Reich has a valuable piece that destroys the frequent resort to a simplistic use of the "free market" which has been a very useful spin pushed by the elite. We see this approach used to defend the very low minimum wage or none at all; to oppose returning the tax rates on the 1 percent to the era before Reagan and the massive transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes upward. Enjoy, though I doubt conservatives, libertarians and other market fundies will be pleased. ******* America Needs To See Past The Myth Of The 'Free Market' ROBERT REICH, CONTRIBUTOR SEP. 16, 2013, 1 The Myth of the "Free Market" and How to Make the Economy Work for Us Happy Birthday Occupy Interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy Now ]One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the Right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the “free market” is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government. So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity — to make the economy work for us — are unwarranted constraints on the market’s freedom, and will inevitably go wrong. By this view, if some people aren’t paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren’t worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they’ll earn next month or next week, that’s too bad; it’s just the outcome of the market. According to this logic, government shouldn’t intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the “free market” knows best. In reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? ); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?) (4) what’s private and what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user fees, individual pricing?). And so on. These rules don’t exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don’t “intrude” on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren’t “free” of rules; the rules define them. The interesting question is what the rules should seek to achieve. They can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we’re willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). Or some combination of all three — which aren’t necessarily in competition with one another. Evidence suggests, for example, that if prosperity were more widely shared, we’d have faster growth. The rules can even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure. Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us; we wouldn’t be working for the economy. Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game. Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable “free market.” If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn’t be deterred by the myth of the “free market.” We can make the economy work for us, rather than the other way around. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/61406074983#ixzz2fN0EM9jC
I would like Elliot Spitzer to organize a mutual fund for small investors, where the idea is that they can buy controlling interest in companies and reorder them. I assume that's what he wanted to do as NYC Comptroller and their $40 billion dollar retirement fund. Really grass roots it where average people can have accounts of $100. The rate of return wouldn't need to be much since most of us people are only getting 1% on thier savings anyway.
The free market capitalistic system is great. It provides a lot of incentive and benefit to participants, but it has serious holes in certain areas, which need to be plugged.
No it's not, it is a horrific concept that's natural expression would be sweatshops and robber barons. It would make life a constant struggle for money and power belittling any non-profit pursuit. Good thing it doesn't really exist.
Real capitalism would fix America's problems: a return to child labor would make us more competitive with developing nations who are leaving America in the dust with their shiny factories, debtor's prisons would teach the welfare queens what-for and a return of the Pinkertons to bust those despicable striking communists who hate America would make the nation great again. I also don't see why taxpayers should support public schools and universities. These kids should learn a useful trade or work in a coal mine and stop with all their jazz music, reading p*rnography like James Joyce and taking all those marijuanas and getting sex-crazed on my dime. Otherwise they can join the Army. It's only a matter of time before we have another Boxer Rebellion or Zulu revolt threatening Christendom again, and we have to be ready.
Let's here it from the usual suspects, commodore, bigtexx, haymitch etc., ling ling, tallnover, juicy stream who should come to the defense of their belief and use of the concept of the "free" market in defending inequality and arguing for various positions for which Reich correctly classifies as simply political choices. They won't or I believe really can't defend their belief in the near scientific dictates of "free" markets ,yet will continue to use it in arguments on all sort of policy choices like raising the minimum wage.
There is no non-lethal game that can be played without rules. Whether the game is baseball or the economy, rules are needed. For example, whereas child labor laws rightly are required for the U.S., they should be necessary for other countries. So why do we allow imports that are known to be made by children? My point is that Reich comments contain some truth, but not the whole truth. That happens when someone advocates a position rather than a solution. We are at the point we have over-regulated free enterprise, but I can't think of a single conservative who thinks there should be no regulation whatsoever.
Am I a usual suspect? Cool, I guess. Though my views probably differ greatly from everyone else in your list. I would reckon that they're all "small gov't" types, whereas I'm a "no gov't" type. Anyway, here's my response: Robert Reich is wrong. Society, the free market, etc, are outside of, and anterior to, the government. Governments do intrude on markets. "The economy would be working for us" is a meaningless political catchphrase. You cannot hold the free market responsible for the actions of politicians, regulatory heads, and courts. I couldn't care less about "our democracy" - I'm not a democrat.
The problem is that there is no other form of economy that is anywhere close to the free market or actually modified "free market" in creating wealth for all. Pure free market does not work, but modified free market with rules and regulations are by far the best system mankind have crated up to this point. If not free market, what other system would we use?
Why don't you go to Somalia or some other country where there are no government and no regulations? Where force is everything, nothing to protect any of your property of live unless you are strong enough to defend it? Sounds like perfect paradise for libertarians.
You are just like all other first world libertarians, want all the benefits of a government without having the government. Tell me why mankind formed governments in the first place?
Basically. Did you see that libertarian Haymithch said he did not want any government? When I tell him to go to a place without government to realize his dream, he did not seem to be very thrilled with the idea.
The obvious answer is that in today's political climate, if you, as a politician, advocated dealing with it the easiest way possible, which is to create prohibitive tarrifs, either to permit American products to be more competitive or from a moral high ground, you'd be tarred and feathered for being "anti-free trade." I don't think it's over or under regulated as much as the regulations exist to protect the lobby with the deepest pockets rather than the common good. And no poltician can afford not to mortgage their ideals to some degree if they want to raise funds for the next election cycle. As for Reich, my biggest question I would have for him is his hindsight on the deregulation that happened under his watch, and ask what he would have done differently. I would suspect the real answer is that it was inevitable. Without Clinton's banking de-regulation ideas (and Obama's mandated private insurance ideas and big industry/banking bailout), neither president would have collected the funds to outspend their opponents to win their elections in the first place. To his credit, Reich decries the problem of "too much money in politics" but I suspect he wouldn't badmouth his old boss to prove the point.
Because peace is war? Because a lack of force equals force? Because you can't have freedom without a police state? Because America has anything resembling a free market system today? lol.
Not the most respectable nor the most successful in the long run, but military force is certainly the most effective in the short term.
Telling proponents of a stateless society to STFU and go live in Somalia is like telling proponents of the state to STFU and go live in North Korea. It's ridiculous and not worth a genuine response. As for why/how the state came into being, I've long been a believer in the sociological theory of the state as originally proposed by Oppenheimer and popularized by Albert Jay Nock, among others. From an older post of mine:
