Originally posted by: JLGatsby
I suggest you open a dictionary.
Free market means "free" as in "freedom." It has nothing to do with "no cost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
transfers are not forcibly restricted or impeded
FREE as in FREEDOM, not "without cost."
Read about it.
To imply a free market is "without cost" implies that everyone holds the same value, which is the core belief held by communism. So you're saying a free market is really "communism"? I don't think so. You're tacking your own definition to "free market."
Free = freedom, not "without cost."
Wikipedia is not meant as a serious reference. If you're going to use something as reference to counter my post, please pick something else appropriate. Free-market does mean what it is. FREE. No cost in going in or out of the market. That means every player in the market can participate in the market without cost to enter or exit. Your mistaking it for something else. Free Market is NOT communism(which is also an ideal). Do you know why? Because it is a market.
How about I illustrate a simple example. Say I wanted to sell a toy. If I was in an ideal free-market, I can come into the marketplace with my toy and compete without any significant hinderance from anyone that's already in the market. That means all the pre-existing business in the market cannot prevent me from conducting my business or artificially make it unprofitable through strongarm tactics and such. I don't have to spend extra capital to offset potential attack from my soon-to-be competitors. As you can see, it's pretty much impossible to achieve this "free market". That's why it's an ideal. It is a good ideal, IMO.
Do you see now why Walmart is a perfect opposite of what ideal free-market business should be? You're always free to do whatever you wish in the world. However, "free" does mean "without cost" in economic sense. You're mixing up the meaning of "free" between economics and social-political meaning.
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Boy do you need to open a book.
An insider is an "officer" of a company. Meaning an employee with special status (CEO, COO, Sn Vice President, etc).
Directors (the board of directors) are also considered insiders.
Also beneficial owners (those who own more than 5%) are also considered insiders.
When you speak of "insiders" you're speaking of a very small group of people.
Ok, so what? It's pretty obvious that we all have a good grasp of what "insider" means. It's pretty obvious from the word itself isn't it? No need to argue this point anymore.
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
You really have rocks for brains.
OPEC holds a virtual monopoly on the world's oil supply and they often increase supply (for the purpose of lowering prices) because it hinders world economic growth. They openly say that they would rather lower oil prices to improve the economy than to increase prices because overall they make more money when the world economy is doing well.
When everyone else is doing well, they're doing well, and visa versa.
If they charged $30 bucks a gallon for gas, think of what that would do to the economy. It would destroy it. And if the economy is dead, how much gas do you think they're going to sell? Hardly none! It's in their advantage to lower prices and most all companies know this.
You seriously have NO idea what you're talking about. Rockefeller is a MONOPOLY. As in 1 supplier in the whole industry. Just 1. Not 2. Not 3. Is OPEC itself a supplier? No. but its members are. OPEC is just a organization of countries that exports petro. Nothing more. OPEC is a form of "collusion" (look it up) formed between a limited number of supplier (oligopoly). NOT a monopoly as you describe. In fact, OPEC is a funny paper tiger. They can have the potential to wield massive political power if they cooperated, but each member countries often cheat their partners. OPEC isn't the only problem with our shortage of petro. As far as monopoly's prices, anyone who has taken micro-economics should know that all rationale businesses want maximum profit (which means, marginal revenue = marginal cost). In case for a monopoly in the market, this is means that the price and supply are not set at social optimum. To put it simply, a monopoly, by nature, cannot create an highly efficient market. Isn't that what we all want? It doesn't matter if monopoly charges $30 or $3 for each gallon. It will charge a price they make the most profit, and that price creates "deadwieght loss".
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Necessity for survival? The human race made most of it's greatest advances without widespread healthcare.
You could argue that friendship and love and happiness are necessary for survial. Should we be buying people wives and iPods to make them happy?
All the sudden someone invents something and suddenly it becomes a "life necessity." Give me a break.
NOTE: bear with me, as I'm about to lose my patience.
Did you have a horrible history teacher? Human race made great advancements BECAUSE THEY ADVANCED WIDESPREAD HEALTHCARE. Do I have to drill this into your head? Do you know why Romans were so great? BECAUSE THEY MADE FLUSHABLE TOILETS and RUNNING SEWERS two thousands years ago. That, my friend, is a healthcare advance. Any societies that have very little advancements in healthcare has fallen into obscurity or complete destruction. Take the Incas/Aztecs for example. If they were advanced enough to treat the pox disease from Europeans, they would still be a fledgling society. Take for another example. The BLACK PLAGUE caused havoc because healthcare in those days could not deal with it. Sure, the plague died out once the number of human capable of being infected dropped too low for the plague to continue, but do you seriously want another massive pandemic to happen? You know what. Since you don't appreciate our healthcare advancement so much, why don't you do this. Next time you get an infection/sickness, don't seek a doctor. Don't use anti-biotics. Don't use ANY medicine. Don't use any dis-infectants. While you're at it, also don't use the toilet. Don't bathe. Cleanliness is also advancement in healthcare. I would add food restrictions, but that issue gets complicated. LMK when you get better, because I would applaud you for having such extraordinary survival skills. YOU most likely would've NEVER lived long enough to type in this thread if widespread healthcare did not exist.
I'm usually calm, but you obviously have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're typing. I sincerely hope that you still have the oppurtunity to learn some of these basic knowledge.
Edited: Toned down some language, before mods nukes me.