Free market = plutocratic tyranny.

Again I find this a bizarre idea; people should only go to places where there ideas will not be challenged.

Is that what you’d want - to never have you ideas challenged, never have anyone ask you a question that you find difficult to answer?

Very Orwellian.

You want me to disappear you want me to go away, there are even call for me to be removed.

So people that don’t agree with your ideas and ask questions you’re unwilling to answer and present criticisms you rather were not made, should disappear?

I think anyone who knows history, especially the history of Latin America, could find that rather sinister. You see in many places a desire to bring about ‘positive change’ lead to policies of ‘disappearing’ those that were critical of the type of change being suggested or made.

I’m critical of your ideas and I don’t think that if they were adopted they would bring about positive change and have in fact argued that they would be detrimental to most people.

You are unable to present anything to counter or refute my view – so instead you just want me to disappear – to go away?

Is that you brave new world?

 

Earthmother

The theories of ‘free market’ principles were in place a long time before the present era of ‘globalisation’. I think you get confused so easily because you haven’t the background knowledge maybe you should do some reading?

‘Globalization and Its Discontents’ and ‘Making Globalisation Work’ by Joseph Stiglitz

And George Monbiot’s – The Age of Consent – and here is an interview with George

‘Governing Globalisation’

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/article_269.jsp


*

The short answer is yes – globalisation just has to me managed so that it serves the world community not just a few.

*

 

*


There are some good responses here. But not any replies form the free marketeer’s addressing the criticisms levelled at them.



*

 

Yes, it does, it gives people more control over their destiny, you encourage forced equality at the expense of freedom. Aside from the fact it's better for economic growth as a whole.

 

Mad

Those are assertion not rational arguments, its slogans and slogans have little or no mean without explanation and context.

 

No it's actually something that's been observed quite often through recent history. Take Thatcher in your own country, I won't argue about all her actions as prime minister, but her privatization while costing some people their jobs at the time finally ended Britain's horrible stagflation.

 

Another question is can you prove the free market isn't better. We're not talking about as a method of equality but as an economic system

 

I don't think you should go away, anyone is welcome here.

I just think you make a horrible moderator.

You should re-read that statement....
:toetap05:

 

Mad

Why do you say that?

You see there is some debate about whether Thatcher’s economic polices hindered or helped the UK economy.

Don’t believe the myth by Neil Clark.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47328...ret-thatcher-ruined-egalitarian-1970s-britain

For more detail try –

Dancing with Dogma: Britain Under Thatcherism - By Ian Gilmour (who was a right wing politician)

The State We’re In: Why Britain is in Crisis and How to Overcome it - by Will Hutton

*

As a theory?

A perfect and true free market

Can you prove a perfect and true form of communism isn’t the best system?

Can you prove a perfect and true form of anarchy isn’t the best system?

As I said earlier in a perfect world everything would be perfect and theoretically perfect government and economic systems would work perfectly.

I think any perfect system would work perfectly the problem is that I don’t think we live in a perfect world, and I’ve yet to meet a perfect human.

 

Is this the same Britain that in 1976 had to take a loan out from the IMF to boost up it's economy and value of the pound?

 

Britian was hit bad by several factors speculators had devaluing Stirling, there was economic turmoil following of the collapse of the Bretton Wood agreement when the US was nearly bankrupt and that was followed by the very big economic shock of the oil crisis and resultant stock market crash.

But the question was did Thatcher’s economic policies help or hinder the recovery?

 

Sorry, but I don't know Keynes's Politics, I don't use words like neo-whatever and I don't give a crap about the difference between a plutocracy and corporatism. Here is what I do know; the founders of this country said that big government is bad government. They founded the country that now has the largest economy in the world, as well as the country with the greatest personal liberties. Now, a true free market is supposed to include no government intrusion. Which means no regulation. That is not quite a good thing. Because a company with too much power will abuse that power just like a government will. So we do not have a true free market.

How is our system only good for the wealthy during times of boom? During the boom people are working, making money, if they try hard enough they can advance their careers and and be more successful. How is it bad during the bust, lower taxes so companies can spend more and hire more and people can prosper and dig out of the mess. The socialist FDR kept us in a major depression with the New Deal, a free market could have gotten us out.

Please, sheeple, do not be fooled by the aura of celebrity around Che, Obama and the rest of these wackos.

 

So basically you’re saying you don’t really know what you’re talking about and aren’t that interested in finding out. This pretty much negates everything you then say.

You’re telling me you’re right because in your own mind you are right. And you present speculation as if it were fact; can you back up the FDR assertion?

*

I’ve explained this many times – in the last few years the wealth of the rich went up hugely while that of the common worker stay about the same or in real terms declined.

“After the implementation of neoliberal policies in the late 1970’s the share of the national income of the top 1 per cent of income earners in the us soared to reach 15 per cent by the end of the century. The top 0.1 per cent of income earners in the us increased their share of the national income from 2 per cent in1978 to over 6 per cent by 1999, while the ratio of median compensation of workers to the salaries of CEOs increased from just over 30 to 1 in 1970 to nearly 500 to 1 by 2000”
A brief history of Neoliberalism by David Harvey.

 

Basically, what this person just said is the same thing I've been saying. NOT INTERESTED in a bunch of complicated labels and categorizations, fancy sounding terminologies, not interested in being placed in a box nor placing others there. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with knowing what we are talking about.

Think of it this way. I can go out into the woods, TOTALLY enjoy the trees and plants and wilderness. Eat roots and berries and wild meat and mushrooms, build a fire to cook and stay warm, and everything is great. I DON'T need to know the Latin NAME of every tree and plant. I don't need to know the chemical reactions that take place when I build my fire or cook my food. I just know what is good and what isn't, what works and what doesn't. But I could send someone else out into the woods to live who has all those terms and labels and detailed information at their disposal, but they would probably either starve or freeze....

 

......I also don't need to know music theory to enjoy music or be a musician. Fancy that.

 

But if you know nothing how do you work out if you are talking bollocks or not? I mean if you have no terms of reference other than what you think is right, and since you think its right it must be right, how do you know its right?
If someone things racism is right, is it right?

Well it’s better to know your Cantharellusfrom your Omphalotus olearius or your Sorbus aucuparia from your Solanum dulcamara.

You might not have to learn the Latin name but it might be a good idea to know the difference by giving them labels even if they are ‘eat’ and ‘don’t eat’?

You see some things are good to eat and others just might make you ill or kill you.

You might know what is good and what isn't, but how do you know? Did you learn it or are you some kind of all knowing god that doesn’t need to learn anything?

A friend of mine taught me mushroom picking, the edible ones, the poisonous ones and the fun ones. And I wouldn’t recommend anyone to just go out and guess what fungus to eat without that knowledge.

To me an intelligent person learns, they gain knowledge about themselves and there surroundings, I think the definition of a fool is someone that believes they don’t need to learn because they know everything.

Well it’s the same with politics.

 

Oh, did I say I know nothing?

I think most people are smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong...

REALLY??????? Wow, I'm SO impressed...

REALLY??????? I have better working knowledge of wild edibles than most of my friends do. And I tend to hang with folks like myself. Could YOU go live off the land TODAY? Because I could. And the ONLY latin name I know is PAPAVER SOMNIFERUM. Damn, and I'm still alive.

Picture books. Oh, and I can READ too. Or maybe I'm just an all knowing Goddess.

A FRIEND???? You mean you didn't look it all up in a book and learn all the Latin names??? You mean there are OTHER ways to learn things you need to know? Who would have thought?

Agreed.

 

I am an all-knowing Goddess.




Actually, she's within.

 

We are going to need some very large reeducation camps...

 

Oh, they're already established!