TED Conversations

Tom Britton

Director, Teacher, Language School

This conversation is closed.

Is America being destroyed by the Free Market system?

Could it be that unrestricted business and privatisation has created a profit drive and not competition to provide better quality goods and services? At what point would American people decide that the unrestricted Free Market doesn't serve the people?

Topics: behavior change
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 2 2013: central planning has and always will fail. Read a book and study data.. America has been successful because of capitalism, Europe is in decline because of its increased utilization of central planning tactic and every great emerging power (Brazil,China,India) are emerging because they are adopting a free-market bottom up model of constructing there societies.
    • thumb
      Oct 2 2013: "Read a book"... a bit of a vague recommendation there, but nevertheless I am planning on one day reading a book, I just have to learn how to read first.

      Yes America has been "successful because of capitalism". But what do you define as success? Are you referring to GDP? The annual GDP in the States is pushed up by trillions each year due to the amount of money the private individual has to spend on health care. This money supposedly is part of the economy, but this large section of the GDP is actually a representation of private debt and, thus, inefficiency.

      I don't know where you are getting your information about Europe, what exactly gives you that impression? Europe is chasing the Thatcher dream and has been fiercely privatising for three decades now in the wake of Thatcher. Most of Western Europe, as she wanted, is now based on the service industry and has lost manufacturing. Germany is succeeding partly because the back bone of their economy is based a huge global manufacturing industry, i.e. the common worker is employed. Germany is the most socialist country of Western Europe.

      Brazil, China and India.

      Brazil has an extremely chaotic economy. Looking at the figures alone is not enough. The money being made is very little to do with the general public. A lot of liberties have been taken with making that money. Large sections of the rain forest are disappearing and micro-societies are being wiped out. A small group of people are making some money out of this. The money is not filtering down.

      China's massive economy is very delicate. They have large newly built cities which could house millions of people - just ghost towns. There is no-one there. They were built off the back of a massive housing boom. It'll come crashing down just like Europe.

      India might stand a chance, we'll see, but I doubt it. The economy will grow, but it won't filter down much.

      Having lived in all three of these countries, I can tell you that this "development" is not trusted
      • Oct 2 2013: much work is needed in all societies but the central theme is give people freedom, let them organize, let them engage in free trade and utilize the apparatus of government only as a medium between conflictting interests in society and a means to maintain the status quo.. wonderful things happen in all societies when people have both freedom and trust in their system. no country embodies this ideally but those that are close or increasingly become closer become successful, happy, places of commerce and creativity.
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2013: Let them create monopolies that abuse people's rights and manipulate them? Ok, obviously you don't want that. You provide a perfectly compelling argument Keith, but I just don't see where the line is drawn on the Free Market? Can we let a company get so big that the government can no longer regulate it? What can the government do about Fracking and all the other abuses? "Small government" is a nice concept. I like freedom, I like choice. But giant companies don't work for you and me. So what would you do about the problem?
      • Oct 3 2013: oil fracking is far safer than any alternative.. read i think the july issue of popular science if you get that magazine in Spain. Governments should not regulate business but establish certain parameters to protect particular interests. Companies survive by providing products that consumers want not by force. Companies can not force anyone to do anything and if they do its only made possible through the channel of government. governments do what governments do by using force thats the problem.. governments monopolize force.. even if an industry is owned by a single corporate entity it would provide jobs as people are willing to work and it would have to maintain a viable price for its consumers otherwise it would lose profit on volume.. only an idiot business would fix a price. some industries that do have fixed price i.g. oil and medicine, are only fixed because government subsidation and/or "protective" regulation
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2013: Do you think prisons should be privatised or nationalised? The British government is talking about privatising prisons. Critics argue that it will be in shareholders' interests to keep prison populations as high as possible. Where do you stand on that issue?



          "Governments should not regulate business but established certain parameters to protect particular interests." - what's the difference?
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2013: I've read arguments in favour of Fracking, stating that safety is the paramount issue for the drillers and that no other alternatives could possibly be as safe. I just don't buy it. Not only does it create lethal concoctions in the water supply, it takes vast amounts of water to actually drill. A hell of a lot of people are suffering right now.
        • Oct 7 2013: Ever seen anyone frack with liquid nitrogen. Its 72% of the air we breath. Pretty ecologically safe.
      • Oct 3 2013: im not totally sure about all the different dynamics of fracking but i would say that on some environmental grounds government has the obligation to police however the need for a good environment needs to be balanced with the economic/resource needs of a nation.. the way to fight for a cleaner environment is to lobby governments to cut defense and welfare spending and throw that money into scientific research...
        here in the US about a third of the prison system is privatized and i dont agree with it. Government has the right to govern areas where it is unethical and unfeasible for the market to operate. with that said though i think most importantly the world at large has to redefine its defintion of "Justice" and the way we deal with criminals needs to be ammended. prisons should be fore murderers, rapists, and other serious violent offenders. the focus should shift from prisons to rehabilitation and i feel we should utitlize alternatives like probation and house arrest more frequently
        ..oh and the difference in regulating and setting parameters is this.. governments should protect the rights of individuals and companies alike and nothing can interfere with those boundaries.. regulation is when a government subsidizes markets or legislates its practices.. as long a business doesnt impede on anothers rights then it should be able to operate the way it want

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.