Add to Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
>Market failures breed an economy in which self-reliance, for a significant number of people, may be literally impossible.
Market failures are a symptom of government intervention.
Monopolies only exist (in the long run) where government forces out competition and oligopolies, like ISPs, exist only because government mandates restrictions on new companies entering the industry.
Is asymmetrical information an issue? Yes? But if you replace people’s propensity to search for better information to combat it with an organization like the FDA then you make the problem worse. What happens then is that people trust that an FDA approved drug or food is good when in fact very little testing is done by the FDA.
>Right now, it’s not uncommon for people to work upwards of sixty hours per week at minimum wage (If they can even find employment at all) just to survive in a state of abject poverty.
Minimum wage is part of the problem. Minimum wage hurts the poorest and the least educated. It helps people like me, with some upper education but it harms 16 year-olds who want to work and people who are bad situations to begin with.
But the problem doesn’t end there. Government also was afraid for people working too much, like you said, so they mandated that if you were to work over 40 hours a week the company *has* to give you overtime pay. I have a friend who has a job that forces her to work odd hours so a second line of work is not really possible. Because of overtime pay she is not allowed to work more than the designated 40 hours. The company is extremely strict about it (in this case it’s a hospital). I mean, if you’re close to over they would rather be understaffed then pay the time and a half. So when she really needs to make money, even if she would work for her regular pay for more than 40 hours, she can’t.
>The idea that a lot of conservatives seem to have that poor people are lazy and choose to live off the government because it is easy, is false. The lower class of society is actually by far the hardest working.
That is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. There are hard working rich people and hard working poor people. The wealthy are people who generally have skills that are not common or an education that is not inexpensive. This means that people are willing to offer more for their services. You may be a hard working poor person but one of the best ways to improve your lot is to market yourself by improving aspects in order to gain a competitive advantage in the market.
> In actuality, liberal economics suggest that the government has to compensate and control for certain inevitable market failures that breed economic disparity and inequality by creating an economy that is more conducive to maintaining a healthy working class, not only for humanitarian reasons, but because an economy is more productive if its working class is happy, well-fed, and free of illness. Most liberals would argue that welfare should only exist as a safety net to ensure that people in dire situations are protected, and they believe that the best solution is to create an economy in which few people actually need to rely on the government because they are well off from the income and benefits provided by their employment.
I will not attempt to caricature liberals but I will take things to where I see their logical conclusion to be.
Let me ask you, if helping the poor actually made their situation worse, if setting a high minimum wage hurt the lowest class, if restricting the market and setting up regulations actually helped the wealthy companies and created barriers to entry for the little guy, would you still advocate for the programs?