"Whatever the events of this week mean, nobody should believe the overblown claims that the market crisis signals the death of "free market" ideology. Free market ideology has always been a servant to the interests of capital, and its presence ebbs and flows depending on its usefulness to those interests.

During boom times, it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles to inflate. When those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance, and it goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue. But rest assured: the ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis that will be the rationalisation for deep cuts to social programmes, and for a renewed push to privatise what is left of the public sector. We will also be told that our hopes for a green future are, sadly, too costly."

i agree with what you are saying but who says we have a free market system? we used to, not for a long long time (like 50 years or so).

we have marxism.

in free markets, the possibility of failure is a motivating factor. be smart, be honest and you'll make a good living and not fail.

in marxism, belong to the right group and you will not fail regardless of the wisdom of your decisions.

"we have marxism."

lol. No. We have corporate capitalism, which is in favor of laissez-faire when it suits corporate interests, and regulation when it suits corporate interests.

Lipzoidal-
re: "i agree with what you are saying but who says we have a free market system? we used to, not for a long long time (like 50 years or so)."

The last time we had something approaching a "free market system" was around 1929, which would make it about 79 years ago."like 50 years or so" ago would have been 1958, after we had crawled out from under widespread economic collapse and fought a global war in which dozens of millions died.

in marxism, belong to the right group and you will not fail regardless of the wisdom of your decisions.

#2 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-09-22 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

In that case, the "right group" currently is the investor class and banks, both foreign and domestic, who are deemed "too big to fail", and are thus requiring taxpayer funded bailout. A far cry from the "proletariat" of Marx, wouldn't you say?

"What we don't know is how the public will respond. Consider that in North America, everybody under the age of 40 grew up being told that the government can't intervene to improve our lives, that government is the problem not the solution, that laissez faire was the only option. Now, we are suddenly seeing an extremely activist, intensely interventionist government, seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to save investors from themselves."

This joke of a free market business practice continually touted by by Bush and some Republicans is not a true "free market" at all. If it were, Wall Street and the other financial institutions would keep their profits and absorb their own losses -- not have a $700,000,000,000 government bailout. That's not how free markets work.

Also, Bush and his cronies yap about how wonderful a free market is as they do business with China but China is not a free market. China has its own government subsidize many of that country's private businesses putting our own businessmen at a very unfair disadvantage.

No, after this week's economic Armaggedon, I don't think the free marketeers are going to get away with things as they've been doing them in the past. At least I hope not.

" I don't think the free marketeers are going to get away with things as they've been doing them in the past. At least I hope not."

They'll be back, Chris. When memories fade they will push the same old snake oil.

It's not Armaggedon-CC--that is a lie

We've already seen that apologetic horseshit, Murphy.

Too bad the market is far from free.

"Too bad the market is far from free."

The market is never free. Truly free markets always end in crisis, which is why the most prosperous economies in the world are all regulated economies.

What we have is an oligarchy.

What we have is an oligarchy.

#13 | Posted by Sully

Actually I think we have a plutocracy but I like to say Maxist because it sounds scarier.

Either way, which stick do you prefer to be beaten with?

"I think we have a plutocracy but I like to say Maxist" - Lip

And yet there is a huge difference between the two.

I think we have an oligarchical leaning market system with capitalism as its driving force and govt as an overseer. I think that, with this, we are headed in the right direction, but we need to do a _lot_ of fine tuning. Getting rid of the oligarchical part would be a great start.

What history has taught is that mixtures are what work best. Pure "forces", "great" leaders, unbridled govt, philosophical theories are all recipes for disaster.

We have corporate capitalism, which is in favor of laissez-faire when it suits corporate interests, and regulation when it suits corporate interests.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian

Look again lib breath. Our government has their fingers so deep into our system that it doesn't even look like capitalism.

Tax breaks for this, subsidies for that,the list goes on and on. That isn't capitalism. That is government tring to achieve an adjenda.

"Look again lib breath. "

What are you, about 15 years old?

There is no such thing as a free market.

Period.

Fact.

Our government has their fingers so deep into our system that it doesn't even look like capitalism.

Tax breaks for this, subsidies for that,the list goes on and on. That isn't capitalism. That is government tring to achieve an adjenda.

And the corporations just hate all those subsidies don't they? They pay lobbyists to tell the government not to give them the money, don't they? And the tax cuts, too.
btw-no different than the rest of the world. Only with more deficits to pay for them.

The problem is the people who claim they want a 'free market' aren't using the right word. They want complete deregulation.

A free market means that I get to decide if I want Raisin Bran or Cheerios for breakfast, but I get an edible product either way, because of product safety regulation.
The deregulators want to scrap the USDA and let it be a crapshoot as to whether or not there's Chineese poison in my cereal.

The free market means I get to look at companies A and B and decide who's stock I'm going to buy. What it doesn't mean is all regulations should be scrapped and the CEOs can gamble away my money and then skip town.

Deregulation is dead, because it's regulation that allows people to buy a stock or box of cereal with confidence that they're not getting ripped off.
I'll find other places besides Wall Street to save for my retirement if this is how they choose to do business. And so will most of America.

But its a good place to begin a simple discussion of economics.

free enterprise works fairly well with cars, tv's and i-pods, until you consider how asia is crushing us with government subsidies and slave labor, just like us with agricultural exports. Its not just the Chinese, Toyota actually operates Vietnamese Slave Camps in Japan.

in free markets, the possibility of failure is a motivating factor. be smart, be honest and you'll make a good living and not fail.

in marxism, belong to the right group and you will not fail regardless of the wisdom of your decisions.

#2 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-09-22 09:22 PM | Reply

We don't have completely free markets (if such a thing can even exist in reality). But, we definitely don't have "marxism" either. Marxism, among other things, is complete public ownership of the means of production. The American economy is nowhere near a "marxist" economy.

Nullifidian and his love of government talking points again. Yawn.

"Toyota actually operates Vietnamese Slave Camps"

Huh?

I don't believe this.

Love the talking points. How about some bloggers original ideas?

"orignial ideas"? Here you go. Klein is a genius.

The Vietnamese are imported for 1-2 years into captive workcamps, their passports are confiscated, they are paid $2/hour and work 70-80 hours per week. Room and board are thendeducted from their meesly pay. Any complaint of any kind and they are shipped back. Any injuries they are dumped.

Tom Delay has setup the very same operation in the Marshall Islands, using Chinese workers on sewing machines. Same pay and rules.

Many Middle Eastern countries use this same arrangement using Idians and Phillipinos.

Human trafficking is still widespread in this world.

WHAT???????????

Love the talking points. How about some bloggers original ideas?

#25 | Posted by cabo_vato at 2008-09-23 05:54 PM

That's funny coming from you. All you do is one-liners where you shit on other people on this blog. Can't afford the little blue pills, grandpa? Does annonymously shitting on 'libs' make you feel like a big man?

WHAT???????????

You heard what he saud.

in Socal?

I'm guessing Mar Vista or Palms. Which is it?

Hey, I may have fucked your granma also, who knows.

The real intelligent poster here, apparently didn't miss anything when scrolling right on by.

Saw some old fart on PBS saying the government should loan the banks the money they need, with interest and no bonuses or dividends until the debt is paid back.
Or let foreigners buy them up.

North,

Well the government charged 36% interest when they gave the loan to Chrysler.

Granpa??

Well you seem to be about 10 years old, so I could be your "granpa" Was your mother a slut in Socal?

#31 | Posted by cabo_vato at 2008-09-23 06:48 PM

Are you sure that's possible? I didn't think they had Viagra 10 years ago. What did you use back in those days for 'male enhancement' grandpa?

wow, that isn't obvious.

it is not useful, stop its flow.

revolt and redistribute.

Her lips.

Chrysler is a very good example of once when the government and the corporation got the thing right. They loaned the money and iococca used it wisely and brought a dead corporation back to life. and then paid the money back.

As far as free markets are concerned, I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to get rid of the regulations that make sense. As bad as I hate osha for it's overlapping and cumbersome beaurocracy, it is necessary because it sets some definable standard and it has saved many lives that would have been lost without it.

When i use the words free market, in this context, I am talking about the right to self determination. Make good and you win, make bad and you fail and no one comes along to soften your fall.

How are corporations supposed to be held to a 'standard of ethics and excellence' if no such standard is used or required and there is no risk of punishment for bad behavior?

Free market is if one can not compete one goes under.

Gold standard was good, not print more paper and claim its value.

Capitalism is a delusion. Another marketing buzzword used to keep the stupids from understanding that they live under a national socialist oligopical empire.

A true "free market" would have no rules at all. i.e. just kill the motherfucker if you don't want to pay for it.

imbeciles

LIP

Chrysler is a good example of a good deal.

Iacocca worked for $1 a year and stock options, lost the jet, et al.

This bunch want to have their cake and eat it too.

How about Treasury Sec. Paulson owning $700,000,000 in Goldman-Sachs? Talk about a conflict of interest.

How about Treasury Sec. Paulson owning $700,000,000 in Goldman-Sachs? Talk about a conflict of interest.

Prove it

His net worth is estimated at 700M. He does not own 700M in G-S. Get your lib talking point facts correct you hack.

CABO - YOU should check YOUR facts dude. I did. You didn't.

Not since Nelson Rockefeller served as vice president during the Ford administration has a senior government official arrived in Washington with such a high net worth. Paulson owns some 4.58 million shares in Goldman Sachs (including restricted stock) worth about $700 million at today's price and surely has millions more in other instruments.

The "free market" that everybody talks about only exists in textbooks. All the "rules" are based on a set of unrealistic assumptions. Most notably the all the player use the same rulebook. Another common assumption is the all the players have "perfect information"; both of these are never true. Capitalism is just another form of feudalism; without the proper checks the masses will be relegated to serfdom.

AU,

I did find this:

"When, after considerable agonising, he took the Treasury job in 2006, Paulson sold his 3.23 million shares in Goldman. They were worth $500 million at the time but he didn't even have to pay capital gains tax because of a rule introduced to stop wealthy people from being penalised for taking a government job and having to sell assets."

"A true "free market" would have no rules at all. i.e. just kill the motherfucker if you don't want to pay for it.

imbeciles"

#41 | Posted by Shawn

Only in a world of absolutes. You're simple.

No. You are stupid, as are most people.

Define the phrase.

Free -- not subject to the control or domination of another

Market -- a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale and usually not by auction

But of course, even a 5 year old can reason that if I own all a resource, I get to more or less dictate the price.

Even better is that if I control the supply of MONEY! That way I control it ALL!

Also, almost all of the stupid fucking assholes like you who talk about the "free market" LOVE patents/copyrights as if they were sacrosanct/holy. Even worse is the corporate person! Literally giving large companies SUPER RIGHTS!!!

dumb ass inbred mother fuckers.