The joys of the "free market."
February 27th 2008 01:48
OK, so you can't buy toys made in China that you can be sure are lead free. You order a burger and get E-Coli on the side. Salmonella with your nuggets. Can't trust that Spinach. Your Peter Pan is putrid. And medicine? You can't trust the prescription you were given to actually do what is claimed or if it will even help you. What gives?
If you listen to the Bushies and the economic gurus of the right, the "free market" is the answer to everything economic. Well, that and give away the economic future of the country to the rich through idiotic tax cuts. Energy problems, infrastructure, even war - privatize! If there is money in it, someone should own it, right? This is a downright stupid policy for many reasons. And I think most of those who push it realize that. Bush, of course, just thinks the voice in his head is Jesus telling him to start another Crusade. Actually, I think he probably knows his economic policies are crap too.
Those who say the "free market" is the best solution say that the markets will rise to all challenges, filling a void when needed. They also say that regulation isn't needed because the market will correct itself. In essence, if you get sick from some Hot Dogs you ate, you won't buy from that company again. Well, duh. The problems come when you consider the fact that they were bad in the first place. How many people got sick? Or died? And did the maker just change his name after that, and keep selling dogs?
That doesn't even take into account those who enter a "free market" with no intent of doing things the right way. Without regulations unscrupulous merchants enter the market for the quick buck. Hit and run, not caring if you buy from them again or not. When you factor in the international nature of business and the lack of accountability it gets even more problematic. The idiocy of relying on the "free market" to determine product safety should be apparent to everyone - well, except for those who still believe Bush is doing a good job.
Another gaping hole in the "free market" approach is to assume that it will be pro-active. The market doesn't look at the country and say "damn, I think I'll build an interstate transportation system" Or "wow, it would be nice if we had clean air." It takes planning for the public commons. The good of all of us is up to all of us. The market won't fix the energy problems. And it most assuredly won't do anything to stop the occupation of Iraq. It's great for the bottom line of far too many companies.
The truth is there is always some jackass who will cut the last tree, shoot the last buffalo, or burn the last drop of gasoline (most likely at a Nascar event) or sell you snake oil and call it a cure for cancer. For capitalism to work it needs to be substantially regulated. Without strong regulation and strict enforcement, you get chaos. You get corporatocracy, not anything free. And corporatocracies collapse. The last big one in the United States was in 1929. The only ones who benefit from a "free market" like that are those at the very top.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to be successful in business. I am saying there should be strong regulations that ensure safety and consistency and promote the general welfare. And that don't allow CEO's to make millions as companies rape and pillage and/or go bankrupt.
If you listen to the Bushies and the economic gurus of the right, the "free market" is the answer to everything economic. Well, that and give away the economic future of the country to the rich through idiotic tax cuts. Energy problems, infrastructure, even war - privatize! If there is money in it, someone should own it, right? This is a downright stupid policy for many reasons. And I think most of those who push it realize that. Bush, of course, just thinks the voice in his head is Jesus telling him to start another Crusade. Actually, I think he probably knows his economic policies are crap too.
Those who say the "free market" is the best solution say that the markets will rise to all challenges, filling a void when needed. They also say that regulation isn't needed because the market will correct itself. In essence, if you get sick from some Hot Dogs you ate, you won't buy from that company again. Well, duh. The problems come when you consider the fact that they were bad in the first place. How many people got sick? Or died? And did the maker just change his name after that, and keep selling dogs?
That doesn't even take into account those who enter a "free market" with no intent of doing things the right way. Without regulations unscrupulous merchants enter the market for the quick buck. Hit and run, not caring if you buy from them again or not. When you factor in the international nature of business and the lack of accountability it gets even more problematic. The idiocy of relying on the "free market" to determine product safety should be apparent to everyone - well, except for those who still believe Bush is doing a good job.
Another gaping hole in the "free market" approach is to assume that it will be pro-active. The market doesn't look at the country and say "damn, I think I'll build an interstate transportation system" Or "wow, it would be nice if we had clean air." It takes planning for the public commons. The good of all of us is up to all of us. The market won't fix the energy problems. And it most assuredly won't do anything to stop the occupation of Iraq. It's great for the bottom line of far too many companies.
The truth is there is always some jackass who will cut the last tree, shoot the last buffalo, or burn the last drop of gasoline (most likely at a Nascar event) or sell you snake oil and call it a cure for cancer. For capitalism to work it needs to be substantially regulated. Without strong regulation and strict enforcement, you get chaos. You get corporatocracy, not anything free. And corporatocracies collapse. The last big one in the United States was in 1929. The only ones who benefit from a "free market" like that are those at the very top.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to be successful in business. I am saying there should be strong regulations that ensure safety and consistency and promote the general welfare. And that don't allow CEO's to make millions as companies rape and pillage and/or go bankrupt.
| 57 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
