This post from Dan Drezner’s blog reminded me of something I’ve felt for a while. I don’t understand how legislation written for business by business isn’t widely considered inherently antithetical to the principles of the free market. The goal for any corporation is a 100% market share. To become a monopoly is what every big corporation is working for. And it is well that they should, for what else are they to do? Unless you are pushing your advantage to the absolute maximum, you are on the decline. I have no quarrel with the corporations who try their darndest to get favorable legislation signed, but I do have a problem with people who seem to think it’s anti-capitalism to oppose such measures. The free market is an essentially consumer oriented experience. It is from the buyer’s frame of reference that the market is free. The less control the sellers have over their environment, the better for the buyer. Unfortunately, the corporations who write the laws, the lobbyists who push the laws, and the (usually) GOP legislators who pass the laws in exchange for lots and lots of money, have managed to convince most people that their agenda is the one championing capitalism.
Just one more reason you should tell your friends that the Democrats are the party of the free market, the party of competition, the party of the consumer. Hammer it home and eventually people believe it. Hey, if it works for lies, why shouldn’t it work for the truth?
Monday, June 13, 2005
Business vs. Free Market
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
how is this not blazingly apparent to everyone?? free market capitalism can only survive with legislation to limit the consolidation of money and, consequently, power. the leading quote from soros' "The Crisis of Global Capitalism" -
"Financial markets are inherently unstable and there are social needs that cannot be met by giving market forces free rein. Unfortunately these defects are not recognized. Instead there is a widespread belief that markets are self-correcting and a global economy can flourish without any need for a global society. It is claimed that the common interest is best served by allowing everyone to look out for his or her own interests and that attempts to protect the common interest by collective decision making distort the market mechanism. This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism.
It is market fundamentalism that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable."
Post a Comment