Summary

[redwoodpecker]

There's a BBC documentary called the Trap, about how representative Democracy was replaced with something supposedly far superior, which I'll call consumer democracy.  The idea is this.  You don't need to vote, and you don't need real representation, because your real freedom lies in the mall.  It doesn't matter who your representative is, because

Comments

[crooked7]

No, I read what you wrote. I am also using the term state to mean federal government. Globalization has indeed taken power away from the federal governments in developing countries. You are right that these policies have served the interests of corporations in wealthy nations but at the expense of poorer developing nations. Nations that actually do adopt the neo-liberal free market reforms have their ability to intervene in economic affairs significantly diminished. This is the point. It is market dogmatism, an absolute faith in the market. The result of Globalization has not been Fascism, but instead a form of economic imperialism, where institutions such as the IMF and World Bank that serve the interests of wealthy nations determine the economic policy in developing nations in exchange for badly needed loans. The US on the other hand is definitely heading down the path towards Fascism.

Another comment to clear up a possible source of confusion. When I say developing economies, I mean what is commonly referred to as the third world and by developed economies I mean wealthier nations. I am talking about globalization on a global level not its impacts on the US.

[redwoodpecker]

I understand what you're saying, and you're dead on. But it's not absolute faith in the market is what I'm arguing. If that were the case the markets would be left to fend for themselves for better or worse, which they're not. The whole point was to try and extricate the free market principles, from what has been labeled the free market by neo liberalism.

I think we hit fascism a while ago, and what little illusion we have that it's anything else will be stripped away pretty quickly now.

[crooked7]

I think Neo Liberalism does in fact represent free market reforms (look at the policies adopted in developing nations and you will see this), but reforms that are adopted by developing nations, not the wealthier developed nations pushing these policies. So it is very hypocritical. I don’t have very much faith in free markets as a good means of allocation and distribution. The idea that markets run smoothly in the absence of government intervention is entirely false. Government intervention is needed to correct for market failures, however intervention should serve the interests of the people not corporations and there in lies the problem. Markets left on their own do not deal with the externalities they create. They have no incentive to consider the public good. People should have a say in economic affairs. The allocation and distribution of resource effects people in a very real way and stating that people have no business regulating it is IMO antithetical to democracy.

[redwoodpecker]

Again, you keep saying that, but what is adopted in these countries is not the free market. In these systems the market guides the government, and the government supports the market. They just don't NEGATIVELY regulate it. It has nothing to do with actual free market principles.

Government intervention in any case, should be both a force to assist and regulate business, or neither, but either would be an improvement over the total support and absolute lack of regulation which is what is being called the free market in lieu of fascism.

[crooked7]

"Again, you keep saying that, but what is adopted in these countries is not the free market."

Give me some examples then. I’ve studied this quite a bit. How were these not free market policies? Are you familiar with the “Washington Consensus”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

Latin American countries embraced these policies to a greater extent than any other nations in the world. The results were disastrous. Very few initial supporters of the “Washington Consensus” reforms now claim that government should reframe from economic intervention. In fact even the World Bank has changed its tune and acknowledged that government is an important factor in successful development, although the IMF still refuses to acknowledge reality (although both institutions have been thoroughly discredited).

I’m not trying to come off as a dick. I just strongly disagree. Maybe this might clear things up. How do you define free markets? Generally this means no or very limited government intervention. Everything is market determined and there is very little regulation.