4 ms·
In practice, "free market" as a historically implemented policy has meant "remove all oversight and revoke any protections or governing laws and thus legalize a
by kristopolous 6y ago
In practice, "free market" as a historically implemented policy has meant "remove all oversight and revoke any protections or governing laws and thus legalize all business practices (such as scams, collusion, price fixing, market manipulations) regardless of ethics and hand the legislative pen to the business leaders to write their own laws.
Ban all forms of community governance, municipal ownership, or a people doing something for their community without using a for profit private company middleman.
Defund and gut any form of a social safety net. Disallow people to challenge a company polluting their drinking water and shut down the agencies tasked to inspect it. Forbid places from passing clean air laws or having the power to say no to any predatory company that wants to come to town
Allow companies to sue entire countries in secret tribunals if a country decides to not eviscerate their health and safety standards. Disallow countries from preferring local industry or keeping out vulture capital doing pump and dump schemes on their water and food supply. Protect these companies by international private militias that have an authority which overrides the country's own military.
Enshrine this right in treaty law so no sovereign people can possibly override it or fight back without severe consequences. Embargo, tariff and boycott them if they don't join in.
Permit companies to hide how their products are produced, lie about abusive and child labor and hide their profits in tax shelters without any consequences whatsoever.
Allow banks to defraud customers with phony accounts, car companies to lie about emissions, energy companies to crash entire state economies, insiders to manipulate the libor rates, and create shell companies using tobashi schemes to hide losses and reverse tobashi schemes to hide profits, and then bail them out with public money when it doesn't work out.
And finally destroy public education and replace it with whatever influence peddler with deep pockets wants to pass off as curriculum so that the public doesn't ever catch on to how much they're getting robbed."
Then there's this slight of hand where the advocates talk about the theoretically heady version of free market and then do mental acrobatics to bridge the policy and theories together. It's a distraction so that all the effort to combat the chicanery is instead exhausted on debates and theory discussions so obtuse intellectualism instead of meaningful directed focussed political action occupies all the time of thought leaders.
It's just coercion exploitation and oppression based on raw capital wrapped with the union busting techniques that keep the con game going without any consequences. It's a giant hustle to snatch and grab profit while turning our back on centuries of progress all under a fraudulent banner labeled "freedom".
Even the right wingers on gab and parler are seeing this now. It's so clear.
Such a scam.
- conanbatt 6y ago> In practice, "free market" as a historically implemented policy has meant "remove all oversight and revoke any protections or governing laws and thus legalize all business practices (such as scams, collusion, price fixing, market manipulations) regardless of ethics and hand the legislative pen to the business leaders to write their own laws. The rule of law is important for free markets and breach of contracts needs to be punished to have a vibrant market.
- kristopolous 6y agoHistorically, those who legislate and wield power have not invoked it in that way. That's the point. "Deregulation" is code for taking hundreds of laws and dumping them in a garbage bin. "Privatization" is code for stealing tax dollars and hiding it in offshore accounts. I only care about the actual, real world material reality that has historically factually happened. The champions politic in a way that tends strongly away from rule of law as quickly as possible. It's a framework that gets invoked to go both ways. It's a vendor's "freedom" to not have to label, say, gmo, but then it's the vendor's "rights" to prohibit soy milk from using the label "milk". "Freedoms" and "rights" get interchanged to rationalize the preconfigured results. The dogma is a general tool. It was the "freedom" of agrobusiness to flood mexico with corn after NAFTA and run the local farmers out of business and then it was their "rights" to the marketplace when mexico pushed back. The farmers didn't have that same right to the marketplace, they didn't have the same freedoms, only international capital does. How convenient. That's why the zealots always think it's the right answer - it can be reshaped like a mound of clay to justify and rationalize whatever they want. For instance the sanctity of contract matters when it's with the gas pipeline company but not when it's with the american tribes When instead it's a pipeline of people via a subway through a wealthy neighborhood like the purple line extension in Beverly hills, all of a sudden the free market gets invoked to guess what? Reach the opposite conclusion. It's fundamentally a convenient power tool of capital. They used to use the Bible, now they use Friedrich Hayek. Skullduggery with the purest, most heavenly goals. Sure... In practice, free markets are lawless raw power that bend the state to do their bidding like some feudal king, but now it's wearing a bowtie and a cardigan instead of a sceptre and a robe. Same thing, different era.