>> ^blankfist:

I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing free markets with free people. Free market as a colloquial definition is nearing equivalence to capitalism and corporatism, but that doesn't make it the correct meaning. It's a terrible revisionist definition. A market is a trade, not an economic system. A free market is a voluntary trade/exchange that doesn't imply the trade of money, working from capital, or the legitimization of corporations. It's all in the definitions.
So, if we're getting caught up on language, then that's one thing we can get around. But if we're getting caught up on ideological differences, then that's something completely different. When you say things like "free market reforms have been implemented by a government" and "It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing" when speaking of a free market, it tells me we're probably not even close to being on the same page in how we're defining simple terms. Mainly because voluntary exchanges amongst people don't work that way and can not. It sounds like you're angry with corporations (and corporation/government collusion), and in that way your complaints are warranted and supported by me.
I promise to research more about Friedman in regards to your claims below. If there's truth to your claims, and it's not just circumstantial or associated relevances, it would be seriously in dire opposition to ideas of liberty. Claims like this, "hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations."
But I'll look into my own way as I don't want to be spoonfed by a social democrat.
Somewhat surprising, Wikipedia has some good information on the view of free markets as it pertains to faction ideology and history:

In Marxist theory, the idea of the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism.
-cited

Support for the free market as an ordering principle of society is above all associated with liberalism, especially during the 19th century. (In Europe, the term 'liberalism' retains its connotation as the ideology of the free market, but in American and Canadian usage it came to be associated with government intervention, and acquired a pejorative meaning for supporters of the free market.) Later ideological developments, such as minarchism, libertarianism and Objectivism also support the free market, and insist on its pure form. Although the Western world shares a generally similar form of economy, usage in the United States and Canada is to refer to this as capitalism, while in Europe 'free market' is the preferred neutral term. The advocates of modern liberalism (American and Canadian usage), and in Europe those of social democracy, seek ostensibly only to mitigate what they see as the problems of an unrestrained free market, and accept the existence of markets as such.
To most libertarians, there is simply no free market yet, given the degree of state intervention in even the most 'capitalist' of countries. From their perspective, those who say they favor a "free market" are speaking in a relative, rather than an absolute, sense — meaning (in libertarian terms) they wish that coercion be kept to the minimum that is necessary to maximize economic freedom (such necessary coercion would be taxation, for example) and to maximize market efficiency by lowering trade barriers, making the tax system neutral in its influence on important decisions such as how to raise capital, e.g., eliminating the double tax on dividends so that equity financing is not at a disadvantage vis-a-vis debt financing. However, there are some such as anarcho-capitalists who would not even allow for taxation and governments, instead preferring protectors of economic freedom in the form of private contractors.
-cited

Not cited to refute or embolden either of our claims.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.
I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.
Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.
I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.
I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.
Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.
1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

LICENSE AGREEMENT RED HAT® ENTERPRISE LINUX® AND RED HAT® APPLICATIONS

PLEASE READ THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE USING SOFTWARE FROM RED HAT. BY USING RED HAT SOFTWARE, YOU SIGNIFY YOUR ASSENT TO AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS. AN INDIVIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY REPRESENTS THAT HE OR SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THAT ENTITY. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THEN YOU MUST NOT USE THE RED HAT SOFTWARE. THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RIGHTS TO RED HAT SERVICES SUCH AS SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, UPGRADES OR SUPPORT. PLEASE REVIEW YOUR SERVICE OR SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT(S) THAT YOU MAY HAVE WITH RED HAT OR OTHER AUTHORIZED RED HAT SERVICE PROVIDERS REGARDING SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED PAYMENTS.

This end user license agreement ("EULA") governs the use of any of the versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, certain other Red Hat software applications that include or refer to this license, and any related updates, source code, appearance, structure and organization (the "Programs"), regardless of the delivery mechanism.

1. License Grant. Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to you a perpetual, worldwide license to the Programs (most of which include multiple software components) pursuant to the GNU General Public License v.2. The license agreement for each software component is located in the software component's source code and permits you to run, copy, modify, and redistribute the software component (subject to certain obligations in some cases), both in source code and binary code forms, with the exception of (a) certain binary only firmware components and (b) the images identified in Section 2 below. The license rights for the binary only firmware components are located with the components themselves. This EULA pertains solely to the Programs and does not limit your rights under, or grant you rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component.

2. Intellectual Property Rights. The Programs and each of their components are owned by Red Hat and other licensors and are protected under copyright law and under other laws as applicable. Title to the Programs and any component, or to any copy, modification, or merged portion shall remain with Red Hat and other licensors, subject to the applicable license. The "Red Hat" trademark and the "Shadowman" logo are registered trademarks of Red Hat in the U.S. and other countries. This EULA does not permit you to distribute the Programs or their components using Red Hat's trademarks, regardless of whether the copy has been modified. You may make a commercial redistribution of the Programs only if (a) permitted under a separate written agreement with Red Hat authorizing such commercial redistribution, or (b) you remove and replace all occurrences of Red Hat trademarks. Modifications to the software may corrupt the Programs. You should read the information found at http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ before distributing a copy of the Programs.

3. Limited Warranty. Except as specifically stated in this Section 3, a separate agreement with Red Hat, or a license for a particular component, to the maximum extent permitted under applicable law, the Programs and the components are provided and licensed "as is" without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including the implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement or fitness for a particular purpose. Red Hat warrants that the media on which the Programs and the components are provided will be free from defects in materials and manufacture under normal use for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery to you. Neither Red Hat nor its affiliates warrants that the functions contained in the Programs will meet your requirements or that the operation of the Programs will be entirely error free, appear or perform precisely as described in the accompanying documentation, or comply with regulatory requirements. This warranty extends only to the party that purchases subscription services for the Programs from Red Hat and/or its affiliates or a Red Hat authorized distributor.

4. Limitation of Remedies and Liability. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, your exclusive remedy under this EULA is to return any defective media within 30 days of delivery along with a copy of your payment receipt and Red Hat, at its option, will replace it or refund the money you paid for the media. To the maximum extent permitted under applicable law, under no circumstances will Red Hat, its affiliates, any Red Hat authorized distributor, or the licensor of any component provided to you under this EULA be liable to you for any incidental or consequential damages, including lost profits or lost savings arising out of the use or inability to use the Programs or any component, even if Red Hat, its affiliates, an authorized distributor and/or licensor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In no event shall Red Hat's or its affiliates' liability, an authorized distributor's liability or the liability of the licensor of a component provided to you under this EULA exceed the amount that you paid to Red Hat for the media under this EULA.

5. Export Control. As required by the laws of the United States and other countries, you represent and warrant that you: (a) understand that the Programs and their components may be subject to export controls under the U.S. Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"); (b) are not located in a prohibited destination country under the EAR or U.S. sanctions regulations (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, subject to change as posted by the United States government); (c) will not export, re-export, or transfer the Programs to any prohibited destination or persons or entities on the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security Denied Parties List or Entity List, or the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, or any similar lists maintained by other countries, without the necessary export license(s) or authorization(s); (d) will not use or transfer the Programs for use in connection with any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, missile technology, or military end-uses where prohibited by an applicable arms embargo, unless authorized by the relevant government agency by regulation or specific license; (e) understand and agree that if you are in the United States and export or transfers the Programs to eligible end users, you will, to the extent required by EAR Section 740.17(e), submit semi-annual reports to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, which include the name and address (including country) of each transferee; and (f) understand that countries including the United States may restrict the import, use, or export of encryption products (which may include the Programs and the components) and agree that you shall be solely responsible for compliance with any such import, use, or export restrictions.

6. Third Party Programs. Red Hat may distribute third party software programs with the Programs that are not part of the Programs. These third party programs are not required to run the Programs, are provided as a convenience to you, and are subject to their own license terms. The license terms either accompany the third party software programs or can be viewed at http://www.redhat.com/licenses/thirdparty/eula.html. If you do not agree to abide by the applicable license terms for the third party software programs, then you may not install them. If you wish to install the third party software programs on more than one system or transfer the third party software programs to another party, then you must contact the licensor of the applicable third party software programs.

7. General. If any provision of this EULA is held to be unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. Any claim, controversy or dispute arising under or relating to this EULA shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York and of the United States, without regard to any conflict of laws provisions. The rights and obligations of the parties to this EULA shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.

Copyright © 2010 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. "Red Hat" and the Red Hat "Shadowman" logo are registered trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing free markets with free people. Free market as a colloquial definition is nearing equivalence to capitalism and corporatism, but that doesn't make it the correct meaning. It's a terrible revisionist definition. A market is a trade, not an economic system. A free market is a voluntary trade/exchange that doesn't imply the trade of money, working from capital, or the legitimization of corporations. It's all in the definitions.

So, if we're getting caught up on language, then that's one thing we can get around. But if we're getting caught up on ideological differences, then that's something completely different. When you say things like "free market reforms have been implemented by a government" and "It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing" when speaking of a free market, it tells me we're probably not even close to being on the same page in how we're defining simple terms. Mainly because voluntary exchanges amongst people don't work that way and can not. It sounds like you're angry with corporations (and corporation/government collusion), and in that way your complaints are warranted and supported by me.

I promise to research more about Friedman in regards to your claims below. If there's truth to your claims, and it's not just circumstantial or associated relevances, it would be seriously in dire opposition to ideas of liberty. Claims like this, "hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations."

But I'll look into my own way as I don't want to be spoonfed by a social democrat.

Somewhat surprising, Wikipedia has some good information on the view of free markets as it pertains to faction ideology and history:

In Marxist theory, the idea of the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism.
-cited

Support for the free market as an ordering principle of society is above all associated with liberalism, especially during the 19th century. (In Europe, the term 'liberalism' retains its connotation as the ideology of the free market, but in American and Canadian usage it came to be associated with government intervention, and acquired a pejorative meaning for supporters of the free market.) Later ideological developments, such as minarchism, libertarianism and Objectivism also support the free market, and insist on its pure form. Although the Western world shares a generally similar form of economy, usage in the United States and Canada is to refer to this as capitalism, while in Europe 'free market' is the preferred neutral term. The advocates of modern liberalism (American and Canadian usage), and in Europe those of social democracy, seek ostensibly only to mitigate what they see as the problems of an unrestrained free market, and accept the existence of markets as such.

To most libertarians, there is simply no free market yet, given the degree of state intervention in even the most 'capitalist' of countries. From their perspective, those who say they favor a "free market" are speaking in a relative, rather than an absolute, sense — meaning (in libertarian terms) they wish that coercion be kept to the minimum that is necessary to maximize economic freedom (such necessary coercion would be taxation, for example) and to maximize market efficiency by lowering trade barriers, making the tax system neutral in its influence on important decisions such as how to raise capital, e.g., eliminating the double tax on dividends so that equity financing is not at a disadvantage vis-a-vis debt financing. However, there are some such as anarcho-capitalists who would not even allow for taxation and governments, instead preferring protectors of economic freedom in the form of private contractors.
-cited

Not cited to refute or embolden either of our claims.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.

I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.

Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.

Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

(self post for archival reasons)

You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.

I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.

Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.

Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0805079831>> ^blankfist:

No. This is genuine discontent boiling over. Let me explain this one final time, so you know where I'm coming from, which is contrary to how you and your best friend NR try to paint me in every discussion thread.
I see a dangerous trend with people lumping together capitalism and free markets and corporatism. All three of them are equally different constructs, and not one of them is similar. Capitalism is working from savings (capital) to produce goods and services. A free market is a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange between people without coercion. Corporations are government legitimized entities whose only purpose is to make profit in business.
If you asked me to help paint your house and in exchange you'd offer me a lunch, and I agreed voluntarily, that would be the free market. It doesn't necessarily necessitate the exchange of money. If you pulled $1000 from your savings to pay a painter, that would be capitalism and unless you held a gun to his head that too would be a free market exchange. If the state or city says you can only hire licensed painters, then that's not a free market exchange (but still capitalism).
If you had to hire Lowe's Inc. or Home Depot Inc. because they're the only show in town (because of corporate subsidies that make their prices so low no small business painter could compete with them, because the regulations or fees are too stringent for individuals to compete financially with the large corporations, etc.) then that's corporatism and capitalism - and that's absolutely not the free market.
I know you say you think we've been over this ad nauseum, but in every single discussion you seem to revert back to painting me with the same broad brush of capitalist/free marketeer/corporatist which is incredibly disingenuous. For the record: I agree with free markets, I agree with capitalism only as far as it's necessary, and I despise vehemently corporations because they're fictitious entities legitimized by government.
I've said on many accounts that I think capitalism is imperfect. But there's not a single human created economic construct out today that works as well as capitalism. When the day comes that a new system is introduced that is better, I will be more than happy to shake off the chains of capitalism and forge ahead. But no other system is better at the present moment. Not socialism, not communism, not marxism, not anything.
I don't have a problem challenging my belief system, because that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I've transitioned from apolitical/centrist to Democratic-leaning to what I am today. I've never been spoon-fed any pro-capitalist bullshit from teachers, instructors, peers or coworkers at any point in my life; this has all been an objective study on my part. And I take no issue with reading the Shock Doctrine, obviously, because I like to learn more from different perspectives on just about everything, especially politics. And always have! But I'm not your monkey that will rush out and buy a copy today, and that doesn't mean I'm hopeless or ignoring whatever information that book may offer.
If you want capitalism to crumble and be replaced with nationalist capitalism or socialism or whatever else, that's fine by me that you have those beliefs, but understand that I'm not the enemy in your long war against that.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Are you flirting with me?
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You know how we look back on the dark ages and laugh at how stupid and primitive all the knuckleheads were back then? In a few hundred more years, people are going to laugh at us for the same way, and deservedly so.

The prophet hath spoken! Go readth the Shock Doctrine and cleanse thyselves!

You confuse free markets with free people. Where free market reforms have been put into place in Chile, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia and here at home in the states, you see a pattern of hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, low wages, massive income inequality, the gutting of the middle class, labor exploitation, abuse and attacks (physical or economic) on unions and the diminishing of civil rights. I know that your free market intentions are pure, but as Milton Friedman himself said "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Free markets provide liberty to employers at the expense of employee liberty; they provide liberty to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It's the Soviet communism of the rich.

I know you draw a big distinction between free markets and corporatism in your mind, but historically, free markets always lead to corporatism and generally require violence and authoritarianism to implement and sustain.

Corporations latched on to Milton Friedman, because he was able to make a persuasive moral argument in favor plutocracy that could be embraced by people who do not benefit from corporatism (like you). Rather than say the rich should be free to dominate, he makes it an issue of 'individual liberty'. If "individual liberty" just so happens to lead plutocracy, it's not Uncle Miltie's fault, because "Freedom is dangerous" as you have said many times.

I know I sound like a broken record, but you need to read that book. Friedman and his Chicago school of economics cronies repeatedly worked closely with despotic governments (including our own) and despotic businesses. You'll be "shocked". He and his colleagues hijacked the IMF and World Bank and have been using those institutions to beat down poor nations and force them to sell of their natural resources to multinational corporations.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, just so long as it does not have a monopoly over the system. I think capitalism has many good traits, but that it is not capable of performing tasks in which value cannot be measured in dollars, like health, education, infrastructure and other social programs. I want a system where government is free to do what it does best, and where business if free to do what it does best. Balance > Ideological monopolies.

Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

I find the Libyan uprising inspiring and would like to see them succeed in their revolution. I have no problem with the UN playing a supporting role in this conflict. I'd (obviously) be against occupation, ground forces, IMF/World Bank style imperialism, the building of bases and/or the encroachment upon the sovereignty of a liberated Libya.

I guess the question is whether or not we should take the situation at face value or not. Iraq was obviously bullshit from the start, from it's bogus 9/11 and WMD motivations, to the outrageous no-bid contracts and lavish military spending, to it's secret prisons and torture methods, to the gang of corporations that lined up around the block to make a buck. It lacked international support and clarity as to what it's intentions were.

I'm not seeing any of those telltale signs of bullshit here. This situation is not a unilateral US action. It has broad international support. It's purpose is defined and limited in scope, and I don't see the carpetbaggers lining up. If there is evidence to suggest this is another Iraq cluster fuck, I'd like to hear it, but for the moment, I suppose I am "pro war", or at least pro revolution.

Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

While the yuan is tentatively pegged to the dollar, it's hard to argue anything has changed.

A currency needs years, decades even to gain reserve currency status. With the current debt instability in the Euro area, this has become a very unlikely proposition. The yuan is even less likely, partly because currently it is still essentially pegged to the dollar and partly because it still far, far from being the pre-eminent power with massive income disparity comparing the cities to the countryside, unstable regions, and even purely festering structural issues like water shortage and pollution. What's more likely is it being replaced also in the medium to long term by the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDR), basically an amalgamated currency with proportionate representations by major economic world power currencies.

The thing is though if the US were gradually replaced by other (or combination of) currencies it would be quite beneficial to the US economy.

The main effect would be a depreciation of the US dollar. The US dollar is in excessive demand because it is used in trade internationally, something that hurts US export competitiveness. A currency depreciation would make imports less competitive and exports more competitive. Less incentive to overconsume Chinese manufacturing, more incentive to export products thus improving the US trade balance and foreign debt.

Slight inflationary pressure. Currently deflation is a bigger worry, especially if it becomes entrenched as in Japan.

Public debt? Largely wouldn't be affected because it is predominantly denominated in US currency (Treasury bills) thus currency value does not play into the equation.

Point is, it's largely a good thing.

@joedirt, yes, you're fucking insane.

You also need to "learn history" -- to the degree that the Fed made things worse, it was because they listened to the goldbugs and tightened the money supply during a steep recession so as to not jeopardize their adherence to the gold standard. The result was massive unemployment that lasted for a long time, and it didn't get better until they ditched the gold standard (though most returned to it in the 40's under Bretton Woods, only to leave it again in the 70's).

I totally agree that the Fed should be a little less independent, and a little more subjected to public review, ditto with the IMF (though their actions seem fairly public already), but wanting a return to a gold standard is nonsense teabagger craziness, especially if you're coming at it from a progressive point of view.

Crazy people against the Federal Reserve / WTO / IMF system??

Are you fucking insane??

Imagine if we had a gold standard and actual secured and backed monetary policy?
We wouldn't all be poor in a few years. Everyone is going to get fucked over hard by IMF and central banks, learn history and how the Great Depression was made 10x worse by this magical bank of yours.

Our govt doesn't even have any oversight over the federal reserve or their decisions and you might want to google and find out what country the Fed actual resides in.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The accusation that America is 'becoming Greece' is not unfounded. Greece is foundering because it has billions in unfunded liabilities and no effective way to pay them.

[snip]

"Austerity measures..." What a nice left wing whitewash of the fact that they are being forced by necessitiy to use (GASP!) conservative economic policy in order to prevent themselves from absolute self destruction. So to save it's @$$, Greece is having to privitize health care, as well as cut bloated, unsustainable social spending. Gee - where have we heard that before?

You gave a pretty much content-free "Grr, I hate liberals" comment there.

Not that you've ever shown any interest in facts, but here is a summary of the austerity measures the IMF is demanding of Greece.

They're not privatizing their health care, they're rolling back some recent pay increases for public sector jobs, they're raising the retirement age, and they're raising taxes.

Which is of course, one way they could have avoided the problem in the first place. Greece is in the middle of the pack in terms of government spending to GDP ratio within the EU. Where it does stands out is on the tax side of the equation...

And this is what I meant by bailing out Europe: http://washingtonindependent.com/84329/fed-opens-currency-swap-lines-with-europe

Also bailouts from the IMF: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/imf-bailout-not-enough-to-cure-greek-crisis-say-experts_456555.html

Gee, a guy from IMF saying the system is fine? Figure that one out.

Inevitable total worldwide economic collapse is SUCH OLD NEWS. Just ask Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, the list goes on... Get an acre and plant a big garden or riot and die.

I understood what Mr Paul was saying. It is likely that a good portion of Congress, and a vast majority of the US population has no clue (or care) what he is talking about. Never mind the significance of it all. The farce that which the 'Fed' and the IMF is, is quite blatant. If only people would look, listen and understand. True free market capitalism does not exist. The US economy is supported on pillars of fake money.

When the likes of Iraq (before) and Iran (now) threaten the US dollar system by running Euro based oil markets and refuse to adhere to the US behemoth, they either get invaded, or they get targeted. Iran is no good guy by any means, but it isn't the so-called nukes that the US cares about. They want Iran to kill their Euro based oil markets.

For those who don't get it. The US doesn't like buying Euros for a Euro based oil market.. because they need REAL assets with which to purchase those Euros with. When you have a fake system, you want everything to be in that fake tender. Thus you can print whatever you need on demand. Poof. You have money for oil.

Giethner worked at kissinger and associates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates
then the CFR, (the ultimate conservative thinktank and media clearinghouse)
then the IMF (the ultimate authority for compliance with western banking standards)
then the fed, which is privately owned by shareholder banks

i want nerd guerilla warfare on EVERYTHING.
anonymous as a social justice movement would be ingenious and fucking powerful.
i want them to clog the fax lines of financial institutions with pictures of dollar bills and poverty.
i want the IMF inundated with fax pictures of mohangany trees, and bananas, and third world civil wars.
go go go go go go go go go

and anti gay marriage politicians to get faxed gay porn.