government regulation is supposed to stop monopolies from forming, but as i can see in the US, there are many monopolies, not really on the surface, but if you look a little over the edge, the oil monopoly is the most evident and seen, next you'll see electricity and other utilities, such as water and heat and all the rest. and that makes the worker a rather utility of the big companies because he works for them, and then repays them. for instance lets say you work for Exxon mobile, you buy gas at the pump, which might well be supplied by exxon, and then you go and pay your bills, so ther money you jsut got from exxon mobile has been spread ont eh big companies, so the big companies keep getting richer, while you stay wre you are or get poorer, here's the numbers:

50000$ paycheck, goes to: TXU energy, Exxon Mobile, other oil companies, Water companies, Heat, and health care and all that. many of those companies in turn give money to big electrticity and heat companies, which in turn pay the oil companies to maek energy, so much of the money keeps going back to the oil companies, and some stay with the utility companies, and that's a flaw of the capitalist or the free market system, the capitalist system is a good one as long as the government has at least some hand or control in the basic needs of the citizen. i havea rgued this over and over. look around and you'll see my name on a lotta of those topics....!

I seriously doubt that's true in the United State's and it for sure isn't in the United Kingdom.

If people in the lower level jobs, factory workers, etc, were to quit in the area I live it would be easy to replace them with Polish Immigrants. In fact, it is something many of the companies have been doing because it is much easier to control the work force.

It's nice.
It's legal.
It's cheap.

It results in the people having no choice but to work in whatever jobs they can find.

not so re: the UK. We have a labour shortage. The problem is many people have out-dated, post industrial skills in a hi-tech service based economy. There are however ample opportunities for those who want to study, full or part time. All kinds of funding and help are available, particulary in the most deprived areas.

the UK also as the advantage of size, or rather lack of it. this gives us labour mobility. most people thee days live in different areas of the UK at differnent times, depending on work or other factors. Barely anyone lives more than 10 miles from an college or university where they can study any number professional, vocational or other subjects. the oppurtunites ARE there, in the UK at least, but the psychololgical hangover from the old class structure has left many not realizing what's possible these days..

edit : sorry..this is getting a bit off topic i realize. good posts Don, and I'll concede the key issue that the free market is a flawed concept.. however again maybe a bit off topic, I stilll thick it's a lot less flawed than the alternatives.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by nowthenlookhere]

[edit on 24-9-2006 by nowthenlookhere]

the best system i believe is the socialist democratic, it combines the free market witha socialist makret, and then we have near perfection. the government keeps it's hands int eh basic needs of the individual(healthcare, electricity, heat) but still keeps room for free enterprise. and by hand, i'm not saying should control every little bit of each oil, heat, electricity, or healthcare company, but should have a controlling share, or a so-called golden share, which allows the government to control the company and have a sort of Veto power, that other members cannot overrule. however it still posts a little strain on the countries budget.

i don't think it should be named socialist democratic though, because socialism is a democratic system. most people conflict capitalism with democracy, they think it's the same thing, but it isn't. democracy has to do with government, capitalism has to do with economy. socialism is simply that the workers, or basically the citizens, control the government, and vote on most issues, and are equal, and that the government ensures basic needs. that's all, it's not all for a command economy. communism however is a command economic system, but communism however is an economic system, not a government system. but in communism too much government economic control, makes the government have to be in every part of the citizens life.

FWIW, I 'dugg' this thread:
digg.com...

I think it goes both ways, companies have to decided how to at least break even when selling a product. But people in services, can lose money or can gain depending on the education of the area, their own grades in the educational system, and where they can work in an area.

If their in a service, then they'll get paid a certain amount. Therefor, forcing the demand they can make for a product.