Global Revolution!

[joeblast]

The Global Debt Crisis: How We Got in It and How to Get Out

QE2 failed because it was but pumping air into a deflating balloon with a hole in the side of it - there was no need for it but to continue a ruse.

 

so the solution is to make all the banks public? seriously?? yes, that sounds nice and simple and...terrible. sure, let's just toss out the whole model, hand it over to the government, because they've really shown themselves to be rock solid trusted stewards of our money and resources.

 

my question for her is...how much Soros-money went into subsidizing those opinions? (far more and far more well hidden than the Koch's ) - while ms brown excoriates the concept of a bank *gasp* making money off of a transaction, she has no problem with such concepts as the government simply sucking up any monetary pressures by further devaluing the dollar until the problem is fixed, yet that leaves us peeons with less change in our pockets, much like all of the left's solutions - just take any power away from the individual so that the individual cant do harm. the collective value will be so great that indiv...indiv....what was that word again? it reminds of when Oprah was in Denmark and the family she interviewed, she asked them where's your stuff, and they're like...*smile*...stuff? what stuff? yeah, exactly. good little drones, happy with their own little hovel. not that one needs stuff to derive value from life, but where most people are presented with stuff or no stuff, they choose stuff; where they are presented with heavily subsidized living vs busting your ass, only those with the drive rise up and shake off the mindset of simply complaining about one's station in life.

 

really...I love the whole concept that money's fake and all money is simply created with debt its fake, really? you mean humans cannot agree on the value of something and then obscure the barter with a commonly accepted means of resource conversion?

 

and before any of you jump on me about the banks...no, CDOs were NOT a good idea. what happened that they went there in the first place, now...

 

ralis, you make it like we just started interacting this year. stop pretending to be so mysterious!

 

 

...and besides...ms brown's suggestion is already happening - we already are buying our own debt.

Edited October 4, 2011 by joeblast

[JustARandomPanda]

Please provide your Sources, JoeBlast

 

I'm especially interested in the Brown-Soros connection you discovered.

 

 

 

Again I ask - what specific policies do you have evidence of that Ralis supports?

[JustARandomPanda]

The Global Debt Crisis: How We Got in It and How to Get Out

so the solution is to make all the banks public? seriously??

 

 

I do not recall Ellen Brown ever advocating that ALL banks in the U.S. must be publicly owned. I know she's said in the past that historically that's been the case but from what I've read she's currently advocated simple creation of one publicly owned bank in each state. The vast majority would still be private. Institutions like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would also still be private. Wells Fargo, Citibank, Chase, etc would still be private. The financial markets would still be private. She even supports Ron Paul on some things.

 

As I understand it she's advocating a return to our Constitution - returning the sole right of money creation ( as mentioned in our Constitution ) to the government as it was delineated and set up by our Founding Fathers.

 

 

while ms brown excoriates the concept of a bank *gasp* making money off of a transaction, she has no problem with such concepts as the government simply sucking up any monetary pressures by further devaluing the dollar until the problem is fixed

 

Can you please cut and paste into this thread the actual words where she makes this statement?

[JustARandomPanda]

Ugh. I am having a difficult time digging up this Ellen Brown/George Soros connection.

 

 

In the interests of fairness I did discover the following website. It's going to be quite interesting perusing it and seeing what linkages turn up. Man...sometimes you find the most interesting stuff when combining search engines with random word combos.

 

 

DiscovertheNetworks.org

[Birch]

How about moving from 'conspiracy theorist' to 'economic relations theorist'? I believe many in the world are somewhat past thinking their beloved authorities are either wholly good or wholly bad. Isn't the point to find solutions that don't reside on previous 'systems' that have pretty much proven not to 'work' (depending of course in whose favour?)

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/15/the_dictator_s_handbook

 

No sign in http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/161039044X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317766015&sr=1-1

Edited October 4, 2011 by -K-

[JustARandomPanda]

Ooh -K-!

 

You little Research Data Hound you!

 

 

Posting those links is like waving a plate of fresh baked brownies under my nose! I can't resist! Damnit! Now I gotta get that book too!

[Birch]

Another one http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/161039044X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317766015&sr=1-1

 

Thing is SB. All this reading is great. But...well, it's like reading about qi-gong and not doing it.

 

I figure if TaoMeow is right then there are other ways that don't involve standing around Wall St while folks comment that it's not up to much.

[JustARandomPanda]

Another one http://www.amazon.co...17766015&sr=1-1

 

Thing is SB. All this reading is great. But...well, it's like reading about qi-gong and not doing it.

 

I figure if TaoMeow is right then there are other ways that don't involve standing around Wall St while folks comment that it's not up to much.

 

I agree. But I do think it helps guide my actions if I know a bit about what's going on first (or at least what's reported to be going on).

 

I'd love for TaoMeow to weigh in and advise on how we can actively do something to help.

 

I don't have her experience alas. I was never trained by a Taoist priesthood or Shamans.

 

The best I can do is try to figure out how to counter things I don't like in my own life in every day actions. That's why I linked to one of Ellen Brown's articles where she said one way people can counter all the short selling and proxy voting (if you own a brokerage account) is to submit in writing (certified mail) that your account is not to be a Margin account.

 

Those are the kinds of actions I know how to do. Along with the usual. Try as best I can to direct my dollars to people and/or companies or organizations I support. I've donated to a local Buddhist organization for example. If there were a Taoist temple around I'd donate to that too but alas I've not been able to discover one.

[Birch]

I agree SB. I also figure that while that stuff is definitely valid, it's also 'slower' - and we could also get into what I'd term "time-distortion" related to this at some point. What would you do, what could you achieve if you had "all the time in the world"?

 

It's related IMO to what I'd call "lineage". Ok, I admit it sounds a bit barking batty 'off the top', but the consistent (what I'd call) 'modern insistence' that the person become/embrace the 'individual' while at the same time insisting that he or she is also part of the 'public' is IMO something worth looking at. Not because individuals or the public are anything 'negative' IMO but because there's a point in doing so. What's the point?

[strawdog65]

And now....

 

Lest anyone forget....

 

and especially because a picture is worth a thousand words

 

I give you some particularly fun and revealing maps to check out

 

 

I especially liked one in particular.

 

Here's how to duplicate it.

 

Go to theyrule.net

 

on the left hand side click the link that says Recent Maps

 

Then click the link near the very top that says Public Policy Think Tanks

 

Stand back in utter awe at the vast web of connections (supposedly purely in the public interest) all these hugely famous and influential Think Tanks (with their lobbyists) have to an equally huge number of multinational corporations. My jaw especially hit the floor when I saw just how damn many are connected to the Brookings Institute.

 

 

Here's another fun one

 

click on Popular Maps

 

Then click on War and Oil Media Machine

 

 

Still think U.S. news is "fair and balanced"?

 

 

 

 

Yet another one

 

Click Recent Maps

 

Click Media Financial and Right Wing Think Tanks

 

And yet another one:

 

Click Military Industrial Complex

 

 

Here's another revealing one

 

Click Popular Maps

 

Click TARP and Council on Foreign Relations Corporate Orgy

 

 

And finally my last fun suggestion

 

 

Click Popular Maps

 

Click Too Big to Fail Banks

 

 

And for those who for some reason might not have the opportunity to do this themselves I've added some attachments (hopefully you can make out what they are) of 3 Think Tanks.

 

 

Hi Serene,

 

Thanks for the great links!

 

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....Oz commands you!"

 

 

Taomeow is on it, in my opinion.

 

Anyone who thinks there are "accidents" when

it comes to world domination is sadly naive.

[ralis]

Please provide your Sources, JoeBlast

 

I'm especially interested in the Brown-Soros connection you discovered.

 

 

 

Again I ask - what specific policies do you have evidence of that Ralis supports?

 

He has his own agenda and it appears that he is not interested in serious discussion. I doubt he will respond to any questions.

[Vmarco]

Live Feed

 

There is a revolution beginning in the Manhattan financial distict.

 

Occupywallst.org

 

"Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth." Lucy Parsons

[joeblast]

He has his own agenda and it appears that he is not interested in serious discussion. I doubt he will respond to any questions.

yup, its not that I have plenty of other things to do and the energy required for this thread isnt exactly high on my priority list. I get there when I get there

[JustARandomPanda]

yup, its not that I have plenty of other things to do and the energy required for this thread isnt exactly high on my priority list. I get there when I get there

 

 

Hmmm....

 

Interesting. An unwillingness to post the link(s) to the research you did showing the Ellen Brown-to-George Soros connection. Takes the same amount of time it took you to post that reply...curious indeed.

 

I'll let you off the hook for unwilling to support the following claim since you've announced it's just not important to you to defend or support your assertions in this thread:

 

while ms brown excoriates the concept of a bank *gasp* making money off of a transaction, she has no problem with such concepts as the government simply sucking up any monetary pressures by further devaluing the dollar until the problem is fixed

 

Most people only want to support their worldview when it's convenient to them - which is typically when it's not being attacked or called into question.

 

On a separate note:

 

So far I've been unable to verify this Ellen Brown-to-George Soros connection you claim to have found and I've been running extensive searches. I hope you'll eventually 'get there' and share the A ) search methods you used to discover it and B ) provide the sources so I and others can see the original information as well. I am not unamenable to trying to discover this link myself and have committed time and effort to doing so but still come up empty.

 

So far all my efforts and evidence are showing your claim is unsupported personal opinion instead of hard fact.

 

 

Just speaking for myself:

 

Even if George Soros orgs do fund Ellen Brown's law firm directly or indirectly I don't count that in and of itself as a bad thing. Soros has some good criticisms of the way the current financial markets are set up and I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand without serious consideration and investigation. Yes, this does mean time spent investigating it will be time not spent on something else. But at least I'll have a lot more respect for your objections than what I'm currently seeing by most people's posts online these days.

 

If a claim is good it will be good independent of whom is making the claim. This is true no matter who is putting forth the theory/model/argument/evidence - whether Right, Left, Libertarian, Anarchist, Liberal, Conservative, etc.

[joeblast]

no unwillingness - I was home briefly for lunch...guess I'd best avoid this place when on lunch break then because there isnt even time to read half this shit, nevermind construct a reply.

 

I merely asked a question from a correlation - look at what GS spends his money on - philanthropic cover aside, he spends money on things like undermining the judicial selection system in america, promotes his own quasi marxist-socialist flavor of uber central government control, anything to bring old socialist europe here to America. And I'm sure we'll find some of his organizations organizing this contrived occupy wall street leftist protest du jour, there's enough "useful idiots" not having gone back to work or are finding their overpriced degrees arent really getting them the jobs they feel they deserve (have you seen the ludicrous "list of demands" ROFL) - so if you're speaking of something along the lines of eliminating all private banks and handing control over all banking to a central authority - that's basically the culmination of his entire life's efforts, so I was just making the substantive correlation and asking if the link existed, because it certainly appears to - Soros has been writing articles for the last couple years on the evils of capitalism and constantly pushing centralized control, even his most recent article about Eurodebt basically states "we need a centralized taxing authority for the eurozone in order to save it, and all of you member countries need to cede your authority on the matter for the greater collective good."

 

Did I sound rather firm on that as if I had links? I'd be willing to bet one of the many organizations she's associated with receives money from one of the many organizations he launders with, and that's about as far as that goes.

 

Ah, okay "subsidizing those opinions" - pardon the ambiguous context, I didnt mean to give the impression that any significant amount of her revenues is derived from that source (or that I investigated her sources,) just more that the source subsidizes much along those lines of thought. Center for american progress, progress this, progress that, if its leftist-progressive you can bet its got his fingerprints in there; the koch analogy was simply pointing to a greater market share as a whole of the two markets...not that you would have necessarily derived that from the selection of verbiage I presented

 

 

little things like that get made a big deal of by debate partners such as ralis. substantive matters, not so much.

 

With regard to "How we get out"

 

Brown gets it wrong right out the gate - "the governments did not initiate the crises." That is such a narrow view on the matter it is astounding - so after she opens with something that out of touch with reality, it sets off my "take this with a grain of salt" meter pretty quickly.

 

Then she follows up with disparaging a bank charging interest on a loan because they disburse some profit to investors and spend the rest as they wish! The Horror!

 

Asserting that federal debt is the basis of our money supply? It may have a hand in things like inflation and taxation, but that statement is a stretch.

In a microcosm, the public bank worked. Saying it should translate directly to current day is kinda like saying Luxembourg's healthcare model would easily scale to the US

 

I cant even continue. That whole article is selected cross section after selected cross section arranged and presented to say a certain thing, no different than watching a michael moore movie. When you selectively choose events and then present a synopsis based on just those events... JC its like Keith Briffa and the tree ring proxy story! Cherry picked trees, selectively presented, the results pasted right into a dissimilar dataset and passed off as coherent.

 

"The Way Out: Return the Money Power to Public Control"

[JustARandomPanda]

I merely asked a question from a correlation

 

Fair enough. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

 

Did I sound rather firm on that as if I had links?

 

It seemed that way to me.

 

I prefer seeing the sources that shape people's opinions. When people make claims I expect to see the sources. Sloppy Zang has a fondness for demanding sources too as I recall.

 

I don't think that is an unreasonable request. Just post a link to your sources. If you don't have sources on hand just say so. Maybe they're laying around or maybe you could at least share the search engines and queries/methods you used so we can duplicate the results ourselves.

 

I've been putting in time to see if Ellen Brown actually does receive money from Soros orgs whether directly or indirectly and so far I'm coming up short. If you've got any insider info on the linkages please share them.

 

Asserting that federal debt is the basis of our money supply?

 

I think it's more like DEBT period in all it's forms is the basis of our money supply. However, if this statement is false I am interested in reading the sources you used to educate yourself on exactly where and how our money supply comes from instead. I do recommend you set aside some cash and buy the Lost Science of Money. Or borrow it from a library somewhere. Whether you agree or disagree I think you'll find it an interesting read.

 

I cant even continue.

 

This is really too bad. I'd love to have your sources. They just might convince me. I'm not unreasonable. I can't read your mind.

 

That whole article is selected cross section after selected cross section arranged and presented to say a certain thing, no different than watching a michael moore movie. When you selectively choose events and then present a synopsis based on just those events... JC its like Keith Briffa and the tree ring proxy story! Cherry picked trees, selectively presented, the results pasted right into a dissimilar dataset and passed off as coherent.

 

 

Dude this is exactly what Small Government Conservatives/Libertarians do too. They cherry pick with a vengence. They do all that stuff too. It's a Human Trait, not a Leftist/Progressive one. I'm surprised your belief is that it's restricted only to the Left. Human behavior shows we all have that tendency. It's hard to overcome. That's why we needed the Scientific Method. That's why the Scientific Method is so damn useful. It has a wonderful way of showing how much of what we Know to Be True just ain't so.

 

The arguments for the Holy Trinity of Contracts/Private Property/Free Markets is not as locked up tight as the Small Gov' guys assert. I used to BE one of those Holy Trinity peeps. No longer. That doesn't mean I'm Pro Big Gov either. The most I can state right now is that I think the vast majority of people out there KNOW they KNOW what the problem is - and they've got THE answer. I'm a lot more suspicious of everybody's 'evidence' and 'conclusions' than I used to be. Everywhere I turn I can find legit evidence both for and against the Holy Trinity helping or hurting. Everywhere I turn I can find legit evidence for and against Big Gov helping or hurting.

 

Most of all I see a profound lack of people online willing to see AND SHARE sources that present facts and counter-facts to their own theories and data. In short - a lack of willingness to try to 'robust' test their data and conclusions. Now I know that is highly unusual to do so. Generally, other people are all too willing to attack your positions and attacking is usually far easier than supporting something. But it becomes doubly difficult when people don't share their sources. Triply so when you see them repeat ad nauseum slogans like "Big Government is the Problem" (big problem today) or "Capitalism exploits workers" (big problem in the past).

 

Speaking only for myself it also cuts down on my time to share sources. If I share my sources I allow you to form your own judgments while not having to go into exhaustive detail of why I believe/disbelieve this or that. I know people will form judgements of my sources naturally. Sometimes they'll agree with me - other times they won't because my sources and experiences will not duplicate theirs.

 

That's why I seldom engage in debates with the Holy Trinity peeps anymore and just stick to trying to provide people with the same sources I've used to investigate stuff.

[JustARandomPanda]

To give yet another source one can check for one's self:

 

Here is a book that looks at how Social Networks change the game when it comes society and equality/inequality:

 

 

Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life

 

 

Social capital theorists have shown that some people do better than others in part because they enjoy larger, more supportive, or otherwise more useful networks. But why do some people have better networks than others? Unanticipated Gains argues that the practice and structure of the churches, colleges, firms, gyms, childcare centers, and schools in which people happen to participate routinely matter more than their deliberate "networking."

 

Exploring the experiences of New York City mothers whose children were enrolled in childcare centers, this book examines why a great deal of these mothers, after enrolling their children, dramatically expanded both the size and usefulness of their personal networks. Whether, how, and how much the mother's networks were altered--and how useful these networks were--depended on the apparently trivial, but remarkably consequential, practices and regulations of the centers. The structure of parent-teacher organizations, the frequency of fieldtrips, and the rules regarding drop-off and pick-up times all affected the mothers' networks. Relying on scores of in-depth interviews with mothers, quantitative data on both mothers and centers, and detailed case studies of other routine organizations, Small shows that how much people gain from their connections depends substantially on institutional conditions they often do not control, and through everyday processes they may not even be aware of.

 

Emphasizing not the connections that people make, but the context in which they are made, Unanticipated Gains presents a major new perspective on social capital and on the mechanisms producing social inequality.

 

 

Portfolios of the Poor: How the World's Poor Live on $2 a Day

 

 

BTW - here is one example of how a foundation set up by a wealthy couple (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) is helping to improve our understanding of the world. Bill Gates is also deeply involved in several philanthropic endeavors. Not the least of which is bringing life-saving vaccines to desperately poor countries.

[joeblast]

not restricted to the left, I understand human nature a lil better than that

 

sources are mostly blogosphere, there's a quagillion links to everything, some worse than others, some less reliable than others...so its a matter of the culminations of one's investigative lens. I'll get around to some links, usually I just like to use my own conglomeration of words

 

the whole debt concept is an extrapolation of the simple concept that we've all agreed upon a medium by which to obscure the barter system and make use of something more flexible. it is by nature going to be that when you discuss quantities of it moving from one party to another (say for a service rendered) that flows of quantities happen at certain speeds for given situations - thus the whole thing is nor homogenized and instantaneous...fractally considered how quickly are you to be compensated for the work you do?

 

debt debt like as in overconsumerism debt is merely extrapolated childish behavior of taking something now and not caring how much its going to wind up costing you down the road.

 

just trying to figure out what the contextual definition of debt is

 

cant continue, as in cant continue for now - I wind up peeking back at things, hopefully not always as similarly...irked by the choice of things that were left out of the picture's considerations.

[JustARandomPanda]

Ah!

I suspected there was a reasonable noodle in there somewhere.

 

 

And having just read what you typed I strongly urge you to get The Lost Science of Money. I think you will enjoy it quite a bit - even if you end up disagreeing and think Zarlenga is smoking crack.

 

 

Honestly, you don't have to have exhaustive explanations of why you believe what you do. I urge you to post links in part so you cut down on your time spent on this too.

 

Nor do I think you and I agree on everything. I certainly don't expect us to.

 

I do confess I am quite suspicious the "Holy Trinity" (Contracts/Private Property/Free Markets) isn't the panacea many Small Gov peeps believe it to be. Of course when pressed most admit life is not that simple. But their de facto behavior online presents the Holy Trinity as humanity's cure for what ails us. And far too many engage in the exact same blaming behavior they accuse of the left. viciously so. Look at how they turned the word Liberal into a put-down (and if you aren't aware of that I confess I see you as having lived under a rock with your head in the sand to boot with regard to that word). And that is the least of the attacks. I've seen far, far uglier.

 

I don't believe in the Holy Trinity defacto anymore...sigh...

 

 

Seen way too much convincing evidence both supporting it and not supporting it.

[Taomeow]

BTW - here is one example of how a foundation set up by a wealthy couple (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) is helping to improve our understanding of the world. Bill Gates is also deeply involved in several philanthropic endeavors. Not the least of which is bringing life-saving vaccines to desperately poor countries.

SB, kindly google "Bill Gates + vaccines + microchip + depopulation."

 

Bill and Melinda Gates are eugenicists and active (and, gasp, even vocal, unlike the rest) proponents of the depopulation agenda -- gasp again, they do admit it openly, though they offer global warming as an excuse for the "need" to kill off a few billion. They envision vaccines as the primary vehicle to be used toward this goal. The vaccine of their charity work is a multipurpose weapon -- it scrambles the immune system, spreads pathogenic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic viruses and other substances, and delivers the wonder of nanotechnology, the microchip small enough to be injected with the needle.

 

Now when I say this, I expect to be torn apart by everybody who was given vaccines and then gave them to their kids without thinking twice, because short of tearing apart the messenger, what other response can they have to prevent the world as they know it from disintegrating?.. So, I don't get into these discussions anymore, been around the block a few times. I only say it because someone who still has a choice might come across some other piece of the puzzle somewhere else, some other day, and go, Oh yeah, I've heard this before, there was this crazy conspiracy theorist on that forum who said that... So, that's the only reason I would mention any of this. For future reference, so to speak. My power of doing anything about global indoctrination is, understandably, quite limited. So. Please no discussions from the platform of global indoctrination, I am very well familiar with the party line, and this line I have crossed a long time ago.

[JustARandomPanda]

SB, kindly google "Bill Gates + vaccines + microchip + depopulation."

 

It's cool TM.

 

All I ask is for people to provide sources (or search words). I'll do lotsa hunting on my own.

[ralis]

Thanks SereneBlue for your diligence on these important matters!

[JustARandomPanda]

Thank you Ralis

 

I appreciate your participation in this thread and Taobums in general too.

[JustARandomPanda]

Let me share some excerpts from a book I have checked out from the library.

 

That book is

 

Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism

 

 

I hope you enjoy the excerpts whether you agree or disagree with the author. My hope is that it will encourage people to read this book and most importantly - think for yourself.

 

Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether the free market is the best vehicle for economic development (to which I have repeatedly said no throughout this book), can we at least say that democracy and (free) markets are, indeed, natural partners and reinforce each other?

 

The answer is no. Unlike what neo-liberals say, market and democracy clash at a fundamental level. Democracy runs on the principle of 'One man (one person), one vote'. The market runs on the principle of 'one dollar, one vote'. Naturally, the former gives equal weight to each person, regardless of the money she/he has. The latter gives greater weight to richer people. Therefore, democratic decisions usually subvert the logic of the market. Indeed, most 19th-century liberals opposed democracy because they thought it was not [emphasis in original] compatible with a free market. They argued that democracy would allow the poor majority to introduce policies that would exploit the rich minority (e.g. a progressive income tax, nationalization of private property), thus destroying the incentive for wealth creation.

 

Influenced by such thinking, all of today's rich countries initially gave voting rights only to those who owned more than a certain amount of property or earned enough income to pay more than a certain amount of tax. Some of them had qualifications related to literacy or even educational achievement (so, for example, in some German states, a university degree gave you one extra vote) - which were, of course, closely related to people's economic status anyway and were usually used in conjunction with property/tax conditions.

 

So in England, the supposed birthplace of modern democracy, only 18% of men could vote, even after the famous 1835 Reform Act. In France, before the introduction of universal male sufferage in 1848 (the first in the world), only around 2% of the male population could vote due to restrictions regarding age (you had to be over 30) and, more importantly, payment of tax.

 

****snipped out more examples in assorted other countries doing the same thing as the above two****

 

By pointing out the contradiction between democracy and the market, I am not saying that market logic should be rejected. under Communism, total rejection of the 'one dollar, one vote' principle not only created economic inefficiency but also propogated inequities based on other criteria - political power, personal connections or ideological credentials. It should also be noted that money can be a greater leveller. It can work as a powerful solvent of undesirable prejudices against people of particular races, social castes or occupational groups. It is much easier to make people treat members of discriminated groups better if the latter have money (that is, when they are potential customers or investors). The fact that even the openly racist apartheid regime in South Africa gave the Japanese 'honorary white' status is a powerful testimony to the 'liberating' power of the market.

 

 

Free market policies promoted by the Bad Samaritans have brought more areas of our life under the 'one dollar, one vote' rule of market. In so far as there is a natural tension between free markets and democracy, this means that democracy is constrained by such policies, even if that was not the intention. But there is more. The Bad Samaritans have recommended policies that actively seek to undermine democracy in developing countries (although they would never put them in those terms).

 

The argument starts reasonably enough. Neo-liberal economists worry that politics opens the door for perversion of market rationality: inefficient firms or farmers may lobby the parliamentarians to get tariffs and subsidies, imposing costs on the rest of society that has to buy expensive domestic products; populist politicians may put pressure on the central bank to 'print money' in time for election campaign, which causes inflation and hurts people in the longer run. So far, so good.

 

The Neo-liberals' solution to this problem is to 'depoliticize' the economy. They argue that the very scope of government activity should be reduced - through privatization and liberalization - to a minimal state. In those few areas where it is still allowed to operate, the room for policy discretion should be minimized. It is argued that such restraints are particularly needed in developing nations where the leaders are less competent and more corrupt. Such restraints can be provided by rigid rules that constrain government choices - for example, a law requiring a balanced budget - or by the establishment of politically independent policy agencies - an independent central bank, independent regulatory agencies and even an independent tax offfice (known as ARA, or autonomous revenue authority, and tried in Uganda and Peru). For developing countries, it is seen as particularly important to sign up to international agreements - for example, the WTO agreements, bilateral/regional free trade agreements or investment agreements - because their leaders are less responsible and thus more likely to stray from the righteous path of neo-liberal policy.

 

The first problem with this argument for de-politicization is the assumption we can clearly know where economics should end and politics begin. But that is not possible because markets - the domain of economics - are political constructs themselves. Markets are political constructs in so far all property rights and other rights that underpin them have political origins. The political origins of economic rights can be seen in the fact that many of them that are seen as natural today were hotly contested politically in the past - examples include the right to own ideas (not accepted by many before the introduction of intellectual property rights in the 19th century) and the right not to have to work when young (denied to many poor children). When these rights were still politically contested, there were plenty of 'economic' arguments as to why honouring them was incompatible with the free market. Given this, when neo-liberals propose de-politicizing the economy, they are presuming that the particular demarcation between economics and politics that they want to draw is the correct one. This is unwarranted.

 

More importantly for our concerns in this chapter, in pushing for the depoliticization of the economy, the Bad Samaritans are undermining democracy. De-politicization of policy decisions in the democratic polity means - let's not mince words - weakening democracy. If all the really important decisions are taken away from democratically elected governments and put in the hands of unelected technocrats in the 'politically independent' agencies, what is the point of having democracy? In other words, democracy is acceptable to neo-liberals only in so far as it does not contradict the free market, this is why some of them saw no contradiction between supporting the Pinochet dictatorship and praising democracy. To put it bluntly, they want democracy only if it is largely powerless - or as Ken Livingstone, the current left-wing mayor of London said in a 1987 book title, If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It.

 

Thus seen, like the old liberals, neo-liberals believe deep down that giving political power to those who 'do not have a stake' in the existing economic system will inevitably result in the 'irrational' modification of the status quo in terms of distribution of property (and other economic) rights. However, unlike their intellectual predecessors, neo-liberals live in an era when they cannot openly oppose democracy, so they try to do it by decrediting politics in general. [emphasis in original]

 

By discrediting politics in general, they gain legitimacy for their actions that take away decision powers from the democratically elected representatives. In doing so, neo-liberals have succeeded in diminishing the scope of democratic control without ever openly criticizing democracy itself. The consequence has been particularly damaging in developing countries, where the Bad Samaritans have been able to push through 'anti-democratic' actions well beyond what would be acceptable in rich countries (such as political independence for the tax office).

[JustARandomPanda]

I skipped over a lot of pages with very interesting info.

 

But I wanted to share this part

 

More of Chang's thoughts:

 

 

Politics and Economic Development

 

 

Corruption and lack of democracy are big problems in many developing countries. But the relationships between them and economic development are far more complex than the Bad Samaritans suggest. The failure to think through the complexity of the corruption issue is, for example, why so many developing country politicians who come to power on an anti-corruption platform not only fail to clean up the system but often end up being ousted or even jailed for corruption themselves. Latin American presidents, like Brazil's Fernando Collor de Mello and Peru's Alberto Fujimori, come to mind. When it comes to democracy, the neo-liberal view that democracy promotes a free market, which, in turn promotes economic development, is highly problematic. There is a strong tension between democracy and a free market, while a free market is unlikely to promote economic development. If democracy promotes economic development, it is usually through some other channel than the promotion of a free market, contrary to what the Bad Samaritans argue.

 

Moreover, what the Bad Samaritans have recommended in these areas have not solved the problems of corruption and lack of democracy. In fact, they have often made them worse. Deregulation of the economy in general, and the introduction of greater market forces in the management of the government more specifically, has often increased, rather than reduced, corruption. By forcing trade liberalization, the Bad Samaritans have also inadvertently encouraged corruption: the resulting fall in government revenue has depressed public salaries and thus encouraged petty corruption. While all the time paying lip service to democracy, the Bad Samaritans have promoted measures that have weakened democracy. Some of this happened through deregulation itself, which expanded the domain of the market and thus reduced the domain of democracy. But the rest of it happened through deliberate measures: binding governments to rigid domestic laws or international treaties, and giving political independence to the central bank and other government agencies.

 

Having once dismissed political factors as minor details that should not get in the way of good economics, neo-liberals have recently become very interested in them. The reason is obvious - their economic programme for developing countries as implemented by the Unholy Trinity of the IMF, World Bank and WTO has had spectacular failures (just think of Argentina in the 1990s) and very few successes. Because it is unthinkable to the Bad Samaritans that free trade, privatization and the rest of their policies could be wrong, the 'explanation' for policy failure is increasingly found in non-policy factors such as politics and culture.

 

In this chapter, I have shown how the neo-liberal attempt to explain the failures of their policies with political problems such as corruption and lack of democracy is not convincing. [my note here....I didn't post any of his long discussions and evidence presented. It's too exhausting, too long, too many pages and if I were going to do that..well...why bother trying to convince you to either buy the book or check it out from a library?]

 

I have also pointed out that their alleged solutions to these problems have often made things worse. In the next chapter, I will turn to another non-policy factor, Culture, which is rapidly becoming a fashionable explanation for development failure, thanks to the recent popularity of the idea of a 'clash of civilizations'.