frame

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Opening Argument

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's , ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:

A. http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries//page/1

B. http://www.cbafaq.com/minimums.htm

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:

A. www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2017/

B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?


Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

someone234DrCerealjoecavalryaarong
  1. Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?

    7 votes
    1. Yes
      71.43%
    2. No
      28.57%
«1

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Not just insensible practically but idiotic to aim for even in its theoretical form.
    xMathFanx
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • Personally, I support a free market system, and although I agree that all of your premises are correct as listed, I think that overall, it keeps society running. It is true that actors and athletes make a crap top on money compared to researchers, but keep in mind that they are doing physical sports that may lead to injury in the head, knees, rib cage, and a hefty salary can help to pay for injuries should such occur. With an actor, it is different, their salaries should be more reduced than athletes, but also keep in mind that they not only have to be capable of moving in relation with the camera, but also dramatically release their lines. Most athletes and actors have some sort of associates or bachelors degree in the sport or acting of their choosing, there are college courses that deal with light positioning among other things when filming a person. Now, I agree that the system is heavily flawed, but because each group has a particular set of talents, especially physical talents, we value those people at more because of what injuries might come to them more than a researcher. While an athlete might be famous, it is still truly the mind of the intellect that will be remembered in history for his/her accomplishments that a salary alone can not judge.
  • Today, in a free market we find the freest trade is at the garage sale level. The next level is at a flea market, where seller needs to negotiate rental space to sale their items (aka less freedom). As more levels of bureaucracy increases, maintains dynamic channels of resistance in conflict with those channels seeking freedom. This natural dynamic flow between resistance and freedom is known as the physical constructal law (the latest discovered law in thermodynamics dealing with flow independent of domain). The evening satellite image of the Korean peninsula illustrates the economics of government “Centralized” control of trade (North Korea) relative to the private ownership initiating the flow of trade having dynamic channels of freedom and resistance (South Korea).   

    It is normal for all flow systems to have dynamic channels of resistance and freedom, otherwise, evolution will not exist. Therefore, the evolution of a free market was ongoing for thousands of years, and most likely will continue well beyond our time. 

  • @Mike All nations that are at the 'top of the world' have got there by abandoning capitalism for centrist socialist-type leadership styles. The only highly economically developed nation that doesn't adhere to this is USA and unlike Western Europe, Canada, Australia etc, USA has higher rates of poverty and hatred to the government than they do.

    Overall, the world has proven that free market capitalism always (always not often but always) results in high levels of poverty and dissatisfaction among the populace and it furthermore has proven that richer nations that end up with left-leaning centrism have nations where even the worst off among their people are doing relatively okay in world-standards.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234
    If you think “centrist socialist-type leadership” is the way to go, then move to North Korea.
  • @Mike LOL! In what way are they centrists?
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • My basic argument is this:

    The people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model). In order to ensure this, we would still operate under a "Market" system, but simply constrain the Market by switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure. Practically, this would be enforced by regulatory incentives.

    The argument for a "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" is basically:

    "If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this ("this" being the dynamic I described before), then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what is being promoted)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current system is taking as a given the notion that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than utility value system (while this is not at all obvious and I have raised a large number of profound concerns of the logical consequences in valuing people's individual preferences rather than their productive contributions).

    In fact, most of my argument is centered around this fundamental Philosophical point


  • @Mike All nations that are at the 'top of the world' have got there by abandoning capitalism for centrist socialist-type leadership styles. The only highly economically developed nation that doesn't adhere to this is USA and unlike Western Europe, Canada, Australia etc, USA has higher rates of poverty and hatred to the government than they do.

    Overall, the world has proven that free market capitalism always (always not often but always) results in high levels of poverty and dissatisfaction among the populace and it furthermore has proven that richer nations that end up with left-leaning centrism have nations where even the worst off among their people are doing relatively okay in world-standards.

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

    Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    The way I see it, Capitalism is based on freedom, where Socialism is based on State tyranny.

    As for the moral factor in free market systems, I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on freedom:

    “Of liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

  • Mike said:
    @Mike All nations that are at the 'top of the world' have got there by abandoning capitalism for centrist socialist-type leadership styles. The only highly economically developed nation that doesn't adhere to this is USA and unlike Western Europe, Canada, Australia etc, USA has higher rates of poverty and hatred to the government than they do.

    Overall, the world has proven that free market capitalism always (always not often but always) results in high levels of poverty and dissatisfaction among the populace and it furthermore has proven that richer nations that end up with left-leaning centrism have nations where even the worst off among their people are doing relatively okay in world-standards.

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

    Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    The way I see it, Capitalism is based on freedom, where Socialism is based on State tyranny.

    As for the moral factor in free market systems, I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on freedom:

    “Of liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

    @Mike ;

    "Capitalism" as it is generally used, is consistent with both a "Free Market" system and various forms of "Constrained/Regulated Market" systems. I am arguing for a form of "Constrained Market" system (in the short term) as I think they still have usefulness and are feasible to implement in the current climate/Zeitgeist. However, it is important to note that the type of "Constrained Market" system I am proposing is very different than typically conceived of by people such as Sanders, Green Party, ect. ect. 

    Now, the economy already is "rigged", so all you would have to do is "rig" it in a different direction (as well as the imperative of getting people more interested in productive, creative, activities rather than frivolousness--note, rigging the economy would in it of itself shift peoples interests due to the incentive structure). That is, jobs that have high utility value (e.g. "Blue Collar" laborers, Architects, Scientists, ect.) objectively contribute far more to society than Justin Bieber (although the current system incentive structure would suggest that this is the other way around). The current Market system is based on preference value while I am arguing for a utility value system.

    It would still be a market system, there would still be an abundance of greedy, self-interested people, ect. ect, However, by necessity, the work they would be doing if they wanted to increase their wealth would be productive and actually benefit society rather than frivolous--e.g. Models would not be paid much at all in such a society while being a Construction worker, many "Blue Collar" intensive labor, Scientist, Architect, ect. ect. would be paid well (just nearly flip everything on its head, roughly speaking)). This is why I said such a system is feasible in the short-term given the current climate/Zeitgeist. It would essentially be like a Social Democratic society but rather than the type of "Inverse Capitalism" that Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein/Green Party, ect. promote, it would be based on a productivity/utility incentive structure.
  • @xMathFanx Who gets to decide which jobs are productive and essential and which are not?
  • xMathFanxxMathFanx 85 Pts
    edited December 2017
    CYDdharta said:
    @xMathFanx Who gets to decide which jobs are productive and essential and which are not?

    You can quantify the obvious difference between the contributions of Kim Kardashian and Applied Physicists for example--or countless other examples. When the difference is patently obvious there is nothing difficult to figure out.

    I'm not attempting to determine who is more productive between a Construction Worker and Waste Management for instance.  Rather I am discussing different general levels concerning utility/productivity across professions.  Consider the thought experiment below:

    Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's as' to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

    Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

    Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)


  • xMathFanx said:
    CYDdharta said:
    @xMathFanx Who gets to decide which jobs are productive and essential and which are not?

    You can quantify the obvious difference between the contributions of Kim Kardashian and Applied Physicists for example--or countless other examples. When the difference is patently obvious there is nothing difficult to figure out.

    I'm not attempting to determine who is more productive between a Construction Worker and Waste Management for instance.  Rather I am discussing different general levels concerning utility/productivity across professions.  Consider the thought experiment below:

    Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's as' to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

    Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

    Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)


    That evades the question.  Who gets to decide the different general levels concerning utility/productivity across professions?  Someone will have to decide if a sanitation worker is more essential than someone who cleans an office.  I'd suggest government bureaucrats would take the largest hit in such a system.
  • @xMathFanx

    I’m under the impression Bernie Sanders is a socialist according to politico. Historically we know the performance of socialism, please observe what is happening today in South America for example, according to Deutsche Welle (DW).

    Thank you for your version of a “Constrained Market.” If the US were to implement such a constrain, then all the “Justin Bieber”(s) in the Hollywood crowd and other high payed sports/performers will take their wealth and flock offshore where other markets will pay them more. Just similar to the natural flow of industry going offshore for a better deal over the past number of decades. That is why Trump is trying to bring back our jobs by decreasing regulations and corporate taxes; and that’s how a free-market works.  

    Putting too many constrains on a free-market you will come to the example along the Korean peninsula. That is, the markets in the south are much freer than the markets in the north. This is simply consistent empirical observations of freedom relative to tyranny throughout the ages.

  • @Mike South America is extremely capitalist BECAUSE of how anti communist most of it ended up becoming. Colombia is like the pinnacle of corrupt capitalism.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • CYDdharta said:
    xMathFanx said:
    CYDdharta said:
    @xMathFanx Who gets to decide which jobs are productive and essential and which are not?

    You can quantify the obvious difference between the contributions of Kim Kardashian and Applied Physicists for example--or countless other examples. When the difference is patently obvious there is nothing difficult to figure out.

    I'm not attempting to determine who is more productive between a Construction Worker and Waste Management for instance.  Rather I am discussing different general levels concerning utility/productivity across professions.  Consider the thought experiment below:

    Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's as' to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).

    Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.

    Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)


    That evades the question.  Who gets to decide the different general levels concerning utility/productivity across professions?  Someone will have to decide if a sanitation worker is more essential than someone who cleans an office.  I'd suggest government bureaucrats would take the largest hit in such a system.

    I'm not evading that question at all.  First, before we proceed, do you take similar issue with the example I gave about Kim Kardashian type Celebrities vs. Applied Physicists (and the like)?
  • @Mike South America is extremely capitalist BECAUSE of how anti communist most of it ended up becoming. Colombia is like the pinnacle of corrupt capitalism.
    The former USSR was based on communism and that system of government murdered millions of its own citizens according to historical record from many different sources. The reason why all communistic nations have a lower standard of living for its citizens, is because that system of governance goes against the physical constructal law. That is, any human action that does not comply with the physical laws of nature is an action that will fail or eventually go extinct, as in the example of the former USSR. This is part of social evolution, and in units of generational time, the philosophy of Marxism will go extinct from the incarnation of repeatable empirical evidence of failure, embracing evolution, or in the reformation of social philosophies.
  • @Mike It's very easy to point out that USSR resulted in deaths because the government actually had control there. In nations like Kenya many people die young, live in famine and have no way out. Does the government get the blame? No, the system that they are too lazy to monitor and control gets the blame.

    A free market is an untamed market. An untamed market ends up rigged 2 generations down the line.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Mike It's very easy to point out that USSR resulted in deaths because the government actually had control there. In nations like Kenya many people die young, live in famine and have no way out. Does the government get the blame? No, the system that they are too lazy to monitor and control gets the blame.

    A free market is an untamed market. An untamed market ends up rigged 2 generations down the line.
    Any social system that is “untamed” is not a civil system. The free market works best in a civil society. I now understand where you’re coming from. That is, morality is your nemesis, not a free market.
  • @Mike Morality is not my nemesis in this debate whatsoever because I AM ON THE MORALISTIC SIDE.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Mike Morality is not my nemesis in this debate whatsoever because I AM ON THE MORALISTIC SIDE.
    In reference to your term “untamed.” Is an untamed event moral or immoral?  
  • @Mike it is amoral meaning it has no morality policing it whatsoever. It can just as easily fall into the wrong hands as the right ones (in theory).

    In practicality it always falls into the wrong hands because the right hands would need law-enforcement power in order to prevent corruption.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • I'm not sure if we can have sensible discussion on the topic @someone234 without defining exactly what we mean by free market - relating to pay scales, relating to public services, relating to spending, what?

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • @Medic
    Wages? Low as you can pay the starving b****es
    Taxes? Low as possible not to irritate the rich supreme overlords.
    Public Services? Hahahahha... AHHAHAHAHHAHAHA ohhhh god... Good one.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Mike it is amoral meaning it has no morality policing it whatsoever. It can just as easily fall into the wrong hands as the right ones (in theory).

    In practicality it always falls into the wrong hands because the right hands would need law-enforcement power in order to prevent corruption.

    Good point about “law-enforcement.”

    The success of man-made law is dependent on its relationship to society’s norms and on the virtue of one’s morality. One’s morality is independent of man-made law. A man-made law only gives one license to litigate those who alleged to have broken a law and in the process, the transfer of wealth and/or incarceration occurs. The fear of litigation is no substitute for morality. As morality declines, numerous complicated laws may emerge. These new laws, no matter how well intended, may reduce the liberty of moral, law-abiding citizens as immoral individuals care less or look for ways to subvert the law.

    For example, in the US murder is against the law. Then why is it happening in the US? Hence, the morality factor is the key, the law only guides those who are moral in a civil society. 

  • @Mike Do you live in LALA land?

    I don't care how poetic you can write the justification for something if when it's applied it's always inhumane and corrupt to the core.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch