Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Free Market and Social Services

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
On Dec 26, 2005 on PBS, Charlie Rose program, Nobel prize winner Economist Dr. Milton Friedman explained his solution for the problems of the Public Education. Dr. Milton Friedman favors issuing School Vouchers to the parents of each student and let the parents to choose freely on any school that they wish. Dr. Friedman has been promoting the Free Market economy for the past thirty years, and he has influenced many new policies which has been passed through the US congress. President Bush 43 has been trying to implement School Vouchers idea on the public school system. Free Market economy is the new phrase for the older term of Supply and Demand.

I see major flaws with Dr. Friedman's Free Market economy.
Let me give you couple examples to crystallize my view;

If the rules and regulations are so bad for the businesses, then we should eliminate all the rules and regulations for the Stock Market and let the Free Market, and the investors to do whatever they like to maximize their profit.
In Oct 1929 we did experience what would happen to the Stock Market when the market just runs under Free Market by the forces of 'greed and fear' without any regulations.

If Free Market is such a marvelous idea then why do we have so many laws and ordinances for our city planning? We should allow the developers build freely whatever they want and wherever they want. We should let them loose, and kiss good bye the livability of our cities!

As you see from these simple and vivid examples, Free Market in its raw forms is totally wrong approach. Free Market is the Law of Jungle which has to be tamed. We need to control our wild side, our extreme predatory behaviors is harmful for the well-being of our societies. Societies have created some laws to tame those evil behaviors. For example usury laws and amortized mortgages were introduced to protect the public from the unfair practices of the Financial Market. But in dash for Free Market some of these devils have been let totally loose.

Our civilization has come along way to tame the Laws of Jungle and properly analyze our social and economical situations and find a proper solution for our economy and our social programs. Just because we have a corrupt Government we should not abandon our basic analytical knowledge and admire these crook scholars for their lofty ideas.

I am so curious why the media has never bothered to ask Dr. Friedman's Free Market ideology on US Heath System? I have never seen Dr. Friedman to explain why the Free Market forces has failed so miserably the US Heath System? US Heath system is enjoying the Free Market forces and most analyses that I have seen they were expressing that US Heath system is broken! Free Market ideology on US Heath System has given us fantastic rise on cost of the heath services. The number of people who can not afford the Free Market Health System has exploded and it is getting worse. US Heath System is fantastic example of failure of Dr. Friedman's Free Market economy. Now Dr. Friedman is promoting that corrupt ideology to the Public Education System! And it seems there is no qualified opposition to stop this crazy trend.

In his analysis of the Public Schools Dr. Milton Friedman weighed in heavily on some of the management deficiencies of the Public School system and he so conveniently disregarded lack of proper funding for public schools! Dr. Milton Friedman's genius suggestion would enable the parents of the students who are already in the private schools to draw the amount of the School Voucher from the government education budget and use it for their children's tuition in private schools. In this scenario there would be even less money for the public schools! So the parents who can send their children to private schools and pay the balance of the tuition from their own pocket they save money and their kids will get fine education, and the low income people would end up with a voucher which would not be able to find a proper school for their children, and their only choice would be the Public School which by then there would be even less money for them; since part of the budget would have redirected to the private schools. No wonder Dr. Friedman is so popular in the affluent circuits. And for the low income people Dr. Friedman is the Robin hood in reverse order, with a shameful moral values.

In last 30 years the trend in Federal Budget and California State Budget has been; they gave a sizable tax relief for the big corporations and the rich, then that created budget deficit, then to balance the budget, they cut from the social programs! With the Voucher Program the Government can cut even more from the schools' budget and let the Free Market forces on their own to find some solutions for the deficiencies of the education system! I see clearly for the past 30 years Dr. Milton Friedman with his genius suggestions like these has done a lot of good for the big corporations and the affluent rich, and that is why he was awarded the Nobel Prize. I am sorry, that was the other way around; by awarding Dr. Milton Friedman a Nobel prize it made it easier to implement his crook ideas on US Economical Policies. I wonder who is in charge of the Nobel Prize Committee who awarded Dr. Friedman the Nobel prize for his lofty ideas!

However, if someone disagrees with my assessment of the economical trend of the past 30 years, for validation of statistical figures I offer them to read "The Two-Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Tyagi. That book offers detailed statistical figures on down-ward economical well-being of the middle class for that period.

If the Free Market is the best advice the economists could offer us, then we should forget about studying the economy since Jungle Law for economy do not need any elaborate explanation! By observing how the other Economists cherish Dr. Friedman's marvelous ideas then someone would question the validity of Economy as a legitimate scientific field. As far as I have observed the economical figures which the US government produces they have been subject to the political interpretations! During Campaign in election 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan accused President Jimmy Carter for Jimmying those Economical Statistics. This shows how flimsy those economical figures are.


In prison system we do have Federal Government's mandate to force the State governments to take care of the prison inmates very generously. Federal Judges has forced the State governments to spend over $50,000 per year for each inmate. But there is not such a standard to take care of the schools. Last few decades we have been busy discontinuing many programs at schools and in some cases shut down the entire schools and instead we have been busy building many new prisons. This is so shameful that percentage wise US holds the highest number of inmates amongst the industrial countries. I wonder who should address this grim unfortunate reality?

Is this the Shinning City with Thousand Lights that President Reagan promised us by cutting the budgets of the social programs? I guess we should have expected that Voodoo Economy would produce a Voodoo Shinning City!

To improve the efficiency of public schools I think we can create a reward incentive system for the teachers' salaries or their bonuses. We can create an algorithm which correlate the salary of the teachers with the average score which their students make in a unified testing for each grade. The students' scores on a uniform testing at the end of each school year would be a good measure of their achievements. And the teachers whom their students' scores are not satisfactory they could be required to take extra courses to compensate for their deficiencies. The teachers who fail repeatedly they should be dismissed based on lack of performance. That system would distinguish between a good instructor and a weak instructor, and would encourage and reward the excellence in our Education System. We also need to provide adequate funding for the schools, the health of our society is depended on it.

Americans always have prided themselves for their ingenuity and fearless aspirations. I wonder how did we lose that spirit, and we contented to this mediocre performance? Did we have any choice in this transformation?

Oh I forgot, how could we possibly match or challenge the geniuses of people like Dr. Milton Friedman or Mr. Karl Rove, the Architect?
Gee, their theories and their methods are so complex that nobody else can possibly comprehend them or duplicate them.

May God Bless us all,
Unes
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i didnt bother reading that, it got boring pretty much right away, and many people here wouldnt know what you were on about
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    MrG wrote:
    i didnt bother reading that, it got boring pretty much right away,

    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I couldn't read the whole thing either but I'm going to comment on the thread title instead.

    In any decent, caring society 'free market' and social/public services should never mix. Ever.

    On second thoughts, let me change that: in any decent, caring society 'free market' would simply not exist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote:
    i didnt bother reading that, it got boring pretty much right away, and many people here wouldnt know what you were on about

    Great response MrG :rolleyes: , most people should try to understand it at least because if David Cameron becomes PM, educational vouchers could be a reality in this country. Anybody who remembers the Thatcher years or has studied it should know what Unes is on about.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1681723,00.html

    quote:

    "There has been no similar intellectual revolution on the right. Conservatives overwhelmingly believe in a smaller state and deregulation; in education vouchers and an end to a tax-funded NHS. You may think they're wrong, but you should not doubt their sincerity."

    Damn good post Unes, one of the best I've read here in a long time. :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unes wrote:
    On Dec 26, 2005 on PBS, Charlie Rose program, Nobel prize winner Economist Dr. Milton Friedman explained his solution for the problems of the Public Education. Dr. Milton Friedman favors issuing School Vouchers to the parents of each student and let the parents to choose freely on any school that they wish. Dr. Friedman has been promoting the Free Market economy for the past thirty years, and he blah blah blah ...

    Whatever ... *yawns* :yeees:

    P.s. I presume you cut-and-pasted this topic rather than ACTUALLY waste your life typing it all up .. ?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Teagan wrote:
    Whatever ... *yawns* :yeees:

    P.s. I presume you cut-and-pasted this topic rather than ACTUALLY waste your life typing it all up .. ?

    Good, im not the only one to think its cut n paste.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In any decent, caring society 'free market' and social/public services should never mix. Ever.

    Rubbish. The free market is the best way for people to provide for other people. Always has been, always will be. Public services should never be run by those who aren't accountable. Ever.
    On second thoughts, let me change that: in any decent, caring society 'free market' would simply not exist.

    Lucky that society doesn't exist then, isn't it. The free market is quite simply the best way bar anarchy to not organise things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How come Free Market doesnt even "free market" anymore. When i studied economics the whole point was it, in theory, was a good thing. Again, what a crock of shit!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unes wrote:

    Free Market is the Law of Jungle which has to be tamed. We need to control our wild side, our extreme predatory behaviors is harmful for the well-being of our societies. Societies have created some laws to tame those evil behaviors. For example usury laws and amortized mortgages were introduced to protect the public from the unfair practices of the Financial Market. But in dash for Free Market some of these devils have been let totally loose.

    Our civilization has come along way to tame the Laws of Jungle and properly analyze our social and economical situations and find a proper solution for our economy and our social programs. Just because we have a corrupt Government we should not abandon our basic analytical knowledge and admire these crook scholars for their lofty ideas.

    Nonsense. Free markets cannot exist without enforcing the right to private property, without these rights wealth cannot be created. The free market is not the law of the jungle.
    I am so curious why the media has never bothered to ask Dr. Friedman's Free Market ideology on US Heath System? I have never seen Dr. Friedman to explain why the Free Market forces has failed so miserably the US Heath System? US Heath system is enjoying the Free Market forces and most analyses that I have seen they were expressing that US Heath system is broken!

    Failed in what? Providing medical services to those with the money? America doesn't strive to provide universal health care and seeing as more is spent per head than in most other developed nations it is not a failure at all.

    corrupt ideology

    :lol::lol:
    In his analysis of the Public Schools Dr. Milton Friedman weighed in heavily on some of the management deficiencies of the Public School system and he so conveniently disregarded lack of proper funding for public schools! Dr. Milton Friedman's genius suggestion would enable the parents of the students who are already in the private schools to draw the amount of the School Voucher from the government education budget and use it for their children's tuition in private schools. In this scenario there would be even less money for the public schools!

    What incentives does a school have to improve? There is a complete lack of competition as they are essentally monopolies. Giving people vouchers mean schools can compete for pupils and hence funds. If they fail, they lose money to the private sector. If they succeed the private sector loses out to them as they are the cheaper option.

    Forcing pupils into crap schools is an awful thing to do.

    Friedman doesn't support a full free market solution to education but regulation and some public finance.

    So the parents who can send their children to private schools and pay the balance of the tuition from their own pocket they save money and their kids will get fine education, and the low income people would end up with a voucher which would not be able to find a proper school for their children, and their only choice would be the Public School which by then there would be even less money for them; since part of the budget would have redirected to the private schools.

    They only lose out on the money they would gain from the pupils that leave. They will have reduced class sizes and more existing resources for students to use. Sounds like a good idea to me.

    [/QUOTE]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    How come Free Market doesnt even "free market" anymore. When i studied economics the whole point was it, in theory, was a good thing. Again, what a crock of shit!
    The problem subject is that in every single case where there has been a degree of single market policies, everyone has been the poorer. Except a very few priviledged people of course.

    You only have to look at society during Thatcher's reign to realise what an ugly, dehumanised and damaging thing free market philosophy is for almost everyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you want to see the "success" of free market policy, look at South America or the former USSR. 'nuff said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wait...the USSR practiced free market economics?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Read what I wrote will ya? The former USSR.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The former USSR still has a state, so it's cant be practicing free market economics. They also have shares, companies and all that other statist, feudalistic shit that goes with collectivist thinking. Still a socialistic fiction, sorry to say.

    If you'd like to see the success of free market economics, look at the US before they had a large government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    If you want to see the "success" of free market policy, look at South America or the former USSR. 'nuff said.

    Or alternatively you could look at the West compared to the USSR and see which one was better at producing wealth, health and happiness for its citizens.

    Clue - it wasn't the the states which thought the 'free market' was bad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Or alternatively you could look at the West compared to the USSR and see which one was better at producing wealth, health and happiness for its citizens.

    Clue - it wasn't the the states which thought the 'free market' was bad.

    I don't get your point. :confused: Or possibly you don't get mine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    If you want to see the "success" of free market policy, look at South America or the former USSR. 'nuff said.

    Boris Yeltsin was to blame not free market ideas.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I don't get your point. :confused: Or possibly you don't get mine.

    Well my point is that a 'free market' society managed to be a lot better at producing things for its citizens than a non-free market one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which free market society? I still don't get your point. :confused:
    My point was that since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has adopted aggressive free market capitalism and as a result, its fucked. Life expectancy has fallen and its run by gangsters.
    The privatisation of water in Bolivia is another good example of free market polices...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    free market capitalism

    Oh, you have linked them. Not an uncommon mistake.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Which free market society? I still don't get your point. :confused:
    My point was that since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has adopted aggressive free market capitalism and as a result, its fucked. Life expectancy has fallen and its run by gangsters.
    The privatisation of water in Bolivia is another good example of free market polices...

    And my point is that free market capitalism also managed to produce a better standard of living in the West - so it has a strengths as well as its imperfections.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmmmm, well, looking at it historically, in the Victorian era (when there was a much more Liberal approach to economics), there was child labour, early death, pollution and massive exploitation. It also contributed to the depression. Then we had Keynesian economics (certainly not free market). Then a return to Liberal economics (neo-liberalism) with Thatcher and Reagan with all the shit that caused - rises in homelessness, insecure jobs, destruction of the unions, rise in crime, drugs and social unrest. That's not even looking at the impact of neo-liberal ideology in other countries. Neo-liberalism and Blair's continuance of it is approaching free market economics but we still (just!) have some state funded services.

    Given all that, I'm not sure what your point is. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Hmmmm, well, looking at it historically, in the Victorian era (when there was a much more Liberal approach to economics), there was child labour, early death, pollution and massive exploitation. It also contributed to the depression. Then we had Keynesian economics (certainly not free market). Then a return to Liberal economics (neo-liberalism) with Thatcher and Reagan with all the shit that caused - rises in homelessness, insecure jobs, destruction of the unions, rise in crime, drugs and social unrest. That's not even looking at the impact of neo-liberal ideology in other countries. Neo-liberalism and Blair's continuance of it is approaching free market economics but we still (just!) have some state funded services.

    Given all that, I'm not sure what your point is. :confused:

    But that's a one sided view and advocates of free markets are entitled to claim that it wasn't a proper free market (just as advocates of communism can rightfully claim that the USSR was not proper communism). Despite its problems the life expectancy rose during Victorian times and child labour was not a product of capitalism/free market and had been around for ages.

    Even Thatcher was not in practice a full free marketeer (though she took it further than it had been before). and whilst you point to the bad bits it ignores the fact that it also led to the vast majority of people get wealthier, paying less in tax, a rise in home ownership and a decreased power of unelected union bosses.

    However if you are arguing that the best economic system is a mixture of capitalism with regulation, some state intervention when needed and essential services coming from the state I'd agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But that's a one sided view and advocates of free markets are entitled to claim that it wasn't a proper free market (just as advocates of communism can rightfully claim that the USSR was not proper communism).

    Yes, this is my point - we've never had a "proper" free market. What we have had that approaches it it anyway has been an unmitigated disaster however. Its not a one sided view either - its historical fact (well, a very very simplified and condensed history).
    NQA wrote:
    Despite its problems the life expectancy rose during Victorian times and child labour was not a product of capitalism/free market and had been around for ages.

    My point is that Liberal economics provides no prorection to employees.
    NQA wrote:
    Even Thatcher was not in practice a full free marketeer (though she took it further than it had been before).

    Yes, that was also my point.
    NQA wrote:
    and whilst you point to the bad bits it ignores the fact that it also led to the vast majority of people get wealthier, paying less in tax, a rise in home ownership and a decreased power of unelected union bosses.

    The gap between rich and por has grown, a rise in home ownership has, 20 years later, led to a housing crisis and most people not being able to afford to buy. Decreased union power has led to an insecure job market.
    NQA wrote:
    However if you are arguing that the best economic system is a mixture of capitalism with regulation, some state intervention when needed and essential services coming from the state I'd agree.

    No, that's not what I'm arguing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Despite its problems the life expectancy rose during Victorian times .
    that's debatable.
    it might have for the well poff but heres the best link that could ever be provided ...go for a walk around an old georgian graveyard and look at the ammount of people living into their seventies and even eighties ...i think you'll be very surprised.

    another thing with victorian times ...it wasn't just a capitalist system ...it was the most fabulously wealthy empire ever seen on this earth.
    the people lived in hovels and slavery.
    the fabulous wealth was in the hands of a very few people.
    if that kind of unimaginable wealth still produced huge ammounts of poverty for its own people ...no health care ...no education ...pittance wages ...no justice etc etc ...where does that leave the trickle down argument of wealth production
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    that's debatable.
    it might have for the well poff but heres the best link that could ever be provided ...go for a walk around an old georgian graveyard and look at the ammount of people living into their seventies and even eighties ...i think you'll be very surprised.

    That's also true of Victorian. Even in medieval times some people lived into their 70s and 80's. All life expectancy is the average age people die at - not when the eldest died. More died in childbirth or very young than they did in Victoria times.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Yes, this is my point - we've never had a "proper" free market. What we have had that approaches it it anyway has been an unmitigated disaster however. Its not a one sided view either - its historical fact (well, a very very simplified and condensed history)..

    You have a different view of facts than me - unmitigated disaster seems an opinion.

    My point is that Liberal economics provides no prorection to employees.

    No it doesn't. But then thats not the point of economic liberalism. the theory is that by not giving employees protection it makes buisness more flexible and efficient, reducing the prices goods costs (ie making them more affordable to people) and at the same time efficient companies want the best employees and so compete for them. I accept its not like that in practice - which is why I'm not an absolutist.

    The gap between rich and por has grown, a rise in home ownership has, 20 years later, led to a housing crisis and most people not being able to afford to buy. Decreased union power has led to an insecure job market.

    Most people can afford to buy. OK London's a special case, but even then most people can afford it (even if they wait and do it through right to buy or right to acquire or are older and more stable than in other parts of the country) and the housing problem wasn't caused by people buying their houses - but by the fact that there are more people wanting housing in London than there is available stock. RTB has no effect on that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lack of housing is caused by government interference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    You have a different view of facts than me -



    the theory is that by not giving employees protection it makes buisness more flexible and efficient, reducing the prices goods costs (ie making them more affordable to people) and at the same time efficient companies want the best employees and so compete for them. I accept its not like that in practice -



    .
    I accept its not like that in practice -
    so it sounds good but doesn't work?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I accept its not like that in practice -
    so it sounds good but doesn't work?

    Bit like all other political theories really.
Sign In or Register to comment.