Are we capitalists first -- or are we Americans first?

[necso]

The "global free market" may, at some point, cross (or have crossed) the line where it harms the national interest more than it helps it.

Sure, if you believe in "free market theory", the market will adjust itself to correct any imbalances. But isn't one of those imbalances worker pay and lifestyle? -- Does the "global free market" have a snowball's chance in hell of raising global living standards to that of Americans (today)?

Or is it more likely to "adjust" the lifestyles of (most) Americans downwards? And if the latter is more likely to be the case, is then the "global free market" a good thing for America? Or rather should we play the economic game to our national advantage, no matter where this course takes us in economic theory and policy?

Now there is some merit in the idea of improving the living standards of non-Americans. Certainly we can do a great deal of this without doing much harm to the interests of the American worker. But letting labor in India, China and elsewhere compete directly against our own workers has great potential consequences --- should we just stumble blindly down this path in the name of theory?

The "free market" has shown that it will fix prices, foul the commons, create monopolies, and generally reward lying, cheating and stealing. The economic success that America enjoys today is the product of government regulation, collective bargaining and citizen activism as well as market forces.

There are those who would say that a truly free market would have done better and would do better -- to them I say this: no market can be truly free when the consumer has no real choice, demand is a marketing artifact and the costs of becoming a producer (for many, if not most "products") are far beyond the resources of an individual or small group of individuals, except for the privileged few.

The free market demands real choices and real competition --- and these twin pillars are not in place. Moreover, what semblance there is of these fundaments is, in no small part, due, (in the American economy at least), to forces outside the market itself. Indeed, as society and endeavors within society grow ever more complicated, how could it be any other way? What is "natural" about anything economic? -- Except that people will try to pursue their own interests, no matter how poorly these interests are understood?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. American first, socialist second

No way is the capitalist system of 'free trade' anything more than a rush by greedy CEOs to drop their bottom line as low as it will go. They have no interest in helping the people in any way shape or form. Their idea of the ideal worker is some sort of slave labor, with no health or safety standards. And don't think that these people are really interested in 'free markets' if that means competition. The goal of these multinationals is to consolodate and corner markets. This is why socialism is the only way to go-sorry, but companies and the people who run them can't be trusted to do what is right and decent. They must be highly regulated, and worker's rights must be protected.

[Mikimouse]

2. YOU MARXIST!

But then, it takes one to know one, hehe.

[tritsofme]

5. Why is it preferable to have power consolidated under government

rather than the multinationals?

I am not a free market fundamentalist, however I am closer to there than I am to socialism, but I think that there is a happy medium that can be reached.

[Kenneth ken]

6. depends on the government

of course, some governments are structured such that there is nothing gained for the society by having power consolidated under government.

However, in the theory of a democratic-republic, the ogvernment exists to provide protectins for the weakest members of society, so that the strongest can not simply trample their rights. That's the idea of all being created equal and having the right to life, liberty pursuit of happiness etc.

Power consolidated under multinationals / transnationals or any other form of profit-oriented creation will, by design put the goal of profit ahead of the needs of the members of the community. This is because of the pressure to maintain and boost stock prices. The larger the transnational, the more easily it can ignore the needs and even demands of the community - if workers go on strike at the factory in Muncie Indiana, the transnational can simply shift production to Hungary and let the strikers in Muncie starve, rather than yield to their demands.

At some point, the transnationals will have to stop producing some of their goods as the market dries up due to workers not being able to afford the product because wages have been driven down, butuntil it actually happens, the executives can ignore the fact that their actions will cause it to happen. They only have to care about the next quarter, not two decades into the future.

[phantom power]

3. One problem is that noone living remembers...

what a real free-market is actually like to live under.

[Nadienne]

4. I like the point you make:

That the free market at its most competitive was less of a free market...

"Competition" signifies that there will be a winner and a loser. The winner eventually gobbes the loser. In the end, there can be only one...

[umass1993]

7. good thinking

In general, I think wealth should go to those who create it. Those are the workers. In 2000, dick Cheney made what $39 million. Dick did not do a thousand times more work than the average american.