Author Naomi Klein from The Nation runs down the problems with the American Market. One issue I have, it appears she's aiming at the wrong target or at least exempting the parts of the American system that conform to her acceptable -ism's-.
Her book "Disaster Capitalism" is one of my selected readings with my political group of friends. So far it is a historical, though biased, report on the Chicago school of Capitalism. She brings up a lot of good perspectives, but the villain she is addressing is only, at worst, a co-conspirator in the myriad of abuses going on in the American government. If the 'free market' were exclusively the system America uses, Ron Paul would likely be our next president [gasp].
"We now have evidence that this market model is broken."
This market model is a complex system made up of socialism (government runs education, social security, central banking or federal reserve, etc), fascism (corporate exemptions and no bid contracts, no accountability for corporate abuse, etc), capitalism (small and big business flexibility and opportunity) and a few traces of other systems like religious authoritarianism.
She is correct that this market model is broken. However, to say that the part of the system that has failed is the 'free market' side is quite a stretch. The banks have had extraordinary and exclusive rights and abilities on top of the corporate structure they enjoy which limits accountability. Special rights, exemptions (tax and otherwise), and loopholes are NOT the residue of free market capitalism. They are the result of fascism.
In Argentina she says it was a revolt against the 'Expert Class'. The is a reflective remnant of the communist idea that there will be a group of elites who are smarter than the average people and they will choose how things run and what things will flow and what things will not.
She promotes the idea of nationalizing (or internationalizing) the oil companies. I would agree that we could offer some type of standards to be sure that they are not polluting the environment in production, but why stop with nationalizing the oil companies. What about the plastic, drug, banking, media, and gun companies. Don't they all have dealings with the public in some way? Why not nationalize ALL business? To each according to their need, from each according to their worth.
The dog eat dog world of bare knuckle capitalism has always had elements I despise. Same with the leach of others we're all brothers, redistribution of wealth system promoted by many.
To be honest, I despise corporate abuse equally to the waste and abuse of big government. They are both wholly unacceptable.
The Greenspan legacy (another case where many are pointing to this breakdown as a failure of capitalism) is actually a case of a person who abandoned the free market ideals and joined the fascist control of the market. ONE MAN with has his finger on the pulse of interest rates for the nation (actually much of the world) can, in NO WAY be construed as Free Market Capitalism. It is the result of long stretches with a two party system.
When it comes to her book there is a missing link as well. She talks about how the Friedmanite school of thought evolved into a plan where they wait for a disaster and then swoop in and install free market programs I have not yet heard her address the opposite theories stemming back to Karl Marx about a violent uprising, killing off the rich and the elites and then installing their particular -ism- creating a central government that eventually dissolves (on the tongues of the people?) into small democracies across the land (America started of just inches away from that).
So 'Disaster Communism' is one in which the communists create the disaster and then there is no one to rebuff the install of communism.
We must abandon the idea of authoritarian government.
Should there really be an agency telling us how many peas and carrots to have on the shelf?
Shouldn't education be determined by the region and not the reigning president of the U.S. of A.???
What system best teaches charity and regard for our fellow man? That is a research assignment I would love to see done without political bias. As long as it supports my narrow view of the world.
If people are naturally bad then how can we trust one group of people to regulate another group of people?
Shouldn't the governemnt focus on the rule of law instead of enforcing fears and desires on the whims of the majority?
