Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Right-Wing Economics That Got Us into This Mess Should Go the Way of Soviet Communism

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted December 26, 2008.


It's high time we cast "free market" economic theory into the dustbin of history.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The collapse of Communism as a political system sounded the death knell for Marxism as an ideology. But while laissez-faire capitalism has been a monumental failure in practice, and soundly defeated at the polls, the ideology is still alive and kicking.

The only place you can find an American Marxist these days is teaching a college linguistic theory class. But you can find all manner of free market fundamentalists still on the Senate floor or in Governor's mansions or showing up on TV trying to peddle the deregulation snake oil.

Take Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who went on Face the Nation and, with a straight face, said of the economic meltdown: "Unfortunately, it was allowed to be portrayed that this was a result of deregulation, when in fact it was a result of overregulation."

Or Gov. Mark Sanford, who told Joe Scarborough he was against bailing out the auto industry because it would "threaten the very market-based system that has created the wealth that this country has enjoyed."

If a politician announced he was running on a platform of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" he would be laughed off the stage. That is also the correct response to anyone who continues to make the case that markets do best when left alone.

It's time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is. If not, the Dr. Frankensteins of the right will surely try to revive the monster and send it marauding through our economy once again.

We've only just begun to bury the financially dead, and the free market fundamentalists are already looking to deflect the blame.

In a comprehensive piece on what led to the mortgage crisis and the subsequent financial meltdown, the New York Times shows how the Bush administration's devotion to unregulated markets was a primary cause of our economy to ruin. But the otherwise fascinating piece puts too much focus on the "mistakes" the Bush team made by not paying attention to the warning signs popping up all around them.

"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," claimed Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser. "Had we, we would have attacked them."

But the mistake wasn't in not recognizing the "severity of the problems" -- the mistake was the ideology that led to the problems. Communism didn't fail because Soviet leaders didn't execute it well enough. Same with free market fundamentalism. In fact, Bush and his team did a bang-up job executing a defective theory. The problem wasn't just the bathwater; the baby itself is rotten to the core.

William Seidman, the longtime GOP economic advisor who oversaw the S&L bailout in 1991, cuts to the chase: "This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight. To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules."

Even Alan Greenspan, whose owl-eyed visage would adorn a Mount Rushmore of unregulated capitalists, has begun to see the light, telling a House committee in October that he "made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

But most Republicans are still refusing to see what's right in front of them. Especially Bush, our CEO president, who lays the blame not on the failures of the marketplace but on past administrations and corporate greed. "Wall Street got drunk," he says. Maybe so, but who made the last 8 years Happy Hour, and kept serving up the drinks?

Last week, Ben Smith reported that the GOP was launching "a new, in-house think tank aimed at reviving the party's policy heft." In a private memo explaining the think tank, RNC chairman Mike Duncan wrote: "We must show how our ideology can be applied to solve problems." But, of course, it's that very ideology that's causing the problems. It's like the old horror movie cliché: "We've traced the call -- it's coming from inside the house!"

We've got to do everything we can to make sure there will be no sequels to this political horror. The blame shifters cannot be allowed to make their case without the truth being pointed out at every turn. It's time to relegate free market fundamentalists to the same standing as Marxist ideologues: intellectual curiosities occasionally trotted out as relics of a failed philosophy.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, arianna huffington, marxism, regulation, financial crisis, laissez-faire capitalism

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Arianna Gets it Right Again ... But It Goes Further...
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 26, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arianna is right on the money that the theory of free market fundamentalism is the problem itself.

But the problem goes deeper than just "free market fundamentalists still on the Senate floor or in Governor's mansions or showing up on TV trying to peddle the deregulation snake oil."

The ideology has permeated the business class and business itself and is still proclaimed in the economics classrooms around the country. This ideology is still the basis for hoards of Think Tanks, Foundations and Institutes. The right has spent 30 years perfecting their message and there are now 3 generations of economists, financial reporters and writers dedicated to espousing these failures ...

Arianna gets it right but the breadth and depth of these failed ideas go deep, three generations, Think Tanks, Foundations and Institutes and college classrooms and tenured and non-tenured academia and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Get ready for a long fight against ignorance and arrogance in the battle for economic rationality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» STEEP learning curve to reality Posted by: nigelbest
» What does overpay do? Posted by: nigelbest
» RE: Here is a coherent counter-argument Posted by: racetoinfinity
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack = Government Agencies
Posted by: Lloydmillerus on Dec 26, 2008 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack were set up to get results in the mortgage market markets that the "free market" would not provide: 30 year mortgages. These were inherently government agencies and the idea they can be "de-regulated" and run on a profit making basis was TOTALLY ABSURD! These agencies endorsing/buying adjustable rate mortgages that inevitably would be defaulted was insane!

De-regulation can make sense where real competition can take the place of regulation ONLY! Government agencies and "coddled/privileged" privately owned businesses must be regulated by the government that creates them. For instance, banks/savings and loans, etc. with government deposit insurance must be regulated so as not to abuse that privilege/backing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Did...It was called a Caste System (aka Feudalism)
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 26, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This economic stratedgy the Repugs called 'Trickle Down' has been tried in nearly every society UNTIL the birth of the USA.In fact one could say Merry Ol' Englands version of 'Trickle Down' is What gave rise to our Free market Democracy.
The name itself denotes how resources will be managed- by whom and to what degree. Those at the top will have full access and full control over any dispensation and it's 'flow'. Thus all wealth will be hoarded at the top and only available to the masses in a 'Trickle'.
Deregulation was a means to an end, to open access to otherwise safeguarded funds the High stakes 'Gambling' class wanted to use as their 'markers'.
But to view this phenomena in the vacuum of purely economics is missing the other avenues the Repugs have been utilizing to achieve the goal of Introducing a Caste System to the US.
The 'No Questions Asked' appraoch to the Finacial Bailout compared to the 'First born Child' blackmail involved in the Big 3 Loan proves this intention.Apparently CEO's and 'White Collars' are encouraged to 'sell their wares' on the open market for the best price posssible. However Blue Collar/labor are expected to accept the 'going rate'.
Consider too Sarah's (and Hillary's) 'Hard Working America'...Race & Geography seem to play a key role in their idea of which americans are worthy of Political consideration.
Since the '80's the Evangelicals have assisted this divvying up of americans..'Moral' vs 'Immoral', 'Saved' vs Damned, 'Trustworthy' vs suspect. In fact the 'Religious Right ' have created the illusion that the Democratic Party is the party of Satan.In return the Evangelicals have been allowed Unprescedent access to the 'Ruling 'class.
The Declaration of Independence was not solely Written to Free US from the Ol' King George, But ANY King George. Separation between church & State was not just referring to Catholic or Protestant churches, but ALL Churches.To look at the last 30 yrs through purely economic terms is doing their Grand Scam an injustice.
What the Repugs have achieved is creating the same socio economic nightmare here as Those our Immigrant ancestors Fled. Heckova Job!
Deregulation, Trickle Down and the rise of the Inquistors has been NO Mistake, its been a Goal....TREASON against the most Fundemental American Values..and Laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Otto .
Posted by: otto on Dec 26, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I quibble a bit with Arianna in the degree to which she throws Communism in the dustbin. I think the basic selfishness of market capitalism is rottten to the core, all right; I think Soviet Communism at least had an unselfish ideal - of all people sharing - but was badly managed. She seems to give a slam to Noam Chomsky as the linguistics professor, but I think he is still right on in his criticisms of our present system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Failed Viewpoint
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 26, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing more poignant and pathetic to watch a group of people stubbornly clinging to an utterly failed ideology. Such it is with the kooks, criminals and fools who comprise the "far right". For twenty-eight years they have controlled the ship of state and where has it gotten us? Our social and economic infrastucture has been all but destryed. To paraphrase the old song: They do that voodoo that they do so bad.

For over three-quarters-of-a-century they have been trying to do away with the New Deal and they have damn hear succeeded. The plutocracy has looted our national treasure. See? they're all saying in unison, Big Government doesn't work! They might not have totally destroyed the New Deal but it is definitely on life support.

If this country is ever stupid enough to put these assholes in charge of their government again, they'll deserve everything that happens to them. It's now obvious that they stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 - but that's only because so huge a segment of this once-great nation supported the GOP. The only reason they weren't able to do it again this year is because it was a landslide for Barack Obama. Trust me on this one, campers: Had the results once again depended on one state, we would now be facing the dawn of a John McCain/Gidget von Braun administration.

Think about it: This country has been radicalized. So radical, in fact, that we are within twenty-five days of sending a Black Liberal to the White House. That's pretty damned radical, baby! That's progress, too.

If you believe in the power of prayer, keep your fingers crossed and your hands folded for President Obama.

A Long Ago Christmas Moon

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Failed Viewpoint Posted by: Veros
» Thank you, Veros.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Thank you, Veros.... Posted by: willymack
» RE: A Failed Viewpoint Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: A Failed Viewpoint Posted by: SicfkOfBush
anthropologically speaking...........
Posted by: muktuk on Dec 26, 2008 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's the core value of American Culture- individualism- that promotes self over society.

Americans (generally speaking) have taken individualism way past selfishness. This is no longer the "me first" generation, this is now the "me only" generation.

American individualism is marked by a lack of social responsibility and empathy towards other human beings. Bush simply could not understand why an Iraqi journalist would throw his shoes at him. And Bush would never take responsibility for the estimated one million dead Iraqis since his invasion.

Likewise in corporate American, undoubtedly, many CEOs simply "don't get it". Otherwise the Detroit CEOs would never have flown "their" corporate jets to ask Congress for a bailout.

Lame duck Senator Elizabeth Dole would never take responsibility for the 434,000 American deaths each year caused by a product that she and her state of North Carolina promote.

Until we as a people quit creating social monsters by glorifying and worshipping individual achievements, our creations will devour us.

We are the Drs. Frankenstein.

(Traditional Greek Culture had a great check and balance in the recognition of a tragic character flaw- hubris)

Thanks Arianna!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"..US is just s stone throw away from communism..."
Posted by: xvictor on Dec 26, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironic, eh? from the Repugs, no less.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Nice
Posted by: willymack on Dec 26, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You apparently associate the word communism with the brutal dictatorships of the Soviet Union and China. True communism exists in the polynesian socities and other island cultures. There are no unwanted children in these societies, elderly people are cared for and revered as wise vessels of knowlege and cultural continuity. Food, shelter, and other nesessities are shared by all, and no disputes over property exist. I was priviliged to live in a few of these places and lived in an extended family. My door was NEVER locked, nor did I ever fear for my belongings or my children's safety. True communism WORKS when it's employed in this way, but I'll be the first to admit, it's not for everybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real problem... Posted by: Cybershaman
In a sense, it's true.
Posted by: tjg1984 on Dec 26, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has not been a proponent of the free market or small government. I include the latter because it is fairly plain that he has made the government larger, more expensive, and more intrusive (which is profoundly anti-market, by the way, since all of this is financed through coercion or devaluing the currency).

However, under Bush, the tax code and business regulations have also grown more complicated (Sarbanes-Oxley, for example).

Bush's authoritarianism overwhelms any "left" or "right" economic tendencies he may have. His failures do not prove anything other than the stupidity of borrow-and-spend, big-government authoritarianism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush is fascist, not communist
Posted by: drcyflowers on Dec 26, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You must get definitions right. No, Bush has not taken us closer to communism. Bush does not advocate sharing the wealth with everyone.

Yes, Bush has taken us closer to fascism. Definition: a police state run by corporations.

The Soviet Union was authoritarian, and Bush tries to be that too, but the word "communist" does not apply to Bush or the Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find it retarded that mainstream propagandists like Huffington
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Dec 26, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
think it's necessary to bash on Marxism in order to make a case against capitalism, thereby distancing themselves from Marxian ideas when they appeal to the public to question capitalism.

Marxism has many valuable insights, and even if the political developments that Marx advocated might not be the best way to go, insights like social structures being more influenced by economic realities than by the thin ideals of political and religious propaganda (base over superstructure) remain valid.

Take this quote from the article for example,

If a politician announced he was running on a platform of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" he would be laughed off the stage.

If we're being fair, then what is so bad about "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"? It's a perfectly rational principle. Is it better when people do what they're not competent to do and when people don't get what they need? This sounds like the governing principle of our society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lose What? Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Lose What? Posted by: Spot
JT Barrie
Posted by: rimchamp77 on Dec 26, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A little over a decade ago - during the Klinton administration - NY Times columnist Bill Safire wrote a scathing review of crony capitalism. In a nutshell it went like this: socialist protections and guaranteed profits for those with money and free market competition for everyone else. It was known as fascism or national socialism and it was known for a lot of hate speech and loss of constitutional freedoms. It had a LOT of enemies both inside and outside the country to divert attention away from the incestuous relationships between big business and big government.
Downsize DC has the answer: shrink government. The federal government should have one over riding focus: ensure justice for citizenry. It should provide a basic national defense [at about 20% or less of current military budget] and protect us from state government and its crony capitalists. Less government is better. If you want to annoy a "free market" advocate - take away his government protection and make him compete. See how socialistic he/she really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is NO DEAL our New Deal?
Posted by: grindermonkey on Dec 26, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Government spending on infrastructure, social programs, health care or warfare is all the same. Both the New Deal and WWII deserve equal credit for resolving the problems of the Great Depression. But government spending without accountability and the regulation that it requires produces prolonged recession.

Look at the secretive hoarding that is taking place among the banking recipients of the "bailout" money. These free marketeers are biding their time until they can strike when opportunity reveals itself. These monies will not result in "infrastructure" investments like the Columbia River Hydroelectric System, Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Hydroelectric system, all New Deal projects. These monies will only empower a group known for their predatory behavior who are incapable of long term strategy.

Short term mentality has undone what the New Deal continues to provide us in the long term. The proof is all around us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Repugs are actually practicing Marxists....
Posted by: xvictor on Dec 26, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was really astonished when major Repug characters in Congress, including Bushie, gave a full-throated yes vote for the Wall Street bailout. And they arm-twisted a small minority of Repubs who voted 'no' the first time around into seeing their way. Aren't these the same characters who stridently whored a 'hands-off' economy for the last 12 years? The 'invisible hand' has Federal Reserve stamped on it, apparently.

I'm not excusing the Dems for that vote but based on the generous bank political contributions they had received in the past, it's no surprise the way they voted. But the Repugs, eh?

I had conversed with several finance workers -- those who are not affiliated with Goldman Sachs, JPM, and Citigroup -- at my neighborhood bar. They say the bailout is a big mistake and actually prevents their own small finance boutiques from expanding and eventually filling the void left by the failed big boys.

So much for the Repugnican credo of 'creative destruction' and free markets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Insightful. Posted by: tjg1984
THE URGENCY OF INSURGENCY
Posted by: sherman on Dec 26, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we are at a turning point, but to execute the manuever we need a strategy worthy of the task at hand: VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY changing our consumption patterns to support an alternative economy not based on wants/needs or profit. it is an idea whose time has come...do us all a favor and check it out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too Big to Exist!
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Dec 26, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the big failings of Market Fundamentalism is that it ultimately leads to concentration and monopoly. Players in the global market want their enterprise to dominate the global market.

You've seen it over and over again since our Blessed St. Ronnie. Mergers and acquisitions, concentration of resources, and eventually the shedding of extra workers. Ever notice how a company's stock would rise after it announced a mass layoff?

Now we have these trans-national behemoths that hold the power to bring down entire economies. They effectively hold their host countries hostage. They are too big to fail. At this point they hold all the cards. They can privatize profits while socializing risk.

At this stage of the Global Free Trade agenda, they have also succeeded in buying the government --our elected officials are beholden to the corporations who bought them their seat in Congress. When the "police" themselves are corrupted, who will watch out for the average citizen?

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism per se. What we need is regulated markets with strong enforcement. We need to enforce the anti-trust laws, and bring them into the new millenium.

There is nothing wrong with tariffs, either. At one time tariffs were a major source of government revenue. Now we pay the difference in taxes.

Tariffs used to protect American workers from unfair competition. Can anybody give me a rational argument why our American workers should have to compete with third world slave labor wages? Is that even a "moral" argument, you Moral Majority types? Even the avowed fascist Henry Ford knew that you had to pay the workers enough to buy the product.

Capitalism is a good system when not taken to extremes. The notion of totally free markets is an Easter Bunny fantasy. Governments create markets. There has to be a balance. Too much regulation strangles the market. Too much laise faire leads to excesses that lead us to speculative bubbles and collapse eventually.

There has always been a dynamic tension between capital and labor. Our system works best when the two balance each other out. But in the post St. Ronnie era, we have capitulated and turned over the keys to the country to capital. They have proven themselves to be drunk drivers. It's time to take the keys away. And to continue the metaphor, when they sober up it's time to carpool.

Novitas causa expeto innovo cogitationis

Pope Urban XXIII

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too Big to Exist! Posted by: bluepilgrim
» Some Theory! Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Some Theory! Posted by: bluepilgrim
Catholic Bishop Reinhard Marx version of "Das Kapital"
Posted by: peacekeepertwo on Dec 26, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In case you were Interested there is a book written by a German bishop. This Catholic Bishop believes that Karl Marx was right about everything, except the part about Heaven on Earth.I have been a Roman Catholic most of my life, and it bothered me that often the Catholic church would except money from Corporations, that refused to pay workers a living Wage. I recently read about a Church in the US that wanted to break a contract with the teachers Union for example. I still go to Church and tell myself that Bishops and Priests are Human. I know that the Christian Clergy, like all Loyal capitalist will follow the Money. I believe God gave us this Depression to show us all the error of our ways. when this over everyone will see the light.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead
Posted by: JSquercia on Dec 26, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of Trickle Down it should be called eat our scraps because that is what IS . The article is abso;utely RIGHT ON TARGET . We have a history that PROVES that Unregulated Capitalism inevitbly leads to Bubbles and Collapse .
I agree with the poster who said we need a new name for our theory we could call it Democratic Capitalism .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Instead Posted by: don palabraz
» RE: Instead Posted by: Spot
Democrats?
Posted by: don palabraz on Dec 26, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is this analysis singularly focused on Republicans? The Democratic Party over the last 25 years have been enablers, collaborators and sometimes more ambitious than Republicans in this economic agenda. They don't wholly disagree with it, which is why it will remain however much it is "reformed," by the incoming Obama administration.

Would taking Democrats to task piss off to many Huffington Post readers?

Secondly, after the collapse of Marxism-Lenninism in the Soviet Union, robber baron capitalism seized Russia for the worst in many regards. Before tossing things into the dustbin, people better sure have a vision of what is to take its place...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democrats? Posted by: Spot
The death of Marxism has been grossly exaggerated
Posted by: bluepilgrim on Dec 26, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the idea that the Soviet Union was practicing real Marxism at the end is simply wrong.

Marxism is still alive in much of the world, and even in the US, but Marxist thinking has advanced beyond what Marx did in the 19th century, and what his followers did in the 20th -- but of course. Yet there is still a great deal to be learned from reading his orginal writings, even if about 150 years old, now.

As for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- that's the basis of that great 'American' institution, the nuclear family -- not exactly something to laugh a politician off the stage about.

As for relics of failed philosophy, should the same be said of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution -- and the failed nation (the USA) they eventually led to? What next then? Is there some sort of 'Huffingtonism' of which we are yet to be educated on?

I gotta say, I'm getting tired of all this shallow political pablum being dished out. Can't we get more of some knowledgable people like Chomski, Zinn, and Parenti writing here?

The whole point of this piece seems to be "laissez faire capitalism" (in an extreme form) doesn't work, but there are still those pushing for it. OK -- that doesn't take a whole article to say, and it's not like we didn't already know that. But what we have seen isn't really laissez faire capitalism any more than the Soviets practiced real Marxism. Both systems had been corrupted by gangsterism, fascism, nepotism, and fraud, and the class war was never won by the workers. Zinn, Parenti, or Chomski, for instance, can tell you all about that.

Back to the drawing board!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But the market does work
Posted by: greatferm on Dec 26, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me the market is working perfectly well to corrrect its own excesses, we’re just not happy with the necessary consequences.
The market will certainly control the economy, just the way death, famine and pestilence can certainly control the social system.

One of the very few things St. Ronnie got right is forgotten, the “Trust but Verify” principle.
Had we just applied that to our own bankers and stockbrokers, we might have seen it all coming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sharing is the key to the future
Posted by: global_commoner on Dec 26, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed, the notion that "markets left to themselves will create justice" is absolutely absurd. Because if that were true, we'd have pure justice and balance. But markets, left to solve everything themselves, do not work without justice.

The answer, we will soon learn, is to establish a more equitable re-distribution of the essentials for all.

Sharing of food and basic resources, on an international level among nations (not personal levels), can once and for all end world hunger in the midst of plenty, preventable disease, and growing tension between have's and have not's. 30,000 people die every day, every week, every month...all because they're too poor to stay alive.



www.WakeUpMankind.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marx dragged again to the whipping post by liberals with no coherent theory.
Posted by: Coleman on Dec 26, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some history: the free-market counterattack carried out by Reagan/Thatcher and enshrined by Clinton/Blair was a response to very real economic stagflation in the late 1970's. Keynesian stimulus was failing, and our (democratically-elected) response was to try something radically new. Of course, this involved unleashing the financialized bubble economy we suffer under today, as well as breaking the back of organized labor, but unemployment is still below where it was...for now. The Marxist analysis: capital has reasserted its political dominance in liberal democracies, the place it held at the beginning of the 20th Century. Rebuttal, please?

Marx's ideas haunt us still because they were largely correct in their analysis. The only reason Soviet Communism need be mentioned is because its demise, in the mind of our always-rich rulers, represents the demise of the threat of revolution as such. They're right, for now.

What is a Marxist analysis? Simply to look at the class-basis of the dominant political ideologies and actions of our rulers, liberal or conservative. It's not really all that radical, when you look at it that way. In the past thirty years we see, broadly, total freedom for capital and a brutal crackdown on the working class, while the middle class suffers stagnant wages, slashed benefits, and a new form of debt slavery. Bottom line: business looking out for their own. Rebuttal, please?

It is liberal thought that is impoverished these days, especially in light of the last 8 years of near-fascism, when our so-called democracy was oh-so-easily stomped upon, when liberalism, quite literally, quite spectacularly, failed to check the power of the unitary executive. Remember that economy was stagnating when Bush took office, and military spending is the favored "stimulus" of the American State. And now we're told it's just some bad apples, just "excessive greed", or "not enough regulation". We're told Obama's going to fix it all. Could it be instead that these bubbles are finance capital's response to our inevitable crises of accumulation? Aided and abetted by that "handmaiden of the bourgeoisie," the state?

What is the liberal theory? Are we seriously to believe in the fairy tales of competitive "innovation"? A return to Keynes, then? Where are the proposals for a global regulatory framework? Where is a serious questioning of the limits to capitalist growth? Where is the outrage at the fact that the new boss is the same as the old? Liberalism can't even ask these questions, and can only incriminate the right-wing by calling them Communists! In fact, they've been in bed with the right wing for thirty years. Pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fixed Link... Posted by: SevenStarHand
» RE: ...and that includes me... Posted by: Cybershaman
Declaration of Interdependence and global consciousness
Posted by: maxsmart on Dec 26, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the end of Reagan's World!! He believed in Trust but Verify and then violated it with no regulation. He didn't seem to believe in government at all except for the executive imperiality!!!

This economics has been an economics of rape and pillage not the Global Village!!! It is economic warfare, and inevitably that becomes class warfare where the rich have to protect their richness and the poor have anarchy.

It is much more than means and needs it is a mutual interdependence that is not about more or less, it is about a wholistic system where everyone benefits when the whole is healthy and wealthy but wealth is measured in real terms not in buying power but in Gross National Happiness as the Bhutanese are suggesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I'd love to change the world"
Posted by: willymack on Dec 26, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But I don't know what to do, so I'll leave it up to you". Great song by Ten Years After, and so insightful into popular culture. What we're all collectively doing is self-destructive,and could well end in a hideous tragedy. I only hope there are enough people to accurately document the fall, and that those who follow us will be wiser and more HUMANE than we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Once There Was A Time Posted by: ranchero42
BET ON THE END OF THE WORLD COMING FIRST
Posted by: rugby on Dec 26, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author does not really understand Marxism; Marx was the only person in recorded history who really understood capitalism and Das Kapital is the only real account of how capitalism operates. Marxism is not dead, but rather is very much alive as that great thinker’s analysis is very pertinent and relevant to understanding what is happening in the contemporary capitalist world.

May I suggest that the end of the world is more likely to happen before any consideration is given to reforming capitalism and the ideology which underpins it. Liberalism is far too entrenched in western thought for it to be reformed short of a major upheaval. The teaching of the subject ‘economics’ is only a small part of the problem, but I don’t dispute its significance and importance in legitimating respectable opinion. At a minimum the subject needs to be erased from the teaching programs of all western universities – all university economics departments should be closed down with all their teaching staff fired.

Those who think that Obama will save capitalism from its own excesses (aka Tom Degan and company) better think again; sorry to disappoint folks, but all you can look forward to is another Nelson Mandela – go and visit South Africa today and see his legacy firsthand. Obama may make a cosmetic change here and their (and in doing so dupe the masses), but critically he will not dare disturb the productive relations nor the ownership of the means of production in the USA – the very people who sponsored his White House bid; that is non- negotiable and his very support by these veto welding capitalists was predicated on this understanding and like any party apparatchik you can expect him to be an unquestioningly loyal subordinate throughout his presidential term.

Regards from Australia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The refs were fixed
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Dec 26, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the present mess is over, we're going to find out that the biggest problem was not so much "deregulation" as much as bought off regulators. The SEC was alerted to the Madoff affair years ago and in detail. They took no action because the SEC is a criminal enterprise-- the equivalent of fixed referees in sports.

We have something similar going on in the commodities markets. Oil and other commodity prices didn't just drop off the face of the earth without help from the regulators. Problem is that you can't make gold or oil from paper, so that all of this manipulation will ultimately backfire causing as much grief or more than the Madoff affair. It will also invite retaliation from foreign producers who depend on those commodities prices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arianna Huffington - "self" made millionaire?
Posted by: 2thepoint on Dec 26, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering how Arianna Huffington "made" her money I always find her self righteous "how dare you" articles amusing.

Lets see. Right wing policies??..when we have the likes of Barney Franks sleeping with a director at Fanny Mae then claiming all is just dandy while it was actually coming apart..

We have democrats, backed by their babies Fanny and Freddie not to mention ACORN pushing for housing and loans for all which led to worthless paper pounced upon by greedy wall street firms and hungry investors.

We have Clinton leading the way for deregulation and Arianna still thinks this is due to Right Wing policies?

I'd still love to hear more about how she married a gay man just to sue him for millions in a divorce! Now, that ain't working..or is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your Private Is Showing
Posted by: pdxjoe on Dec 26, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This started out as a specific reply to a post by popeurbanxxiii that I realized is much more general.

"They can privatize profits while socializing risk."

This is a pretty useful characterization, but it has a little extra something sticking out, which should be noted. Not because it makes it any less useful, but in fact because it's all the more useful for it. Profit is already an essentially private phenomena, and does not exist apart from social conditions of exploitation and domination.

The quoted statement above is far from false or a kind of corruption, but is the truth of privatization, at least in the economic sphere if not beyond. However, it has the ideological effect of implying profit as basically neutral with regard to social freedom, when it is born of very specific social conditions that are neither necessary nor ideal. This quoted formula is the correct one, but we should try to be clear what about: profit is private accumulation at a social cost, which cannot be paid off with profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanx Arianna for pointing out the 'free market' failure :)
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 26, 2008 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The failure of 'free market' ideology. It's been discussed in England and other lands for the last decade, becoming more and more urgent up until the current 'economic crisis'. It's heartening to see and American writer of Arriana's caliber jump into the debate!

The history of 'free market', an ideology of deregulatioln and privitization that states markets will regulate themselves (the so called "invisible hand") isn't a 'Right Wing' philosopy only. Though free markets as well as free trade and globalization, which are part of this economic ideology, began decades ago with Milton Freidman and Cold War stratagy (from think tanks like Rand Corp.) it took hold as the 'new wave' during the Thatcher/Reagan/Mulroney era. However, it was the Labour Party, Bill Clinton, and Liberal (Canada) governments that deregulated and privatized the most. Wholly embraissing the 'free market' ideology as a new way to individualism and freedom for all the people. It was the Bush era (which we still live in) that saw even more insane deregulation to the point where the White House and Wall Street would insist 'free markets' were the only kind of capitalism that ever existed and anyone who says differently was 'anti-capitalist'. Alan Greenspan even said this to Naomi Klien in one interview. Of course, FOX news the rest of the media still push this fallacy.

The current media meme of retconning the history of the New Deal of FDR is the same sort of thing.

With the total failure of this economic and social ideology it should seem to people that government DOES have a place in the economy. One that regulates and upholds laws that facilitate compitition and insures happiness and prosperity FOR ALL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arianna Huffington Has Absolutely No Idea of The Extent of Poverty in Russia 10 Years Ago
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 26, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she is wishing that on the American People, then she has absolutely no idea what she is asking for.

The situation is extremely desperate.

Wake Up

Check out what happenned when Russia's economy collapsed. It was not nice.

linked text

"For decades Washington has prevailed because the US dollar is the reserve currency. It is the world’s money. This advantage allows Washington to purchase almost every other government. There are governments all over the world, from Europe to Egypt, from Ukraine to South Korea to Japan, that are owned by Washington. When Washington speaks of spreading freedom and democracy, Washington means it has purchased more governments to do its will.

These purchased governments do not represent their people. They represent American hegemony.

Now that the Great Hegemon is bankrupt and its economy is collapsing, thanks to unbridled greed, American influence is waning. The US dollar cannot survive the massive red ink that the US generates.

When the dollar collapses, the image of a strutting Washington as “the world’s only superpower” will evaporate. The evil that is the American government will find itself at war with its own people and those of the rest of the world."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAY ***WHAT***?
Posted by: alicelillie on Dec 26, 2008 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it hard to believe what I just read.

Anyone who believes that we have had "laissez-faire capitalism" has been out in la-la land.

Quite the contrary. Our economy has been regulated up the kazoo, *especially* during Bush's reign. As for Greenspan, I think the only bigger proponent of Keynesian manufacture of new money has been Ben Bernanke.

If you think we have laissez-faire, just try to start a small business, and you'll find out a thing or three about how difficult government makes it with all its regulations, permits, licenses and all that B.S. *you* have to pay for.

Please read the works of Murray Rothbard (and other authors) if you want to know what a free market is. It is something nobody has experienced and very few realize it. You can find these at http://www.mises.org.

Or, read my blog where I am reviewing some of his main works: http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(one world+one race+one religion=ONE WORLD ECONOMY
Posted by: chance garden on Dec 26, 2008 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what the AUTHOR would prefer as a workable system? We are long on critical thoughts, but short on solutions to our economic woes.

But whatever direction the tides of profit turn, one can be assured that the NAVIGATORS will impose their WAYS upon the masses. Is the AUTHOR part of the NAVIGATORS?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

counterpoint.
Posted by: Spot on Dec 26, 2008 4:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's true. marxists are a dying breed.
i would gladly debate the reasons as to why this has occurred with ms huffington, not least because her accent gives me a stiff one.

marxists were the target of a witch hunt in the united states, you might recall, led by a mr. joseph mccarthy. he conflated the american left with marxism, regardless of actual affiliation. his ruthless and tactless assault on what is mostly difference of opinion on some economic issues cast dissent in an unpatriotic light, and combined with the simultaneous arms race between a swaggering nationalist america and paranoid mother russia, created an environment of fear that made many americans lose sight of the great popular movements that brought us women's and black suffrage, the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, and a little thing called civil rights.

mccarthy was the prototype for what became the right-wing noise machine. his loud, brash, take-no-prisoners, fairness-be-damned style set the tone that can be traced through the years to today's o'reillys and coulters. he embodied the worst qualities that america could ever fear to exhibit.

mccarthy made marx a four-letter word, and his pronouncements on the heresies of marxism went uncountered in no small measure because of the economic boomtimes which did not encourage questioning our economic system, the nigh impenetrable depth of his writing which turns many readers away after the first two-page footnote, or the minimal impact an understanding of the means of exchange can have on a person who neither works for themselves nor wants to control the means of production. of course, it didn't help that the supposed 'enemy' of our nation was avowedly marxist.

in any case, to assume, as the writer would have you do, that that marxism is bankrupt because the USSR fell, is to assume that capitalism's authority is tied to the political successes and failures of the United States, and that's foolish.

I think that if we are to draw a conclusion from the failure of of free market capitalism, it should be that extremist ideology is incompatible with running the economy of an empire. case after case shows that unflinching pursuit of a single economic ideology at the exclusion of all alternatives will inevitably lead to overreach. so let's not worry about whether to burn or to bury our past leadership. let's keep them around, and consider their ideas, but never give them back the reins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: counterpoint. Posted by: BlueGorilla
USSR =Communism,hhhhmmm,not sure about that one.
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Dec 26, 2008 4:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read articles by,so few people, in my home country the UK,who grasp the essence and histrory of communism,I read even less articles which are accurate from the US .
In Arianna's otherwise excellent piece,she goes for the easy equation,that the USSR was communist.
Quite simply that is historically and politically inaccurate.
Firstly Marx,only vaguely sketched out a programme for power.
This was his greatest mistake,he had talked about historical inevitability of this revolutionary change,and the need for the existence of the right conditions,prior to any seizure of power..but this was not a detailed programme..All Marxists,had to try to interpret that,and flesh it out,many did so in a what they beleived to be a Marxist spirit-some including the Bolsheviks,didnt.
An example is that Marx. talked ,of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"which in essence was not a programme for authoritarianism,but meant rule by the masses..which is a system far more democratic, than either USSR or USA have ever managed.
The programme carried out by the Bolsheviks,was closer to Jacobinism than anything resembling the essence of Marxism.It was rule by nobility,from above in other words.
Lenin did not understand,respect or support the workers in reality.He was essentially a hard hearted aristocrat,who saw the workers as material to make the revolution,and then to be remade post-revolution,and did not see them as full people.
By contrast Marx beleived overwhelmingly in the creative power of the working class,Lenin was viciously opposed to this thinking.
Marx saw that that following the seizure of power,communism would emerge over several generations,as property is gradually socialised,into being beneficial to all.The Bolsheviks by contrast attempted to forge Communism in one country,under a militaristic ,ruling class (who lived a bourgeoise lifestyle)

Furthermore ,prior to the takeover of Russia by the brutal Jacobean Bolsheviks,there were three parties in claiming to be Marxist.
The Mensheviks,were in reality closest to this.
Sadly this faction failed to grasp the magnitude of political events in 1917,and stuck to the idea that the right historical conditions needed to exist,before seizing power.In the vacuum that existed, Bolshevism seized power. Even after this seizure of power genuine socialists,such as the Kronstadt sailors,stood in stark opposition to Bolshevism,and demanded genuine workers power,and democracy.
The defeat of these was the final nail in the coffin for Marxixm.Lenin's death ,and the victory of Stalinism, took the Russians,and subsequent USSR, even further away from Marx's ideas.
Firstly this illustrates that 1)There were many factions claiming to be Marxist,not just one..2)The one that erroneously became known as Marxism in the US and USSR,often for political reasons,had little in common with Marxist ideas-compare the two,there is little if any similarity.3)Marxists and anarchists, died at the hands of the Bolsheviks,in the Kronstadt uprising of 1921-in truth much of the left-Marxists,anarchists etc hated the Bolsheviks at this point.
Please read Chomsky's words re the difference between libertarian Marxism,and Stalinism,and for background Orlando Figes "A People's Tragedy..
I am no more a Marxist than I am a Christian,but feel a need to defend they're names against inaccurate usage of the original words,and meanings.We owe it to such figures,to at least read what they actually said ,and not rely on the interpretations of vested interests -in Jesus case that is the twisted fundamentalists,in Marx's that would be Stalinists,and types like Rupert Murdoch.
Sorry Arianna,but the Kronstadt sailors,would react with stunned silence, at your easy assumptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not To Worry
Posted by: ranchero42 on Dec 26, 2008 5:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your wish is coming true. Everywhere I look I see right-wing pundits trying to convince a voting majority that their ideas are still relevant. The fascists are always more entertaining when they're in defensive backpedaling mode.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Evil Twins Deserve to Die
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 26, 2008 6:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The evil twins who have set the course in this country for most of the past 28 years--right wing free-market supply side economics and right wing Christianity--have wreaked havoc on our nation, and indeed on the world.

Our economy has collapsed and the misery is being felt worldwide. The sanctification of greed and near-anarchy in the financial sector has come back to haunt is with a vengeance.

The moral values of conservative Christians have been illustrated by their overwhelming, unwavering and gleeful support of warmongering, war profiteering, war crimes, greed, enrichment of the rich, impoverishment of the poor and working classes, muzzling of scientists, vitiation of healthcare programs, corruption and repudiation of international law and earned us the well deserved contempt of the world.

Yet the gurus of the right continue to pontificate as if they had been right all along, oblivious to the havoc they've wreaked. They have no shame, and we accord them credibility at our peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Free Market" = "Married Bachelor"
Posted by: Canute on Dec 26, 2008 8:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that everyone in this argument is missing is that the term "free market" is an oxymoron. A market is really just a set of rules for doing business. Saying "free market" is like saying "Set of rules with no rules." The rules always benefit one entity more than another, so "level playing field" is also a joke.

It is odd to me that people have been spouting this phrase for years without seeing its inherent self-contradiction. Same for "free trade." Read more at minor-heresies.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For this to happen...
Posted by: okcsteve on Dec 26, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the actual left needs to STOP writing off the bible belt. We have a lot of good people here who could say no to all this non-sense, but nobody on the coasts or elsewhere wants to come and educate people! In Oklahoma all we get is radical right wing radio, Cal Thomas op eds in the paper, the tv stations are all owned by Religious Milton Friedman freaks...etc....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For this to happen... Posted by: BlueGorilla
Infanilized 'Christian' America
Posted by: Cathyc on Dec 27, 2008 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is the absolute epitome of christianized religious culture; ergo its institutionalized infantilism.

REAL adults take responsibility for their behaviour. But of coursse, in any culture that is dominated by religious ideology, the adults remain emotionally retarded. Such is America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walter Ebmeyer
Posted by: ebmeyer6w on Dec 27, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobel Prize-winning economics professor Joseph Stiglitz wrote an excellent article on the origins of our troubles for the January issue of Vanity Fair. You can also see it on www.richaredifferent.wordpress.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These Discussions are Usually Very Uninformed...
Posted by: yellow on Dec 27, 2008 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...since most people are not experts on the former East Bloc planned economies. One thing is for sure; the rapid transition from socialism to capitalism left the majority of the east bloc population out in the cold!!

During the 1980s, despite a major drop in world oil prices in the later part of the decade which hurt Soviet foreign exchange earnings, the old Soviet Union experienced major average annual economic growth of about 6% to 7%. In the early 1990s, the system was rapidly reformed and former high rates of GDP growth stopped and the economy shrank way down. Prices went up while real wages remained stagnant. Foreign investment poured in from Western Europe and the US in response to rapid privatization of state assets, particularly oil and gas. The standard of living collapsed for most people and outmigration to the west increased. A major financial meltdown occurred in 1998 and impacted the Russian economy in a devasting manner. I would not say that Russia has been an economic success. The transition to capitalism has been a tremendous disappointment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

F- Worst Alternet article in HISTORY!
Posted by: centure7 on Dec 29, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great idea, pour gasoline on a raging fire I'm sure it will make us all soooooooo much better. As soon as people such as the author of this article have their way and try to put in price controls to stop the upcoming inflation, WE WILL BECOME A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

Question: Who created the credit bubble?
Answer: The government, DUH!

Question: Who lied about low inflation, giving them more permission to create an even larger bubble?
Answer: The government, DUH!

Anyone who thinks the free market had anything to do with the credit bubble is paying 0% attention to the facts and figures here in reality. 0%.

Everyone who knows our economy knows the GOVERNMENT decided to print tall mountains of worthless money starting in 1971. Everyone who knows our economy knows that in 1974 the stock market was at about 700 points, whereas 25 years later it hit 14,000 points due solely because of THE GOVERNMENT printing a pile of worthless money trillions of dollars high. 50+ trillion!

Gee... the government printed 50+ trillion dollars in about 25 years... the free market must be to blame for that. Well, no!

Gee.. the GOVERNMENT sold the lie about how we have had "low inflation" for a long time... and will continue to have "low inflation". Oh lets just blame government inflation lies on the free market!

Worst Alternet article in history! The proper solution to this all is to immediately understand the government cannot be trusted to manage ITS OWN MONEY, God help us when the freaks in Washington think they can actually manage MY MONEY or YOUR MONEY. We get a big fat 0% on the 16% of our income forced into social security. Oh and then they bankrupt social security so we put in 16% and get out $0. Yeah, it reeeealy sounds like we need these ripoff artists we call the Federal Government doing MORE to manage our economy?!

History has now shown that fascism/corporatism cannot at all be trusted a single percent, and the solution is something much much closer to a free-market economy. Anyone who thinks the solution to GOVERNMENT DISASTER MANAGEMENT is tons more government management must be suicidal. And furthermore if they print such drivel it simply amounts to the worst article in Alternet history!

Well it looks like Alternet authors want the US to become a bankrupt third world nation by putting their all faith in the US federal government. After all, that is exactly what is bound to happen when you fight fire with fire and when the fire grows you think you just didn't add enough gasoline.

Let history show that a government official named Bernake(sp) will destroy the value of the US dollar and the free market has ZERO blame for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "GOOD SIDE" of the "free market"
Posted by: DarvishBLathsnocker on Jan 15, 2009 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A "free market" system provides the best way of creatively producing and optimizing goods and services in an atmosphere of unlimited resources. Aye, there's the rub:

but then, the "ALMIGHTY" allegedly commandedd (In a book from which no jot nor tittle can pass away)

"Go forth, be fruitful, and conquer the land.."

oopsie, he made a boo-boo TOO!

===============================

All CONstructive acts, are DEstructive of something else.

HUMANS have treated the planet AS IF it was infinite, until very recently.

======================

One of the FEW and CRITICAL roles of government is to establish REGULATIONS
which assure that the COST OF GOODS SOLD
is inclusive of the "true costs" related to the venture:
this ain't easy even when regulators make their best efforts at consideration and equity:
the Bush Regime has made a huge mockery of this function, for reasons related to self-gain, and to hell with everybody else.

Yes, a FREE MARKET with ADEQUATE and ACCURATE REGULATION
is the best of any that can be envisaged in concept:

but sadly, there is still a third item needed to make this workable. Humans would have to become "enlightened" (a word with many connotations that I'll not explore) and by this I mean at LEAST be aware that they are "part of a larger whole" and (borrowing from Brower...) "THINK Globally: ACT locally..."

( I would swap "IDENTIFY", for "THINK":
but why pick nits??)

The "melding" of the "what if" mentality of a "free market" type thinker, as modulated by intelligent analyis of the effects, and with a desire to be harmless to others..

provides a halcyon view of a possible future society which acts almost exactly opposite of that which we have recently seen in it's rapacious and self destructive "glory":
and whose end is written on the wall for those who have eyes to see: And, (More importantly), a "willingness to look."

Another possibility is to reduce the population
to such a degree as to enable the Earth to shrug off the ignorant actions of the relative few survivers left after the "great dying".

Those with a "willingness to look" will already have seen the images of starving children (and adults, but the children have SUCH bigger eyes..) standing along streets and roads in parts of Africa.

Unfortunately, there are many people who will not quietly and calmly die along the road: and nations will react as has Israel to Gaza:

there is always enough
"history"
to justify

"what it is
you want to do
to the other guy"

if you are either foolish or greedy.

Those of you who have not read
"Collapse..(et al) by Jared Diamond,
or
"Survival of the Wisest" by Jonas Salk
should do so:

the dilemma is inescapable:
and we have arrived at it.

Neither "liberal" nor "conservative"

(Lao Tsu rightfully states
that such "values" arise out of
(in relationship to) each other...)


viewpoints will "do" as descriptives
of the radical transformations required
for we humans to become "fit" for survival
in a future world whose society is any higher than that enjoyed by "Hunter-Gatherers" ( no disparagement intended for that lifestyle whatsoever..)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "GOOD SIDE" of the "free market" Posted by: DarvishBLathsnocker
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement