Free Market Capitalism

What is it when our government interferes with Free Market Capitalism? When the federal government seizes your wages from your employer and forwards your money to a private enterprise such as mandatory insurance for public good. It isn't free market as defined below: Free Markets have no government regulation. Property rights are voluntarily exchanged by mutual consent of price between Buyer and Seller.

Socialism is a good choice by definition means capital exchanges are controlled by the state. Socialism is buyer to employer to government to seller exchange.A four headed snake that seperates the consumer from the seller with employer and government.

Richard Nixon,President (Impeached/Resignation) tried wide spread government price controls in the early seventies to combat runaway inflation of all commodities from milk and bread to autos. Farmers poured milk in creeks and shot their dairy herds in protest. To say Price Controls failed would be a huge under estimate.

Social Security, Health Care Reform, Medic Care and Medic Aid are all examples of Socialism. The consumer isn't in control of cost or quality. The insurance provider charges as they choose and establish the quality of standards. Socialism usually doesn't work when the consumer does not require the goods or services. For example: gambling, some people enjoy race horses and slot machines to spend their money. Gambling would be difficult to justify as a deduction from your paycheck. However, if Congress were to pass legislation requiring all Americans to adhere to government supported free gambling you the taxpayer would have no choice but to comply.The need therfore is purely subjective and neither socialized gambling or healthcare have any place in free market capitalism or true Democracy.

Despite pundits claim the T-Party demonstrators are wrong, the truth is Health Care is Socialism.

What is a Bank that is supported by taxpayer dollars under the claims of 2big2fail and how does it fit in a Democracy? Definitely not Free Market Capitalism nor does it fit well with socialism as once money is extorted from the taxpayer the laws of capitalism are the followed verbatim.

Taxpayers as the consumer are held to strictest laws of capitalism as lenders reposes their property and foreclose homes because bankers make money from the lost equity provided at the cost of the taxpayers credit scores. Certainly if consumers were allowed the time necessary for the economy to recover and employment to return they would enjoy the same benefits as the2big2fail Banks. Banks are allowed time to recover and even subsidized with 0% loans and the interest collected from same. Free money in the form of Mother In Law loans from Uncle Sam. We cannot have a double Standard Democracy.

When the Bankers contrive schemes to sell houses, mortgages and derivative securities to ghost consumers, constructed with criminal alien workforce and then sell the whole abortion as a triple AAA rated security on Stock Markets to foolish investors, it's Free Market Capitalism minus the criminal illegal workers. Incredible profit are recorded followed by obscene bonuses paid.

Until the inevitable bubble bursts, then it becomes Nationalized (see below) as Silverado and the recent Mortgage Derivative schemes. The taxpayers step in and pick up the tab and bankers keep their money and bonuses are hoarded.

Why is it our founders who drafted the US Constitutionn did not for see the current dilema of 2big2fail. How did we make it 200 years without this problem surfacing. Not just giving money away but, reportedly giving money away for public good! If you beleive this shit I gotta bridge to Manhattan for sale. Maybe I should get Paulson as head of sales.

Is it possible our founders did not conceive a people so stupid and so foolish who would simply give money away. Free money and 0% loans never before in our history is now common in todays news cycles. Now we the people, are proposing legislation to control giving your money away. The obvious answer here is don't ever give money away !!! To do so renders your currency worthless !!!

Read the following definitions that describe how we have tranformed into a nation of idiots.

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates how the means of production, goods, and services are used, priced, or distributed. This is the contemporary use of the term "free market" by economists and in popular culture; the term has had other uses historically. A free market economy is an economy where all markets within it are free. This requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no government-imposed monopolistic monetary system, and no governmental monopolies

The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property rights without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor are they coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) ^[1] and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that what they are getting is worth more than or as much as what they give up. Price is the result of buying and selling decisions en masse as described by the theory of supply and demand.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.^[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization. A renationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A renationalization process may also be called reverse privatization. Nationalization has been used to refer to either direct state-ownership and management of an enterprise or to a government acquiring a large controlling share of a nominally private, publicly-listed corporation.

The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of 'state socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people or working class to allow for rational allocation of output, consolidation of resources, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of distributing output to benefit the public at large, and a means for providing public finance.

The proper role of government provides a starting point for the analysis of public finance. In theory, private markets will allocate goods and services among individuals efficiently (in the sense that no waste occurs and that individual tastes are matching with the economy's productive abilities). If private markets were able to provide efficient outcomes and if the distribution of income were socially acceptable, then there would be little or no scope for government. In many cases, however, conditions for private market efficiency are violated. For example, if many people can enjoy the same good at the same time (non-rival, non-excludable consumption), then private markets may supply too little of that good. National defense is one example of non-rival consumption, or of a public good.

"Market failure" occurs when private markets do not allocate goods or services efficiently. The existence of market failure provides an efficiency-based rationale for collective or governmental provision of goods and services. Externalities, public goods, informational advantages, strong economies of scale, and network effects can cause market failures. Public provision via a government or a voluntary association, however, is subject to other inefficiencies, termed "government failure."

Under broad assumptions, government decisions about the efficient scope and level of activities can be efficiently separated from decisions about the design of taxation systems (Diamond-Mirlees separation). In this view, public sector programs should be designed to maximize social benefits minus costs (cost-benefit analysis), and then revenues needed to pay for those expenditures should be raised through a taxation system that creates the fewest efficiency losses caused by distortion of economic activity as possible. In practice, government budgeting or public budgeting is substantially more complicated and often results in inefficient practices.

Government can pay for spending by borrowing (for example, with government bonds), although borrowing is a method of distributing tax burdens through time rather than a replacement for taxes. A deficit is the difference between government spending and revenues. The accumulation of deficits over time is the total public debt. Deficit finance allows governments to smooth tax burdens over time, and gives governments an important fiscal policy tool. Deficits can also narrow the options of successor governments.

Public finance is closely connected to issues of income distribution and social equity. Governments can reallocate income through transfer payments or by designing tax systems that treat high-income and low-income households differently.

The "Public Choice" approach to public finance seeks to explain how self-interested voters, politicians, and bureaucrats actually operate, rather than how they should operate.

Public Finance Management

Collection of sufficient resources from the economy in an appropriate manner along with allocating and use of these resources efficiently and effectively constitute good financial management. Resource generation, resource allocation and expenditure management (resource utilization) are the essential components of a public financial management system.

Public Finance Management (PFM) basically deals with all aspects of resource mobilization and expenditure management in government. Just as managing finances is a critical function of management in any organization, similarly public finance management is an essential part of the governance process. Public finance management includes resource mobilization, prioritization of programmes, the budgetary process, efficient management of resources and exercising controls. Rising aspirations of people are placing more demands on financial resources. At the same time, the emphasis of the citizenry is on value for money, thus making public finance management increasingly vital.

Government expenditures

Main article: Government spending

Economists classify government expenditures into three main types. Government purchases of goods and services for current use are classed as government consumption. Government purchases of goods and services intended to create future benefits--- such as infrastructure investment or research spending--- are classed as government investment. Government expenditures that are not purchases of goods and services, and instead just represent transfers of money--- such as social security payments--- are called transfer payments.^[1]

Government operations

Main article: Government operations

Government operations are those activities involved in the running of a state or a functional equivalent of a state (for example, tribes, secessionist movements or revolutionary movements) for the purpose of producing value for the citizens. Government operations have the power to make, and the authority to enforce rules and laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group.^[2] In its broadest sense, "to govern" means to rule over or supervise, whether over a state, a set group of people, or a collection of people.^[3]

Income distribution

Income distribution - Some forms of government expenditure are specifically intended to transfer income from some groups to others. For example, governments sometimes transfer income to people that have suffered a loss due to natural disaster. Likewise, public pension programs transfer wealth from the young to the old. Other forms of government expenditure which represent purchases of goods and services also have the effect of changing the income distribution. For example, engaging in a war may transfer wealth to certain sectors of society. Public education transfers wealth to families with children in these schools. Public road construction transfers wealth from people that do not use the roads to those people that do (and to those that build the roads).

Nationalized industries, charged with operating in the public interest, may be under strong political and social pressures to give much more attention to externalities. They may be obliged to operate some loss making activities where social benefits are clearly greater than social costs - for example, rural, postal and transport services. As an instance, the United States Postal Service is guaranteed its nationalised status by the Constitution. The government has recognized these social obligations and, in some cases, provides subsidies for such non-commercial operations.

Since the nationalised industries are state owned, the government is responsible for meeting any debts incurred by these industries. The nationalized industries do not normally borrow from the domestic market other than for short-term borrowing. However, if profitable, the profit is often used as a means to finance other state services such as social programs and government research which can help lower the tax burden.

Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. If it takes place without compensation it is a case of expropriation. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, the French government seized the car-makers Renault because its owners had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of France.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"^[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.^[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, secularism, and the market economy. These ideas are often accepted even among political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the violent overthrow of tyrannical rule, paving the way for the development of modern history in tandem with liberal history.