The Free Marke is the supperior economic system

1. Incorrect. It is circular logic...Why is wealth positive? Because it can be spent in a capitalist society to buy any commodity. Why does it have to be spent? Because it implies value... 2. I maintain that the UAE is indeed the perfect free market. The definition of Free market:'A market economy based on supply and demand with little OR no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation. In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability. In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.'[1] UAE's economy is not entirely based on oil...71% is based on non-oil sectors.[2] The reason such a large percentage is based on oil is because of the incredible amount of oil in the UAE.[3] Completely irrelevant if it's not a 'good economy'. That's the no true scotsman fallacy...It fits the definition of free market. The premise is called 'The free market is the superior system'. 3. Not necessarily. There is no government regulation in the UAE and yet, it is a less-free country than any European country, in which there is moderate regulation. 4. The quantity of labour determines product-value as the ratio between the average total amount of labour-time required to produce a reproducible good, and the corresponding average amount of labour required to produce a unit of gold. The value of traded products is the "objectified expression" of the current social valuation of the human labour implicated in producing them. Labour itself has no value in bourgeois society, only a price. Only the results of human work have value; the labour has to materialize itself in some kind of object which has value, and can be owned for a price or a fee. The importance of labour is its ability to preserve capital value, increase already existing value, and create wholly new value. How any individual happens to regard a particular product normally cannot change that social valuation at all; it's simply a "social fact" in the same way as "the state of the market" is a social fact, even though particular products can at any time trade at prices above or below their socially established value. Utility of a product depends on labour...You're over-simplifying Marx's ideas, sir. If there is no labour that goes into production of commodities, they cannot have any value if they are nonexistent... 5. That's not the exploitation that Marx claimed...do you honestly have no idea about anything that Marx said? Marx NEVER implied that wages would drop...Irrelevant if wages are higher, there will always be oppressed masses. Wages might increase for some, but they lower for others. Even if they increase, the norm may also increase, meaning that the increased amount is below the norm... 6. IRRELEVANT! They CAN exploit the environment in ANY way they want...No, people do not 'want sustainable, ecological energy'...That's the point...Allowance is not encouragement, but it is still allowance...There is motivation:Profit. 7. No...in no way was that a non-sequitor...I never claimed anything as such...I said that wages increase, but so do social norms, meaning that increased wages may not mean a higher life standard...The Paris commune was rebelling against a mercantilist government...A government that allowed almost all economic activity. [4] True, also irrelevant. Sources: [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.investopedia.com... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...