, for instance, the mortgage "crisis". Sure, there were families that got caught up taking Adjustable Rate Mortgages. However, who's fault is that? Certainly not mine, the government's or even the mortgage companies. Those people signed off on bad deals. But even in that, they were the minority. I'm p*ssed off because I bought a house six years ago, was smart enough to pay a point higher on my mortgage to get a fixed rate (and I had bad credit) and have never missed a payment. Now, I look around and see that I could have got a lower interest rate and the government would come bail me out for being stupid.

The vast majority of the people affected are the people buying houses to "flip" them. They, generally, signed up fo finance their investment, the house, for as little as possible during the time they held it to the sale. However, interest rates went up and, just like musical chairs, the one's holding houses at the time of the increase, which is cyclical based upon inflation, got stuck holding the houses. There are two problems.

One the government is controlling the interest rates and interfering in the market. Thus, you have the conditions for failure right there. Two, Eventually, these "investors" are subject to natural fluxuations in the market. Ultimately, the value of these houses will go up provided they are maintained, but these people never intended to be long term homeowners. Now, the government, interfering in the market once again, will bail them out.

It is a recipe for disaster.

EDIT
Labor organizing under government auspices is not the free market. The free market occurs when you walk into McDonald's and apply for a job. They assess your skills and make an offer according to what they can afford to pay you for what you bring to the table. Government sanctioned labor unions, on the other hand, place the power in the hands of labor. It is not labor that took the risk to begin the business. It is the entrepeneur. That is why the entrepeneur has the right to make the most money off of the endevour. If not for him, the business entity would not exist and the unions would have nowhere to work.

[Jack]

So if we had a non-free market system, would that eliminate corruption?

Love Jack

[DOC]

My, my Ken, you're up awfully early. I'm not even sure where to begin. I strongly suspect by your views posted that you've not REALLY thought through much of any of this. Nor have you studied history. Social welfare is slavery reconstituted. Consider this, there are no requirements to learn a trade while collecting welfare, nor are there requirements to learn financial planning. Nor is there an end date at which point the money spicket will automatically shut off. There is absolutely no encouragement to get off the system and become self-sufficient and self-supportive. It's turned into a generational way of life AND THOSE people demand that you and I pay. We offer up "free" education K-12 and higher education at a reduced rate of tuition and most refuse to take advantage of the opportunity afforded them. It's about at this point that I ask, "What good is choice without consequence?".
As a business owner, I received no tax breaks, nor do I rate getting a "stimulus check." Last year however, I was told by my stated that I had to pay my untrained, unskilled labor force more -- they raised minimum wage. I raised their pay as mandated, and then everyone else demanded that I raise their pay to reflect the pecking order and their seniority -- let's talk about welfare... I'm in the busines of making money. That's what I do. I'm not making any and cannot afford to remain open if I have little or no profit margin. I raised my rates. Sort of null and voided their minimum wage increase. It was successful however in the raising of inflation. I'm not greedy, I live in a double wide and my youngest car is 15 years old. I DO however, provide jobs to those who as adults have not yet learned to look both ways before crossing the street (which sadly, seems to be the majority of Americans).
You folks seem too have this idea that the economic situation of today happened due to something the Republicans have done. May I point out a few simple facts? It was a Republican held congress that voted in favor of raising interest rates, changed the laws governing who qualifies for bankruptcy and NAFTA. None of those bills could be signed into law without the president's signature. If he disagreed with the bill, he should have vetoed it/them. Mr. Clinton signed into law two out of the three. MR. Clinton set up the lending practices that allowed for subprime lending and it was Mr.Clinton who signed NAFTA, sending your inskilled, untrained type jobs overseas and did NOT make plans for retraining those whose jobs he sent away.
I fear that you are typical of most Americans, you cannot see passed today to look to tomorrow. And with that in mind, you have not grown up and are still in need of Mom and Dad government to take care of you. Pitty.

[guerrilla]

Republicans apparently hate being taxed and fear 'socialism' (read slavery to the state). Ironically they seem unaware that the conditions the free-market demands in return for their low taxation and freedom - minimal social security, diminished public services, privatisation, deregulation, weak unions, and breaking of international trade barriers – happen to be the conditions required to make them either wage-slaves or destitute, and coincidently make the elite ever richer.

The reason free-market doctrines are so widely embraced is the power of media framing combined with a population untutored and unskilled in critical thinking. Owned by multi-millionaires media power promotes the ideas that support their interests and those of their advertisers. Those voices which cogently warn against the free-market are suppressed, ridiculed, and ignored. It is through the ‘liberal’ media that free-market doctrines have come to look like the only choice. The media sells the free-market by reframing our political language, ignoring inconvenient truths, and by vilifying free-market opponents and free-market victims. Republicans simply buy what they are told. Democrats are not immune.