Should there be a limit on the free market?

No f****** thank you.

Of course there should be hence why we have had regulations in our system since the late 1800s!.. These aren't some crazy ideological ideas that are forced upon, they were solutions to problems society dealt with in the time they were passed... There is a fine balance in everything.. Quite frankly I don't get the people who believe there should be total free market.. They are as bad and neive as the people who want a complete socialism.. sSubZerOo

There is no balance in a government being allowed to tell a business what it is allowed to invest in. That would be the end of the free-market and a step closer to a state-controlled economy.

Only thing that should be limited is monopolies and abusive corporations (to the environment, to the workforce, to the governments).

The free market which resides on capital should have no limits as anyone with a great idea and a great enough network can get their corporation/company started.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Of course there should be hence why we have had regulations in our system since the late 1800s!.. These aren't some crazy ideological ideas that are forced upon, they were solutions to problems society dealt with in the time they were passed... There is a fine balance in everything.. Quite frankly I don't get the people who believe there should be total free market.. They are as bad and neive as the people who want a complete socialism.. airshocker

There is no balance in a government being allowed to tell a business what it is allowed to invest in. That would be the end of the free-market and a step closer to a state-controlled economy.

Uh they already do that to a extent... If the investing direclty leads to breaking the law or supporting a group, individual etc in breaking the law.. Its fully legal for a government to enforce.. Or do you think a company should be able to invest in illegal drug cartels with out repraucutions?

We typically limit the size in market share of a particular company, not how many markets they can enter into. I think restricting the size in market share is more important than restricting the number of markets. As long as adequate competition/supplier numbers are maintained in all of the entered-into-markets, a multi-market company shouldn't be too detrimental.

Uh they already do that to a extent... If the investing direclty leads to breaking the law or supporting a group, individual etc in breaking the law.. Its fully legal for a government to enforce.. Or do you think a company should be able to invest in illegal drug cartels with out repraucutions?

sSubZerOo

I was referring to fully legal business ventures as was described in the OP. The government doesn't do that currently.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Uh they already do that to a extent... If the investing direclty leads to breaking the law or supporting a group, individual etc in breaking the law.. Its fully legal for a government to enforce.. Or do you think a company should be able to invest in illegal drug cartels with out repraucutions?

airshocker

I was referring to fully legal business ventures as was described in the OP. The government doesn't do that currently.

Oh I wasn't agreeing with the TC in the end. I was more expanding on my thoughts of the actual TOPIC title more then anything else.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Uh they already do that to a extent... If the investing direclty leads to breaking the law or supporting a group, individual etc in breaking the law.. Its fully legal for a government to enforce.. Or do you think a company should be able to invest in illegal drug cartels with out repraucutions?

I was referring to fully legal business ventures as was described in the OP. The government doesn't do that currently.

Yes they do please keep upEmpCom

Where does the government tell a company it can't expand into a different market?

I don't see anything in your post to give any legitimate reasons, other than it's not fair.

It goes against the princples of free market and would be too hard to enforce on a multinational company

There really should be. Shoot me down all you like, but in Australia our entire retail industry is dominated by two companies - Woolworths and Wesfarmers. Here's the state of the retail sector in Australia:

WOOLWORTHS:

Largest Retailer in Australia:

• Supermarkets: Woolworths (~38% market share, 864 outlets)
• Liqour: BWS, Dan Murpheys, Woolworths Liqour (600, 56, and 500 outlets respectively)
• Petrol: Caltex Woolworths (over 500 outlets)
• General Merchandise: Big W (168 outlets)
• Electronics: Dick Smith
• Home Improvement: Masters

Also operates in New Zealand

WESFARMERS:

Second Largest Retailer in Australia:

• Supermarkets: Coles (~33% market share, 741 outlets)
• Liqour: Liqourland, Spirit Hotels, 1st Choice Liqour (629, 95, and 76 respectively)
• Petrol: Coles Express (619 outlets)
• General Merchandise: K-Mart (172 outlets), Target (291 outlets)
• Home Improvement: Bunnings (largest hardware store in southern hemisphere, 289 outlets), Officeworks (141 outlets)

Also owns three mines, four insurance companies, seven energy companies, and ten industrial safety companies

There has been a great deal of concentration in the retail sector. In an economy of roughly $1.5tn national income, these two companies made $54bn in revenue each. The largest 'revenue earners' in Australia are the government ($350bn) followed by these two companies ($108bn combined). Thus of all private sector income (~$1.15tn), rougly 10% goes through these two companies. Compare this to Wal-Mart in the US where allWal-Mart revenue (including overseas ventures) equates to about 3.4% of private sector income.

There should be laws in place that encourage competition and prevent monopolies and corporate excesses. Those are limits I support.

Yes.

Then again, I'm a darling fascist bullyboy.

I guess my thought is that if these companies aren't allowed to make these types of ventures who else will and how long will we have to wait for someone else to come up with the idea to do it? I pretty much guarantee that GE won't release it's it's salt water desalinizationtechnologyto someone else just because the government said you have a limit on how much business you are allowed to do. Theywould either sit on it or move it to a country without those regulations.

that moves me to my next point, which is that other countries would have new-founded, and quite serious, competitive advantage. So no I'm quite against this idea of companies having a numerical limit on the amount of busisness bentures they are allowed to take.

There should be laws in place that encourage competition and prevent monopolies and corporate excesses. Those are limits I support.

sonicare

well i think there should obviously be limits, anyone who tells you otherwise is a delusional absolutist..........and only a sith deals in absolutes....and Ron Paul....could he be?........naaaahhh........but wait?

oh because everything we have done so far has been working out so great. id rather have 6 companies controlling the world than just 1 government. lloveLamp

There should always be limits on powerful institutions, whether they be public or private. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]There should always be limits on powerful institutions, whether they be public or private. FragStains

If there are limits on a free market, is it still free? :P

well i think there should obviously be limits, anyone who tells you otherwise is a delusional absolutist..........and only a sith deals in absolutes....and Ron Paul....could he be?........naaaahhh........but wait?

BossPerson

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Uh they already do that to a extent... If the investing direclty leads to breaking the law or supporting a group, individual etc in breaking the law.. Its fully legal for a government to enforce.. Or do you think a company should be able to invest in illegal drug cartels with out repraucutions?

airshocker

I was referring to fully legal business ventures as was described in the OP. The government doesn't do that currently.

Don't know about the US but in Europe we have laws that prevent companies to acquire monopolistic positions (ex: buying out all the competition) or that engage in anti-competitive practices. I'm all for this. Corporations need to be kept on a short leash, as said situations hurt the consumer.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Uh they already do that to a extent... If the investing direclty leads to breaking the law or supporting a group, individual etc in breaking the law.. Its fully legal for a government to enforce.. Or do you think a company should be able to invest in illegal drug cartels with out repraucutions?

nunovlopes

I was referring to fully legal business ventures as was described in the OP. The government doesn't do that currently.

Don't know about the US but in Europe we have laws that prevent companies to acquire monopolistic positions (ex: buying out all the competition) or that engage in anti-competitive practices. I'm all for this. Corporations need to be kept on a short leash, as said situations hurt the consumer.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I was referring to fully legal business ventures as was described in the OP. The government doesn't do that currently.

markop2003

Don't know about the US but in Europe we have laws that prevent companies to acquire monopolistic positions (ex: buying out all the competition) or that engage in anti-competitive practices. I'm all for this. Corporations need to be kept on a short leash, as said situations hurt the consumer.

Don't know about the US but in Europe we have laws that prevent companies to acquire monopolistic positions (ex: buying out all the competition) or that engage in anti-competitive practices. I'm all for this. Corporations need to be kept on a short leash, as said situations hurt the consumer.

nunovlopes

The US has anti-monopoly laws. That wasn't what I was referring to. There is no monopoly if a company that specializes in retail decides to start making electronics of their own to sell. Like Amazon, for example.

Bioshock taught me that unfettered capitalism = apocalyptic civil war, so yeah.

In underdeveloped countries with capitalism, its a HUGE pain, like in some South American countries I've visited. Being in a country with only one major internet/phone/TV service sucks massive testicles, especially when the customer service doesn't have an incentive to give a crap about you and they overcharge the sh** out of you.

Of course, the entire concept of free market and competitive businesses rely on a institution limiting the market to make sure it remains fair.

The idea of an unregulated free market is, to say the least, laughable.

The idea of an unregulated free market is, to say the least, laughable.

htekemerald

I never supported free market Capitalism from the begining because I think it leads to certain, inherent abuses, where those who are strong and capable of working long hours end up abusing the system for the own private gain.

Free market Capitalism leads to exploitation of the weak and poor and creates inequality in society which is inherent property of this system.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

The idea of an unregulated free market is, to say the least, laughable.

themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

The idea of an unregulated free market is, to say the least, laughable.

rastotm

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"] why?themajormayor

The free market can only be maintaned with some regulation like stopping monoplies from forming, consumer rights ect... Othewise only one company would take over and there would be no competition whatsoever,but I don't believe we should "limit" the market like you are describing. I don't think it should be limited at all, instead we shouldmake it easier for new businesses to get started and grow so they can compete and make lower prices and hire more people ect...

Bioshock anyone?