Free market = plutocratic tyranny.

There is an argument that has been set out here several times that corporatism comes about because the market isn’t free enough.

I’d say, don’t get fooled again.

The reality is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and it that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.

To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have anyway of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails Keynesian ideas are brushed off and used. All the supposed supporters of neo-liberal ideas like Nixon, Reagan, Bush and many others all turned to Keynesian ideas when the free market ones failed.

So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

So why did such a bad model gain prominence?

It was funded and promoted. It opponents failures were screamed loudly its own failures were white washed over or spined to look like others failures (the old chestnut being that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough) while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as a triumphs.

(see ‘A brief history of neoliberalism’ or ‘The shock doctrine’ for more details)

Now some argue that some strands of ‘free market’ thinking were always about creating a corporatist system but others are pure but that doesn’t seem to fit in with the history and it certainly doesn’t explain why there are still many on the right who cling passionately to free market ideas.

I think many people became corrupted along the way just as the system was, but the problem wasn’t the type of ‘free market’ solution; it was the free market solution.

Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour

Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

Because take that road and long before the destination is ever reached the real drivers take a fork to somewhere completely different.

 

I bet you wear a Keynes sweatshirt around the house don't you Balbus?

 

I bet he wears a "I Pwn Neo-Liberals" tee shirt, because I have yet to see anyone offer him intelligent rebuttals.

 

What's to rebut?

 

I wouldn't say that this is the outcome that capitalism would always boil down too, but it's definately a possibility. Take the Rockefellers for example (who verticlely owned their business). Of course they did get help from special deals with the railroads, but just imagine if they did get to vertically + horizontally dominate the market.

I think balance is the key, somewhere in the middle. Until society decides to have a moral conscious that is.

 

You cannot have free markets under a fascist state. We have a fascist state in America (whether you want to believe it or not) because the government and the corporations work as one single entity. Therefore, what you have is corporate fascism, because the economy is managed in such a way that benefits the corporations and ultra wealthy. So it has not a thing to do with free market capitalism.

I see Keyensian economics are contributing to such corporate fascism because it is based around removing the wealth from the people (via taxation and inflation) and funneling that money to the government, who then dole that money out to their corporate buddies on Wall Street. The idea that you can spend your way out of a recession or a depression makes no sense, except to the controllers who will use this to gain more power by creating more problems to offer more pseudo-solutions that will continue to place more power in their hands. Keynesian economics are inflationary economics. This destroys currencies. It makes sense that if you want to bring in a new global currency, you must first destroy the old currency (while at the same time demonizing free markets).

It makes a lot of sense that the bankers today are so smitten with Keynes.

 

"The longer a political thread goes on, the odds of reference to conspiracy theory approaches 1."
- McFuddy's corollary

 

Nearly all societies have been subject by degrees to some for of plutocratic tyranny. capitalism being a class society is naturally no different in this regard. Someone should mention that dirty word. One just has too look at the process by which modern capitalism was forged in industrial England. What a brutal social dynamic that was. A kind of civil war organized by the rich against the poor. Nothings changed.

I agree that neo liberalism is a trap, as it is just another way to screw working people which probably explains why its been around for so long.

 

Rat

Is this it?

It doesn’t address anything I’ve said it just makes the same tired assertions you’ve never being rationally able to back up.

As I’ve pointed out – if a free market path is taken it leads to a tipping point where wealth gains enough power to subsume the levers of power and corrupt things to their own advantage. That is when the economy becomes managed in such a way that it benefits the corporations and ultra wealthy.

You don’t seem to be disputing that.

To me the right wing free market idea that a ‘freer’ more deregulated market (that would hand even more power to the wealth) is the best way to weaken the grip of wealth not only seems absurd but is completely unsubstantiated.

*

The problem is that that is not Keynesianism, it is the system I have warned against – the type of plutocracy that results if a free market path is taken.

In fact in the thread that I bumped up for you on Keynesianism so you could put up any rational arguments against that economic model you have completely failed to do so.

In fact you don’t seem to have any counter arguments beyond some right wing conspiracy fear mongering and out and out lies.

Please if you have any coherent arguments against Keynesianism please present them in the Keynesianism thread and if you have any coherent arguments against the view that free market policies lead to plutocratic control of the system please could you tell us what they are?

 

Oni

I’m arguing that whenever any system of ‘free market’ capitalism is pursued that it invariably results in wealth gaining more power until a tipping point is reached whereupon they begin to rest the levers of power from other classes.

This is because all moves toward a free market system are of greater advantage to wealth than any other group; it increases its power and influence. With every further step toward a free market system the greater those advantages come until wealth is powerful and influential enough to corrupt the system its own advantage.

 

Mcfuddy

The problem is that many of the advocates of a free market system know only too well the drawback of that system.

But they don’t have any answers.

So they ignore the criticisms and try and misdirect.

That was one way they were able to fool so many into voting against their own economic interests and in favour of other peoples.

I mean by the time Eisenhower got the Republicans back into power the GOP had basically come to accept many of the changes brought in by the New Deal.

Wealth (both personal and corporate) was to a large extent hemmed in by regulation and taxation for example tax rates for the top in the 1950,s was 91%, corporation tax was 50-52% and CEO only earned something like 40-60 times more than the average worker.

The major beneficiaries of this New Deal created system were the middle class and blue collar workers whose real earning power had increased.

So why did they begin to vote against that economic system to one that favoured wealth?

Where the top income tax rate would be reduced to 35%, Corporation tax to 35% and CEO would be allowed to award themselves incomes 4 or 5 hundred times that of an average worker?

In fact to a system that benefited wealth to the very determent of all other classes.

Well as I’ve said one way was to ignore the economic questions and concentrate on cultural issues.

Try reading - Thomas Frank’s What's the Matter with Kansas?

 

Balbus,

Nothing I am saying is any more of an assertion than what you're saying. But what you're saying is opinion, not fact. The fact that you might happen to disagree with what I am saying does not make everything I say an assertion, while making everything you say a fact when you cannot even grasp what a free market economy actually is.

The very fact that the economy is controlled by a central bank that controls interest rates and the flow of money is proof enough that we do not have a true free market system, and haven't for many, many years. It is a system that is designed to confiscate the wealth from the people, returning it to the few in control of that system. This did not begin 5 or even 20 years ago. It began in 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve.

You are right in saying that wealth has subsumed the power structure, but it's not because of free market anything. It's because government has become intertwined with banking and corporate interests. When corrupt politicians are owned by corporate and banking interests, they're going to work for those interests that are keeping them fat and rich, not the people they pretend to represent. This is called fascism -- simple as that.

 

When was the last true free market system in operation Rat.

 

Rat

If someone only says – ‘you’re wrong’ that is an unsubstantiated assertion.

On the other hand if someone says – ‘you’re wrong, because… – and then gives rational reasons then it is a rational argument

In this case if you given something beyond claiming I’m wrong something beyond your obvious dislike for it then we might be able to have a rational and reasonable debate.

I mean can you point to somewhere were a free market (or moves toward it) have not resulted in wealth becoming powerful?

Are you hinting here that somehow before 1913, when the Federal Reserve was set up, things where somehow more free market and less wealth controlled, is that what you’re trying to say? Because if that is what you’re suggesting then it’s completely untrue and if that’s not what you’re say why the hell are you bringing it up?

US society was dominated by wealth and big business before 1913 (as it was up until the 1930’s when it lost a lot of that power through government intervention)

For example –

Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal, The politics of Plutocracy, page 23

So please stop with the unsubstantiated assertions and give use some rational arguments.

 

For a forum that attracts a fair number of people that favour the ‘free market’ model I’m amazed not one is able to put up a counter argument.

I always suspected that the free market ideas was weak and deeply flawed, but it seems even its supports realise the same and know they haven’t got a chance to defend it.

 

Shadow

You admitted that there are ‘problems’ with trying to implement the ideological view of the free market into a working model that could be used in the real world.

I’ve highlighted a few – can you address these problems or are going to continue to ignore them?

 

Balbus, are you going to be a part of the group or are you going to continue to belittle and provoke everyone here. You are NOT better/smarter/more intelligent than everyone else. If you would stop acting like you think you are, people might actually spend more time talking to you about the issues. But eveyone knows all you are going to do is disagree and complain that nobody is offering any good arguments.Accuse me of being evasive. I dare you. But have you noticed that I am only evasive towards YOU??? Why do you think that is? I WANT an answer to this question, FROM YOU.... Now.
OR you can go ahead and close another thread. But as usual, make sure to get in the last word. Because we all know how important that is for you.

 

Whatever.

 

Earthmother

LOL what I have noticed is that you’re evasive with anyone that asks questions you are unwilling to answer.



Now have you anything constructive to contribute?


*

 

Every day. All the time. Have been all along. You?