{ http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02232009.html }
Michael Hudson, a research professor from University of Missouri, has written a lengthy but interesting article which explains the word "free market" isn't based on de-regulation, but on markets free from monopolies, unnecessary costs and interest payments.
He starts with the history of economics during the last centuries.
And he ends with a stark statement.
I found the article provided an interesting point of view to the free markets.
Michael Hudson, a research professor from University of Missouri, has written a lengthy but interesting article which explains the word "free market" isn't based on de-regulation, but on markets free from monopolies, unnecessary costs and interest payments.
...The aim is to deter the analysis of what a “free market” really is: a market free of unnecessary costs: monopoly rents, property rents and financial charges for credit that governments can create freely.
Terms that are the antithesis of “free market” also are being turned into the opposite of what they historically have meant. Take today’s discussions about nationalizing the banks. For over a century nationalization has meant public takeover of monopolies or other sectors to operate them in the public interest rather than leaving them so special interests. But when neoliberals use the word “nationalization” they mean a bailout, a government giveaway to the financial interests.
He starts with the history of economics during the last centuries.
Economic writers from the 16th through 20th centuries recognized that free markets required government oversight to prevent monopoly pricing and other charges levied by special privilege. By contrast, today’s neoliberal ideologues are public relations advocates for vested interests to depict a “free market” is one free of government regulation, “free” of anti-trust protection, and even of protection against fraud, as evidenced by the SEC’s refusal to move against Madoff, Enron, Citibank et al.). The neoliberal ideal of free markets is thus basically that of a bank robber or embezzler, wishing for a world without police so as to be sufficiently free to siphon off other peoples’ money without constraint.
And he ends with a stark statement.
Their alternative to true nationalization and socialization of finance is debt peonage, oligarchy and neo-feudalism. They have called this program “free markets.”
I found the article provided an interesting point of view to the free markets.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 233