........
You said I am a c*******t (Marxist); I didn't say it because I am not a c*******t or a socialist. I applaud the free market system but am not hung up on the idea of its perfection as you seem to be. However, the unfettered free market has produced many of the financial crises that the US has seen in two centuries. There's the difference: free vs uncontrolled.
Yes indeed, I would label s***ery and child labor as economic (and moral) tyrannies no matter what economic system they are employed in. One would think that they would not have been incubated and then exploited in a Christian-capitalist society so allegedly attuned to, even based on the "morals, ethics, self-reliance, personal accountability" that you say free markets produce. Your words seem to promote the free market system as a religion or moralistic force. When does an economic principle like "do as well as you can in the marketplace" possess any moralistic value? It doesn't, until you combine it with a moralistic virtue: s***ery and child labor are not virtues in my book, and I suspect not in yours either.

Incidentally, von Mises and Hayak were the most free-marketeers you will ever find.

------
Thanks peewee, I didn't mean to sound snobish, just making a point with emphasis and clarity. However, the fact that you did not see snobishness in Steve700 original post makes me think that you had a bias toward them to begin with (and your language proves it), so your pretense of thinking that you looked at this at the beginning with an open mind does not compute. Funny how when the right makes a point with vigor, it is acceptable even laudable; when progressives make a point with vigor, it is the reason that the country is divided--that is close to hypocricy, peewee, and I think you know it. You just aren't willing to admit your bias---ohh, there I go again. Well, since you are only convinceable by tone, it won't make any difference. You missed the point of the economic argument: the arguments made were not "c*******t or socialistic," and quite frankly I see myself as a centrist.The free market system works well most of the time, but is not without its flaws that are correctable. The unfettered free market leads to the many financial disasters that our country has seen through two centuries--as exemplified by the recent housing bubble that we have just come out of--with a lot of pain except for Minuchin who took immoral advantage of many home owners. As a moralist, I am sure you would agree? Probably not because you see the market as amoral. And now we are back to the beginning--s***ery and child labor are just part of the market's learning curve, and one either believes the free market is perfect or she is a C****e.
Thanks again, peewee. When the argument founders, go to tone and ad hominem--not very persuasive, but perfectly understandable.

But all that aside, I truly hope you are having an enjoyable weekend.

.................

Ahhh yes, Steve and his sidekick SuttonJr now bring us the economics of von Mises and Hayak corrupted by the the usual "free market being polluted by social engineering" critique. The "free market" itself is not an objective reality ordained by the gods of liberty. Rather, the "free market" is just another social institution that is supported and assured by a rights-obligation framework that delineates what rights and what obligations actors in the market should take. In the 18th century the "free market" decided that certain persons would by force contribute their labor without payment (s***ery). In the 19th century the "free market"decided that very young poor children would contribute their labor for 12 hours a day for a pittance (child labor). This use of forced labor, as an example, did make some of Steve's people rich, but they did not "work so hard" (thank you, Massa) and they did not 'benefit so many' (thank you, Mr Robber Baron) as Steve would have us believe.

Yes, we now anticipate Steve's response that things are all fine now here in the 21st century--that the market has corrected itself--no s***ery and child labor laws. To save you the trouble--here is the response:

"The crucial point is this: labor, land, and money are essential elements of industry; they also must be organized in markets; in fact, these markets form an absolutely vital part of the economic system. But labor, land, and money are obviously not commodities - the postulate that anything that is bought and sold must have been produced for sale is completely false in regard to them. Labor is only another name for human activity which goes with life itself, which in its turn is not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of life, be stored or mobilized. Land is only another name for nature, which is not produced by man, but exists on its own for its own purposes. Money, finally, is merely a token of purchasing power which, as a rule, is not produced at all, but comes into being through the mechanism of banking of state finance. None of them is produced for sale. The commodity description of labor, land, and money is entirely fictitious."

"Nevertheless, it is with the help of this fiction that the actual markets for labor, land, and money are [now]organized [by Steve's heroes who have corrupted the free market]. They are being actually bought and sold on the market; their demand and supply are real magnitudes; and any
measures or policies that would inhibit the formation of such markets would directly prevent the free market from functioning. The "commodity fiction", therefore, supplies a vital organizing principle in regard to the whole of society affecting almost all its institutions in the most varied way, namely, the principle according to which no arrangement or behavior should be allowed to exist that might prevent the actual functioning of the market mechanism on the lines of the commodity fiction. However, to allow the free market to be sole director of the fate of human beings, nature, and the means of exchange would result simply in the demolition of society, nature, and the economy itself!," which is exactly what we see taking place before our very eyes.

Steve and jr, you long for the good old days that never were and from which we are moving even further from.

Have a wonderful weekend as you contemplate the new trade constraints on your not so "free" market.

Evidence??

Who is WE?

Thank you, Floyd Brown. You are not different from anyone here then; everyone gives his opinion. My point is that the Fantasy Industrial Complex does the same without offering any reasons or evidence. I am sorry to say that you fall into the category of contributors who in essence take the role of prophet: offer an opinion with no basis and then suggest (you by implication, the FIC by overt statement): wait and see, history will prove me right.It would be nice to have a prophet whose word we could depend on; but there are many false prophets out there. So until the real prophet arrives whose word we can count on, we have to advance by relying on evidence and facts and on the scientific method that relies on facts, which I suspect you have but are unwilling to share.
For example, there are huge hothouse complexes already built--for example, in southern British Columbia. I don't think their products are going to replace the Canadian wheat/bean crop (yet). But Floridians probably do not know about these huge hot house complexes that could lend credence to your assertion that farmers eventually will switch to other types of crops. It is a big leap from hot house vegetables to tons of soy beans, but perhaps you have evidence of things moving in that direction.
Why not share reasons for your opinions and enlighten us all rather than pontificate like an internet Zeus from the new electronic Olympus?

Payback says "this is not f**e news."

How do Proudrepublican's true patriots look at the news?
Trump nixes the Iran deal putting oil sanctions back on Iran oil giving his old buddy Putin's failing oil company a new market at higher prices: MRussiaGA.
Trump fails to get any concessions in the Chinese trade negotiations, and even allows his new buddy Xi's company, ZTE, into the country after they paid millions in fines and represent an intelligence risk: MChinaGA.
Who is to blame for these current t***hs that have happened in the last two weeks--the Democrats, Hillary, Obama, the Left, socialism, the Rothschilds, superior negotiators not playing fair?
It looks like the maga-Fantasy-Industrial Complex is blind, can't read, can't think, is an ancient deep rut that doesn't exist, or is yet again being duped by clever trolls and bots this time from a domestic source. As somebody said recently, the FIC is saying, My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.

>>>>>>
We have just been enlightened by The Fantasy-Industrial Complex.

Evidence?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Any evidence?

Try Brazil
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-soybean-imports/supply-woes-brazil-cuts-into-u-s-soybean-market-share-in-china-idUSKBN1D30GC
Why China Is Hungry For Brazilian Soy
Stratfor , CONTRIBUTOR Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
This article was originally published at Stratfor.com.
• Brazil's poor infrastructure has long hurt the competitiveness of its soybean exports, but the country's producers will benefit greatly as new rail and port projects come online in the Amazon region.
• Problems for its main soybean export rivals, the United States and Argentina, will strengthen Brazil's trade relations with China this year.
• Brazil's soybean exports to China will increase further because the South American country has an abundance of land suitable for producing soybeans with higher protein levels.
It's a long way from the southern reaches of the Brazilian Amazon to China, but it's a path that many more are set to tread. In the early 2000s, China didn't even figure among Brazil's top five export markets, but in every year since 2009, Beijing has been Brasilia's main trade partner. Today, China is a major market for Brazil's soybean exports, which account for over 40 percent of its total exports to the Asian country. And because of Beijing's trade spat with the United States and ambitious infrastructure investments in Brazil, Brazilian soybean exports to China are poised to keep growing.
From Iowa:
There are repercussions for the entire rural economy'
"Farmers are feeling a real pinch," said Heisdorffer, president of the American Soybean Association. "If we can't get these commodity prices up ... we are going to start losing farmers. There's no way of getting around it.
This year's U.S. farm income is forecast to be half of what it was in 2013, primarily driven by falling corn and soybean prices.
China's latest tariffs on $50 billion of U.S. products came hours after President Donald Trump announced tariffs on a similar number of Chinese products.
Looking at soybeans alone, the U.S. economy could lose $3 billion annually within a couple years, due to lost export markets, a Purdue University analysis shows.
China, with a population of more than 1.4 billion, imports about 60 percent of global soybean production.
About 40 percent of China’s soybean imports come from the U.S. and were valued at $14 billion last year.
Initially, China would still look to the U.S. for soybeans, said Wallace Tyner, a Purdue agricultural economist.
But Brazil and other countries soon would take advantage of the 25 percent tariff to undercut U.S. producers.
"Brazil has the capability to expand substantially," Tyner said. "Over time, we'd lose global market share, because other countries would take advantage of the 25 percent wedge that the tariff represents."
The U.S. could lose 40 percent of its global market for soybeans, Tyner said. That would cut the need for soybean acres by about 16 percent. "Those are big numbers," he said.
"There'd be a lot of adjustment in U.S. agriculture," Tyner said, adding that falling soybean prices would depress corn prices as well, with growers switching acres.
"There are repercussions for the entire rural economy," he said.
Kirk Leeds, CEO of the Iowa Soybean Association, said tariffs will create "a lot of market disruption at a time when farmers can't afford any disruptions."
"If we go into a long, sustained period of low prices, it will impact some farmers' ability to stay on the farm," he said.
"For farmers on the edge, this could be very detrimental," Leeds said.

In blow to GOP, House fails to pass massive farm bill in face of conservative Republican showdown
By Erica Werner and Mike DeBonis May 18 at 12:49 PM Email the author

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday expresses support for the House Agriculture Committee’s work on the farm bill. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
A sweeping farm bill failed in the House on Friday in a blow to GOP leaders who were unable to placate conservative lawmakers demanding commitments on immigration.
The House leadership put the bill on the floor gambling it would pass despite unanimous Democratic opposition. They negotiated with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus up to the last minutes.
But their gamble failed. The v**e was 213 to 198, with 30 Republicans joining 183 Democrats in defeating the bill.
The outcome exposed what is becoming an all-out war within the House GOP over immigration, a d******e fight the Republicans did not want to have heading into midterm e******ns in November that will decide control of Congress.
The bill’s collapse also highlight the splits within the GOP conference that have bedeviled House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and will be certain to dog the top lieutenants in line to replace him, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
With moderate Republicans maneuvering to force a v**e on legislation offering citizenship to some younger immigrants who arrived in the country as children, conservatives revolted. The farm bill became a bargaining chip as they lobbied leadership for a v**e on a hard-line immigration bill.
Leaders tried to come up with a compromise, but 11th-hour negotiations, offers and counteroffers failed. McCarthy and Scalise will face a share of the blame for the failure, and their fortunes in the race to replace Ryan next year could suffer accordingly.
The farm bill itself became practically a sideshow, despite its importance to agriculture and the significant changes it would institute to food stamp programs.
[Six things to watch for in the House farm bill, from food-stamp work requirements to school lunch]
On immigration, Scalise described a deal that would ensure a v**e on a conservative immigration bill from Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), while also allowing moderate Republicans the opportunity to negotiate on legislation that could win the support of President Trump and resolve the status of immigrants who face losing protections offered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.
“We came to an agreement that I think gives everybody what they want,” Scalise said ahead of the farm-bill v**e. “That’s a v**e on Goodlatte-McCaul as well as an opportunity to try to work with the president on an alternative that can pass on DACA. We want to solve the DACA problem and secure the border, and I still think there’s a path to get there working with the president.”
The solution may eventually emerge, but it did not do so in time to save the farm bill Friday.
Goodlatte-McCaul bill authorizes construction of a border wall, cracks down on “sanctuary cities” that protect immigrants against federal immigration authorities and provides for three-year temporary guest work permits that do not offer a chance at citizenship. Leaders and conservatives agree that it does not have the v**es to pass the House, but nonetheless conservatives want to v**e on it.
The farm bill itself broke open partisan House divisions as Democrats abandoned negotiations with Republicans over the food stamp changes, which would require adults to spend 20 hours per week working or participating in a state-run training program as a condition to receive benefits. Democrats argue that a million or more people would end up losing benefits, because most states do not have the capacity to set up the training programs required.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described the legislation as “cruel” and argued that with the proposed changes to food stamps, “Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of families struggling to make ends meet.”
Republicans contend the food stamp changes are a reasonable approach that would help move able-bodied adults from poverty to work. “Our bill goes shoulder to shoulder with recipients to help get them the training and education they need to attain a job that can provide for them and their families,” said Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.).
[They’re the think tank pushing for welfare work requirements. Republicans say they’re experts. Economists call it ‘junk science.’]
The House farm bill would have been a non-starter anyway in the Senate, which is writing its own farm bill. Any legislation that ultimately makes it to Trump’s desk will have to look more like the version in the Senate, where bipartisan support will be necessary for anything to pass and there is not sufficient support for the food-stamp changes.
Trump had tweeted his support for the House bill late Thursday, writing: “Tomorrow, the House will v**e on a strong Farm Bill, which includes work requirements. We must support our Nation’s great farmers!”
The current farm bill expires Sept. 30, and the legislation would have reauthorized numerous programs and policies. In addition to food stamps, flash points included an extension of supports for the sugar program, which a coalition of conservative lawmakers, backed by outside free-market groups, tried unsuccessfully to get rid of in an amendment defeated Thursday.
The legislation also would have extended the Agriculture Department’s subsidy program that compensates farmers when average crop prices fall below certain levels — and expanded it by widening who counts as a “farmer,” for subsidy purposes.
Conaway pleaded for the legislation before the v**e. “Times are not good right now in the heartland. Many of our nation’s farmers and ranchers, who have been struggling under the weight of a five-year recession, are just one bad year away from being forced out of business,” he said. “And in the face of these serious challenges, the last thing they need is the uncertainty of a prolonged debate over the 2018 farm bill.”

Maybe Ryan "retired" a bit early. Trump closes soybean and other commodity markets that the Midwest farmers need and now the farm bill sinks--with friends like Trump, Midwest farmers need no enemies. Now Trump's immigration friends in the House seem to be on the other side of the loyalty divide.
Well, the Midwest farmers elected Trump, and Trump is keeping his promise that there might be a "little pain" in his efforts to save the few steel and aluminum worker jobs with his steel/aluminum tariffs. Who will be buying new steel tractors next year? Maybe Trump's new friends in China? Cool negotiations, Don--will it be a huge farm economy and a few DACA kids or will it be The Wall: Pragmatism or Idealism? Or is it just a matter of v**es? V**es in the House now or v**es in the Midwest in 2018 and 2020?