Quote Originally Posted by thcbongman
You have 10 workers being paid $10 an hour, working 10 hours a day for a 5 day period. $5000 is the weekly budget to pay those 10 workers. Let's say revenues drop and the budget is reduced to $4000. In a more free-market economy, you would lay off 2 of them. In a more socialistic economy, you would retain 1 or all workers, but reduced their salaries as well as their happiness, and those released would be let-go with all kinds of social protection, such as unemployment benefits, or job-placement. Also the government plays a bigger role in managing the entities.
In a truly free market (one where you can make any choice you wish), that is only one scenario that is possible. But thousands of other scenarios are possible. It would be equally possible for the latter to happen. On the other hand, perhaps the managment would work on reducing workplace efficiency in other areas instead of laying off or reducing the salaries of some of their workers. And depending on who owns the place (and yes, I know this isn't realistic in the majority of situations), the owner could even decide to cut his profits in order to keep his employees well paid.

Quote Originally Posted by thcbongman
Free market isn't necessarily the best thing, because the extreme of that would be economic anarchy. That means you have to provide for your every need with no government assistance.
Yes, I agree. That is what I am striving for.

Besides, as Katrina proved very, very well - Private Charities are far more effective (and generous) than the government is.

Quote Originally Posted by thcbongman
It wouldn't be such a bad thing if there weren't socialistic controls, but imagine economic anarchy with social suppression. The world hasn't seen this extreme yet, but with the world embracing the power of the free-market, it is bound to happen.
Free-Staters like myself are working to get rid of those as well :rasta: