How can we be said to have a "free market" when the government subsidizes and favors some sectors of business?

The oil companies are enjoying record profits, and receive large subsidies. Big agribusiness is subsidized. There has been no anti-trust action in ages (Exxon-Mobil?

Is Standard Oil reconstituting itself? ). When the government tilts the playing field, where are free markets?

Asked by Envirocat 54 months ago Similar questions: free market government subsidizes favors sectors business Business.

Similar questions: free market government subsidizes favors sectors business.

I am surprised I am surprised that no one has answered this question yet, so I will give a try and hopefully you are not just looking for an opinion that is in line with what you have implied in your question. It is easy to see subsidy is against the principle of free market, but it is not easy to see the complexity of an economic system in a domestic view versus a global view. It is also easy to see subsidies benefit special interests, but it is not easy to see the complicated results and alternatives of such measures.It is easy to say "bad" but it is not easy to look at things in all angles with an open mind.

Anti-trust itself is a regulation AGAINST free market, in a strict definition. Sure, the intention of anti-trust was to level the playing field, but you can not say it is "free" market since it is an INTERVENTION of the market.In fact, in very strict terms, both subsidy and anti-trust are the tools by government to REGULATE the free market. In the real world, free market does not exist anymore since there are always government regulations.

Now, there must be reasons for government regulations to exist and in many cases they are mandatory. I am not a scholar, so I am not really eligible to elaborate in this huge topic. But, in short, I will say that history has taught us many lessons when we did not regulate certain DARK forces of capitalism.

What I am trying to say is, that there is a balance between regulations and free market. This balance has to be decided by the economists, consumers and the subsequent results, not by politicians. Getting back to what our government has done for agriculture and gasoline industry.

Agriculture subsidies are tied to the prices we are paying to a gallon of milk and a box of eggs. I believe that if it is up to the free market we will have to pay more for our food, but our taxes will be lower at the same time. The current subsidies effectively created an over-supply of food products and that keeps the prices very low.

It benefits the farmers for sure, but it also benefits the lower-income citizens since foods are so affordable. I am not sure taking out the subsidies will make things better, worse or pretty much the same. But I am sure the poor will pay the most negative impact.

The other reason for agriculture subsidies is the global market. Without them our biggest field of export will disappear. Sure, it is unfair for other countries, but what will be the opposite?

Aside from the economical impact, taking the subsidies away will increase foreign foods import. Are we ready for foods from heavily-polluted and illy-inspected countries? I would rather pay more for domestic produce knowing that we can trust our relatively cleaner air, water and soil, plus reasonally high level of morals, press freedom, democracy and good health regulations.

The global economy can not be truly free since each country, each land and each government are different, we can not rely on others. Nonetheless, this is an evolution in a way. The evolution points to a balance, and the evolution points to a balance locally first, then globally.

We can not rush things when conditions are not mature. The energy subsidies in some ways share the same effect as those of agriculture. They promote LOCAL domestic production instead of relying on oil from the Middle East.

And looking at the prices we are paying now, they are way way cheaper than Europe, for example. I personally am against them though, but I do realize we might not have a choice now. Taking away the subsidies won’t hurt the profit of Exxon, which simply will import more cheap oil from Saudi Arabia.

As long as the demand is here, they will make profit. The demand dictates the price now. Believe me, if we absolutely leave it to the free market, we will absolutely have to pay more to drive in the future, which I won’t have a problem with frankly, I think I make enough to absorb the hike.

How about others? In fact, it is also my belief that any measures to lower the gasoline price by regulation is not helping in the long run. We need new energy.

And price increase will speed up the process. Don’t we think solar power for example is also cleaner? And we will use up fossil fuel resources sooner or later?

Don’t forget the most effective way is for all citizens and businesses of the world decide to conserve and demand new energy. But again, we will have to pay for energy one way or the other. New energy will be even more expensive, so imagine a future Exxon of solar power soon.

Well, I guess we are willing pay more for our electricity if we can help clean the environment? With the subsidies we at least hope we can depend on foreign oil much less for now, don't we regard energy independence highly? In general, let’s keep in mind, subsidies in many cases are designed partly to LOWER the prices to consumers.

The real question is, how well these programs have worked out and who have benefited the most? And what are the alternatives and alternative results? Time will tell.

But our personal judgements are almost always biased. I hope my words as least provoking some thinking. Sources: My opinions boxing's Recommendations The Subsidy Scandal: How Your Government Wastes Your Money to Wreck Your Environment Amazon List Price: $35.00 Used from: $19.93 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 1 reviews) Farm Policy: The Politics of Soil, Surpluses, and Subsidies Amazon List Price: $19.95 Used from: $0.37 .

A free market is where the government does not set the price, but it can influence it The government does not mandate a specific price for regular unleaded gasoline. That would not be a free market. But the government does like to maintain some influence in vital economic areas like energy and food production.

The logic of their decisions baffels me as much as it does you. In my opinion, there are still plenty of oil companies to maintain adequate competition for a supply and demand price structure. Food and gas are still relatively cheap if you compare inflation in these areas to other areas like cars and housing.

The oil industry has a lot of variables which few people even know about, let alone understand. I am not one of these people. I do believe in less government interference in the economy, but I would probably not feel that way if the economy were constantly shifting back and forth, from recession to boomtown to recession.

With an economy this big, so tied to government procurement and taxation, it would be impossible to eliminate all government interference. Our markets are relatively free, compared with other economies around the world. In my opinion.

Manimal's Recommendations Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition Amazon List Price: $13.00 Used from: $9.50 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 108 reviews) The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Capitalism (Politically Incorrect Guides) Amazon List Price: $19.95 Used from: $9.93 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 24 reviews) .

The U.S. Government considers the economy "mixed" While I find it extremely stupid, the U.S. Economy is unfortunately not as "free" as it claims to be. It is a combination between socialism and a free market. Anti-trust action, consequently, is characterized as more socialist then free market.

Sources: opinion .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.