Free Market and Saving the Poor

[ptmusic]

Since we have so many people and threads here advocating the free-market-is-always-the-solution mentality, I ask a sincere question. I'm not trying to be a smart ass; I am truly open to a good argument in favor of the free market to answer this question:

How does the free market handle poor people dying in a natural disaster?

The "sellers" would love to enter the "market" and make some deals for their services, but they have no way of making a profit/margin/surplus. And the "buyers" have enormously high demand for the services, but they have no money to make any deals.

The result is a market equilbrium point with an incredibly low price and an incredibly low "quantity": i.e. many people die.

Without government intervention, how is the free market going to do any good here?

-ptmusic

[FishHooks]

In case of extreme examples like this I dont have a problem with the govt handing out food and water to people and I dont think that really affects the free market since the govt is buying the food and water unless its donations.

If I was on the street I might loot food or water in stores if I didn't have any, not saying its right but for survival I would. What I would not do is loot crap not necessary for survival like so many people are doing

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Without government intervention, how is the free market going to do any good here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would chairity cease to exist without government? The government itself doesn't seem to be doing very much, in case you haven't noticed.

Local government obviously had no plan to deal with a disaster of this type, despite the fact that everyone knew that this type of disaster was a distinct possibility.

The federal response is also pretty sluggish. Bush declared a state of emergency in the region *before* the storm hit, and it still took days to get anyone mobilized.

The Red Cross was on-site immediately.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without government intervention, how is the free market going to do any good here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would chairity cease to exist without government?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it obviously seems to exist with government too. A better question would be: without government, would charity increase at least to the level of service it currently provides PLUS all services the government provides in terms of emergency life-saving situations?

The fact that charity exists is not a strong argument in favor of having a free market handle saving the poor.

[ QUOTE ]
The government itself doesn't seem to be doing very much, in case you haven't noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, EVERY time I've flipped on the news, it's been a government helicopter rescuing an african-american family from a rooftop, or a slew of FEMA trucks rolling in, or lines of government school buses transporting people to safer places.

[ QUOTE ]
The federal response is also pretty sluggish. Bush declared a state of emergency in the region *before* the storm hit, and it still took days to get anyone mobilized.

The Red Cross was on-site immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true, but thank god the government is doing something. We can criticize its performance, but I'm glad it's at least doing what it's doing.

My point is the free market's supply and demand model just doesn't work here.

-ptmusic

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would chairity cease to exist without government?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it obviously seems to exist with government too. A better question would be: without government, would charity increase at least to the level of service it currently provides PLUS all services the government provides in terms of emergency life-saving situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the burden of taxes, there would undoubtedly be more chairitable donations. The government effectively competes unfairly for chairity dollars, and is more wasteful of them.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that charity exists is not a strong argument in favor of having a free market handle saving the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, not in and of itself. But it's evidence that private parties do have an interest in helping.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government itself doesn't seem to be doing very much, in case you haven't noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, EVERY time I've flipped on the news, it's been a government helicopter rescuing an african-american family from a rooftop, or a slew of FEMA trucks rolling in, or lines of government school buses transporting people to safer places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where was the government plan? There was NO plan to get any of those people out *before* the storm - when it would be more cost effective, and there was NO local plan to deal with the aftermath - as evidenced by the fact that local police didn't have any idea what to do when their communications failed. Ask those people in the superdome to rate the government performance here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The federal response is also pretty sluggish. Bush declared a state of emergency in the region *before* the storm hit, and it still took days to get anyone mobilized.

The Red Cross was on-site immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true, but thank god the government is doing something. We can criticize its performance, but I'm glad it's at least doing what it's doing.

My point is the free market's supply and demand model just doesn't work here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the government is doing *something* - but would private chairities with the funding that the government has be more or less effective? Framing the question in terms of supply and demand is a bogus technique designed to make government look like the only alternative, by excluding or ignoring the effects of private parties donating time, effort, materials etc to chairity organizations.

The "free market" is more than just the direct transactions of buyers and sellers.

This is one of the few instances I think I might agree with PTMUSIC... for a totally different reason.

Free market, supply and demand, enterprise, charity vs. government... blah blah blah.

That all goes out the window once the first time some jack-ass with a loaded weapon opens fire on a good Samaritan. Once life threatening force is required... it's no longer free enterprise.

We can't count on bounty-hunters or mercenaries to control the streets. Unfortunately... lack of government planning at ALL levels by ALL parties has lead to this horrendous after-math situation.

I think the government needs to step in very strongly and stabilize the system... and then let free market conditions take-over for the re-build and reconstruction.

Further more... charitable organizations are just that... charitable. If you look at the perceived economic conditions of the last four years (even though perception is much different than reality... another post all together) our economy sucks.

Theoretically there would NOT have been substantially more donations over the last few years due to a lagging stock market, high unemployment, and cash reserves being dumped into the housing market.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the government is doing *something* - but would private chairities with the funding that the government has be more or less effective?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a HUGE assumption here that I don't think holds water (pun definitely unintended). You are assuming that private charities would raise as much money as the government is currently getting if there were no government.

A true comparison is even more unlikely than that. To match the overall money currently put towards life-saving missions, charities would have to raise all the money government currently uses for that purpose PLUS all the money the charities currently raise.

-ptmusic

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
A true comparison is even more unlikely than that. To match the overall money currently put towards life-saving missions, charities would have to raise all the money government currently uses for that purpose PLUS all the money the charities currently raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they wouldn't. Chairities are more efficient than the government. Orders of magnitude so.

[SheetWise]

If you were there -- would rather wait for the Red Cross, Salvation Army, private charity, or a government clerk ready to process your food stamp application?

One of the ways the free market will help the poor in N.O. is by employing them to rebuild the city. Many of them may not want work -- but that is not a fault of the free market.