• weastie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Respectfully, I think the opposite. I think, for the most part, a free® market naturally benefits humans with good intentions and harms those with bad intentions.

    For example, let’s say in a free market, somebody wanted to start a business with horrible working conditions, horrible salary, horrible everything. Now, if the economy is real bad then people might work there, but for the most part, that business is going to fail because people won’t work there, and would choose other jobs instead. So in this case, a free market actually incentivizes “good intentions”. The business owner will have to improve work conditions, salary, etc. so that people will work there instead of elsewhere.

    And one of the important aspects of a free market is the ability to start a competing business. If there was a company with overall poor working conditions and salary, it would highly incentivize someone to start a new company with better conditions, because they could pull in all the workers from the other company.

    And look, I’m not saying this is fool proof and works 100% of the time, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a healthy amount of regulation. But if you compare this to an economic system where businesses are run by the government, you can simply just be stuck with shitty work conditions and shitty salary, and not be able to do anything about it.

    • qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s fine to disagree. I used to believe this back when I took Econ classes in college, every Econ professor is a libertarian lmao. I just don’t think a free market would punish bad actors. Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        free market would punish bad actors

        The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.

        Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

        The question would then become: “Whose morals are truly virtuous?”.

    • 257m@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That only works when worker are less replaceable and desperate. Their are a lots of open job positions today but most pay less than the cost of living.

      • weastie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lots of open job positions is very healthy for the economy, it gives the worker the ability to choose, and it makes companies have to compete. A ton of companies are literally being forced to increase their wages in order to get enough employees.

        • 257m@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying it’s unhealthly I am just saying they don’t help if they don’t pay above the cost of living. Sure you can get a job paying 15 USD but that isn’t even going to cover rent + utilities. So for now your stuck with your job and don’t have the option to switch.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My concern is that “bad product” to the consumer is mostly a matter of price and quality; environmental impact, legality, and even employee safety rank much lower with the average person as far as choosing where to spend their money. Companies can and do operate for years on the suffering of the lower class in particular, often openly doing so, and still make oodles of money.

      • weastie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Firstly, I think it completely aligns with libertarian principles to regulate environmental impact. If a company pollutes the airs and rivers, that physical affects everybody.

        Secondly, yeah, it is sad that many consumers will turn a blind eye to poor working conditions and environmental impact … but I do think there is a limit. And honestly, most of the big companies in our nation are making some attempt to improve environmental conditions, probably because they know that some people will stop buying their product if they don’t. It’s not a lot, but I think the fact that it’s happening at all is some proof that companies can certainly be pressured into doing the right thing without legislation.

        What I like about the free-ish markets is that it at least gives you a personal choice. If you don’t want to support a business, you don’t have to. It sucks if other people support it, but let’s be honest, if like 50% of the country wants to support a business that you don’t like, then what can you expect?

        • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What I like about the free-ish markets

          Pehaps, you may benefit from the term “competitive free market”.