March 02, 2008


IMPEACH BUSH



IMPEACH CHENEY



A LOOK AT THE REALITY OF THE FREE MARKET

We've been told that globalization is a truly marvelous thing. Opening up borders and allowing competition will produce nirvana. When we look around, though, we see our manufacturing sector almost gone, along with the good paying jobs that went with the manufacturing sector, and we see our balance of trade totally out of whack with countries like China. Elitists like Thomas Friedman smugly proclaim that the "world is flat" and that developing economies are now free to compete with established economies such as the United States and Britain. In this commentary Thom Hartmann reviews a book called BadSamaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang. The commentary is at www.buzzflash.com:

There are two glaringly obvious flaws in the so-called "free trade" theories expounded by neoliberal philosophers like Friedrich Von Hayek and Milton Friedman, and promoted relentlessly in the popular press by (very wealthy) hucksters like Thomas Friedman.
First, "infant" economies - countries that are only beginning to get on their feet - cannot "compete" with "mature" economies. They really only have two choices - lose to their more mature competitors and stand on the hungry and cold outside of the world of trade (as we see with much of Africa), or be colonized and exploited by the dominant corporate forces within the mature economies (as we see with Shell Oil and Nigeria, or historically with the "banana republics" of Central and South America and Asia and, literally, the banana corporations).
Second, the way "infant" economies become "mature" economies is not via free trade. It never has been and never will be. Whether it be the mature economies of Britain (which began to seriously grow in the early 1600s), America (late 1700s), Japan (1800s), or Brazil (1900s), in every single case, worldwide, without exception, the economic strength and maturity of a nation came about as a result not of governments "standing aside" or "getting out of the way" but instead of direct government participation in and protection of the "infant" industries and economy.



UNDOING THE RIGHT WING ASSAULT


Right-wingers will expound on the glories of the free market the way Pavlov's dogs would salivate at the ringing of a bell. We've had essentially thirty years of right-wing economic policy in place, and the grim consequences are like a moon crater in our economy. The tide may be shifting. People may be starting to realize that the unregulated free market is like a pack of wolves ravaging the sheep. This article by Donald Cohen is at www.commondreams.org:


The 2008 presidential race is clear evidence that the cone of silence is lifting and the narrative shifting. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking openly about the need for more active government.

In a recent NY Times interview Sen. Clinton spoke openly about the need for active government role in the economy to balance the excesses of the market. “If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market” Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.”

She proclaimed: “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and market.”

Clinton’s remarks signal a return to the ideas of the great economic minds of the 20th century - the British economist John Maynard Keynes and his disciple, the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith - whose thinking shaped the New Deal and Great Society policy agenda. They recognized the need for countervailing power in market based economies. Now 30 some odd years after the right-wingers declared war on these ideas, the mainstream of the Democratic Party is speaking again of the limits of markets left alone.

Barack Obama too has articulated an agenda that make clear that the philosophical framework and place he comes from is all about the common good and reinvigorating a sense of national purpose. His calls for regulating the subprime industry, fair trade deals and investments in social and physical infrastructure represent a clear understanding of government’s role vis a vis the market.