In lieu of our current economic crisis, right wing ideologues are are their pulpits preaching the wonders of letting the 'free market' do its job. In fact, no country in history has developed successfully through 'free market' principles. Noam Chomsky says, "...the United States has always had extensive state intervention in the economy, right from the earliest days- we would be exporting fur right now if we were following the principles of comparative advantage" (Understanding Power, p. 255).
If it weren't for tax payers dollars we wouldn't be one of the more innovative countries when it comes to technology. N.A.S.A and the Pentagon system have no relation to a 'free market' system-(the Pentagons sole purpose is to keep information from the public). If you want an example of how 'free' our market is look at the New York Times article about how Whirlpool built a factory in Tulsa instead of Mexico. Why? Because Tulsa County was paying 25% of the corporations capital costs. (Louis Uchitelle, "Corporate Spending Booms, but Jobs Stagnate," New York Times, June 6, 1994, p. D1.) This is the 'free' market? If it weren't for state intervention we wouldn't have a steel industry, automobile industry, or microchip industry because they would have been wiped out by the Japanese long ago.
My point is this. Right wing conservatives need to stop the whole 'free' market salvation talk. If the left treated Obama as the Messiah then the right treats the 'free market' as God herself. Though I support the current administration, I'm weary of the amount of money being spent and how it is being spent. I've just had enough of hearing how the 'free market' will save us in the end. I say bullocks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I don't disagree that many of our industries are subsidized by the U.S. Taxpayer, but I'm sure that reality nullifies the need for a "free market".
As with anything, there are many opinions and definitions on what a "free market" is. I'm no economist buy my perspective on a free market is that of competition. To support a competitive environ, keep to limited government intervention, excluding the needed for regulation to protect competition and the taxpayer; let bad business fail, this purges the market; and support/fund SBA loans for small businesses, fueling more competition and economic growth.
Again, there is no question that our economy, even county is partially socialized. If you disagree, stop paying your property taxes; the government owns the land, not the taxpayer. Since we are partially socialized, the government is involved in the economy and should be. We need regulation (though limited) and subsidization of major industry to stay competitive in a global economy. However, when the government starts backing bad business - AIG and the like - there is an erosion to the foundations of "the free market economy" that requires bad businesses to fail.
If you think we don't need businesses to fail, stop and look at your stuff. We have nice SUVs, computers, and iPhones because businesses are competing. We can buy 101 differant types of beer, candy, and toys at our mega marts all because busiensses are competing. To boot, we get these items at the low-low price we all love because of the free market. If you are against a "free market", fine. Own that perspective and stop partaking of its goodness.
I agree with Dustin for the most part. I mean, just because Tulsa county offers a package like that to a company like Whirlpool, doesn't mean Whirlpool has to go that route. Having a choice not to take the incentive is a mainstay of a free market system. Tulsa would be competing with Mexico for instance, to keep that plant in its area.
Beyond that, though. I think its interesting how people who are for the 'socializing' of the market are themselves helping to foster a new wave of greed and irresponsibility! What happens to a company like AIG when they become joined at the hip with the US Treasury? They lose their ability to fail and suffer the consequences of bad an risky business. So without penalty, they now have a government-enlarged playground to run around in.
The question is, how do you balance regulation with competetive growth so that we have a steady, strong economy instead of a wild one that recedes every 10-15 years?
I'm not sure the government really even understands the nuances of how a good economy works - certainly not enough to be pulling the strings to make a 'socialized' economy work as good as a free economy.
Dustin:
It amazes me that anytime someone has a critique of the 'American;' way, the only options from the opposition is either; 'move to another country' or 'quite participating'..... I enjoy
Josh:
Your claiming that AIG wants to socialize the economy? WHAT?!! Thats all I'm saying about that.
I'm not arguing for a socialized economy. I am just surrounded by people who praise the free market as if its the solution to all our problems. I went to school because of a 'free market', I live in a house and have a job because of a 'free market'. Their are just issues and aspects that most definitely are not 'free'. If anyone here reads just a small bit of our founding fathers, government intervention has had much to do with out current success.
Cody: And your "free" to "enjoy" like other anarchists who complain, offer no solutions but sure enjoy the system they "loath" ;).
Josh: huh? You lost me at Whirlpool but it sounds good.
'loath'?.....wrong work...'concerned'....
The Pentagon has absolutely nothing to do with the free market or capitalism except to defend it from our nation's enemies. That, under the Constitution, is a legitmate function of government. I have no idea where you came up with that example when discussing the current economic situation.
Frankly, ditto for NASA. We spent like crazy on NASA back in the 60's building it up because we didn't want to lose the Space Race to the Soviet Union. Although I think it's totally awesome that we went to the moon, at it's heart it was about proving to the Soviets our technological superiority. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the current economic climate.
The Whirlpool article doesn't dispute the free market working. There are also several statements in the article that are downright idiotic. For example, it's presented as negative that the company will produce more products at lower cost. Why? Because companies that compete with Whirlpool may lose market share and have to lay off workers.
Also, I'll defer a point to Josh. This actually is a great example of free market. Whirlpool is free to find the best business environment possible. Tulsa didn't put a gun to the CEO of Whirlpool and force them to relocate there. Whirlpool decided to move because it was determined to be a good move for their shareholders. What would be anti-free market would be if the Feds told them "No, you are not allowed to move and must continue producing your products the old way, even if it will end up costing consumers more." Plus, did Tulsa have to raise taxes on it's citizens to pay the 25%? I doubt it. Are they going to put a lot of their locals to work? Oh yeah.
Also, regulations and government intervention are part of what's KILLING the auto industry, not saving it. CAFE standards are going to wipe out their most profitable models. The Wagner Act gave incredible power to unions and left management basically helpless. The current administration just fired the CEO of GM and according to MSNBC is going to begin reshaping the board of directors. Directors, by the way, that were voted on by the shareholders. No rational thinking person can take a complete look at the plight of the American auto industry and think that state intervention has kept it competitive. Given the constraints they're forced to work with, I'm suprised they've survived this long.
Finally, I'm not sure how you can say in one sentence that you're weary of how and how much money is being spent, then in the next say that conservatives need to stop talking about the free market. Can't have it both ways.
Alright, as to Whirlpool: Do you think they sat around and thought long and hard about it when Tulsa offered them that deal? Or do incentives like that make the decision for them? I'm arguing that it doesn't make for more "freedom" in the market when municipalities or, more particularly, foreign governments practically make business decisions FOR corporations by simply offering the best deal. In many ways, corporations are slaves to the bottom line.
And Steve. You're a shareholder in Wells Fargo. Are you telling me that you vote on the directors every year when we get that mailer? Those dozen or so names we've never heard of? What percentage of shareholders do vote? Presumably only the powerbrokers at the top, who again, are the same people who have derailed the system in the first place.
I am not arguing that the White House should suddenly start appointing private sector positions. I was a bit alarmed to hear that Obama had intervened so directly in the leadership of GM. But on the other hand, Obama is the CEO of the "corporation" of the public interest, and as we are now heavily invested in such private entities, I don't disapprove of his taking firm action in their direction. To that end, let's all watch him now to see that his assertions of power do not climb to W-esque levels, lest Obama be to the world economy what Bush was to the world's governing bodies.
My mention of NASA and the Pentagon are examples of government waisting large amounts of money. How they do this would be another post altogether. I would refer you to Ander Bacevich's book The Limits of Power. I would also say that our spending habits in the past do have everything to do with our current economic crisis.
Did Whirlpool give those people jobs? Sure they did, but so does Wal-Mart and they are notorius for reeking havok on local communities. This effect isnt seen as clearly living in the metroplex, but growing up in Midland I watched local business go away because of super chain restaurants and mega-super stores that sold meat and CD's.
I dont think Obama should become the CEO of GM, but any reasonable person can see that continueing to produce Hummers while gas prices are exhorbantly high is also nonsense. I dont think Obama or GM know what they are doing; just buy a Toyota.
I dont think anyone should 'stop' talking about the free market. Quit glorifying it.
Mari,
Doesn't matter if I voted on Wells directors or not. If I did, a politician shouldn't have the right to override my vote. I guarantee you that large shareholders of Wells, such as Warren Buffett, voted. Do you honestly think that Obama and TurboTax Tim know better what is needed at the company than Buffett? Didn't think so.
It's about principle. The new CEO at GM has already said that he's prepared to take the company into backruptcy. Free market advocates have been saying since the first debates began on bailouts to let them go into bankruptcy and reorganize. Why is the Obama administration only seem to be OK with this necessary option after they've installed their own CEO and have made plans to install their own people on the board?
Cody,
I know, Wal-mart sucks. The nerve of this company to provide a ton of awesome products and groceries at low prices. I say shut'em down! Unless they unionize. Then they're okay.
Come on man, Wal-mart only goes where they're wanted. They need customers to survive just like the small businesses. If the small communities don't want them there and refuse to shop at Wal-mart, they won't stick around long.
Take a look at Fredericksburg, TX. They have Wal-mart and other large supermarkets. They've also got a thriving small business community based on service and customer experience. This is Entrepreneurship 101. When you can't compete on price, compete on service.
Hummers: It makes sense to not produce them if they're not selling. GM doesn't need the government to tell them that. Production had already been scaled back and I believe I read somewhere they were going to discontinue the brand anyway as there is no market for it.
Love the discussion, have a great day.
Post a Comment