The Lotus

Personhood

This is a blatant attempt by a right wing court to give businesses power. It has *nothing* to do with any rule or amendment. 

The judges went through all the laws and picked something that would provide a justification. If it was not the 14th amendment then they would pick something else. Just like the Bush appointment. The decision was made *before* any debate or research. The research was to provide justification for an already made decision.

marjaneh jan

my understanding of this personhood issue is quite the opposite of how i think you interpret it. the push for this amendment came from those who want to remove any limits to political lobbying and funding of groups by corporations. they are basically saying that if individuals are allowed to hold political positions and to support political groups, so should corporations. in effect, they want even greater control of the political process by corporations by arguing that the corporations have the political right to capmpaign in the same way as individuals.

Peace

Thank you, Niloufar! ;) Especially for taking the time. ;)

I think I've found it. It's in the Fourteenth Amendment, something about corporations and personhood. Which is where I suspect the concept of "limited liablity" has been abused...? 

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

so in effect, "limited liability" doesn't have to go? It was made to protect individuals, but corporations are using this under "personhood"...?

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin

marjaneh jan

no it was not. i am not that aware of the details of the case you mention. it is simply pointing out a major inherent contradiction in the system. it needs fixing. limited liability has got to go. it would require a major political effort though. however, it has to happen at some stage before all the earth's resources are usurped by corporations.

Niloufar, Question. (Still trying to make sense of this)

Was this all about that bit that's wiggled its way into  US Constitution that treats a corporation as a person? (Fundamentally, I mean.)

Please, explain, thanks.

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin

My name is Borat

Be that as it May, There is Reduction and Then there is Reduction. It does not Translate into the same thing for someone who brings home 100,000 vs someone with less than 40,000 annual income. The latter needs to make far harsher cut backs than the former.

Where is the "actual equity" for the first time home buyer? Why would a lender even look for something he can never find? I realize when Lenders will be ready to loosen up, But pragmatically speaking You don't see many with six-figure incomes and flawless credit, getting tangled up with lenders that often.

Welcome Brian

Brian welcome to IC. Dude I read your exchanges with NP. You will fit right in here. Looking forward to reading your posts. 

Hamsadeh Ghadimi

in your response to vpk you made a number of assumptions and assertions that were incorrect.

first, the regultations in the us are among the most ineffective in the world, designed for cosmetic purposes rather than anything else. the american government has been sitting on its hands while bp is playing games with the planet. any properly regulated system would have a force mobilised for stopping the leak by now - in fact, immediately - and those responsible charged with crimes.

your point about 'social programmes' in iran and usa is rather simplistic and quite untrue. iran has several social programmes ongoing or in the pipeline. did you know that iran is increasingly successful at establishing a national health service and a good health insurance scheme? i was pleasantly surprised a few weeks ago to find out that my mother had chosen to use her iranian health insurance for treatment in iran in preference to europe. she has access to both, and chose the iranian one for a particular treatment. so there is no 'lack of sentiment' in the iranian government. you just come up with such incorrect blanket generalisations for political purposes.

as for the 'ease of entry', again you generalise. iran has publicly committed herself to raising her 'ease of doing business' ranking in the region, and has made strong advances in this area. it is becoming increasingly easy to do business in iran, and this is acknowledged by the likes of the world bank and the economist intelligence unit. 

your statement: 'the free market regulates against fraud, collusion, and market failures' makes no sense. is this the secret of recent 'successes' of the us?! and your list of subsides misses far greater subsidies in the us market. why such abject subjectivity and selectivity in your discourse when you claim to be talking pure economics?

it is important to apply these thoughts to the case of iran, as you say, but a little more fairness would help your cause.

Peace

Socialism

There are three approaches taken for economics:

• Socialism
• Capitalism
• Communism

The last two have been extremist and have failed. The first one is a combination taking the best from each one. It has been the most successful of all. Is it the best one there is? I don't know. But I do know that it is better than the other two.

WB

marx and weber provided social science with the most scientific approaches known so far, but you sound like a victim of propaganda in the vehement way you dismiss marxism. ever studied the great advances
achieved by european socialists? usa is learning from them too, e.g. in
socialising health (currently) and education (next). the economic
malaise that has affected european economies is related to corrupt
banking practices emanating from usa.

the system in iran, and several other countries is referred to as 'transition economies', which is basically a system in the making. you can dismiss it all you like, but such economies Have to go through this transition, and they will.

i agree with you points about the innovative side of capitalism. the problem faced by totalitarian systems is precisely related to the question of incentives and freedoms. this is why they fail.

rasool khan

thanks for the comment. my own way of looking at capitalism is slightly more positive. several reasons for this. firstly, the global economic relations are what they are. there are many problems with the situation, but we have no choice but to work with what we have and bring incremental changes for the better.

in terms of reactions to this - and the iranian example you brought up -
we need to remember that the earlier modes of production were not
superior to capitalism. quite the contrary. feudal relations and serfdom
were far closer to slavery than capitalism.

there is a very positive
element of freedom within capitalist relations. yes it can lead to wage
slavery and it does for millions on earth. but if we take an objective
approach, this proportion is lower today than earlier types of slavery.
under capitalism we can have a greater chance for social mobility, to
earn more and to engage in innovative and exciting ventures.

so to me capitalism is superior to feudalism, and those who argue against this tend to be more romantic than objective.

right now though things are getting worse. wealth is getting concentrated in the hands of corporations, corruption reigns supreme, the environment is dying with oil leaks and all kinds of disasters, species are reportedly dying at faster rates than even before, western economies are weakening (but the rest are getting stronger), and the atmosphere is heating up. so many of us are feeling the pressure as you describe it, and we need to take action.

one the weakest point of capitalism is that it does not have any green credentials. economists traditionally treat environmental costs as external ones. the situation is changing, but certainly not fast enough.

however, and as i mentioned before, it is not the end of the road, and those who claim capitalism to be 'the end of history' simply lack the foresight and imagination - or perhaps also the courage? - to go for the next leap. but the next leap has to come before we destroy our planet.

my suggestion is that the next leap has to be socialist in 'character': for example:

- socialist health reforms within a capitalism usa! followed by the same for education. ironically, both increase productivity within a capitalist society.

- green laws

- removal of corporate privileges

- higher taxes for the rich to pay for the betterment of the majority

peace

Kourosh

Most everyone has seen a reduction in income.

The difference is those who were smart have had to adjust their lifestyle but are otherwise OK, while those who were reckless with money have to look up to see the bottom.

And a greater factor in getting an equity loan is the question of what really is the actual equity. Lenders are going to remain tight with money until they see market stabilization. You can have a six-figure income and flawless credit. But if you have no equity, forget it.

Capitalism is far from perfect

But it's much closer than the proven failed idealogies of Marxism and Socialism.It is a work in progress but it is understandable how you can tolerate the 'work in progress' in Iran but not Capitalism.

To divulge deeper let me explain Capitalism,it is based on trade,simply put supply and demand.Free to buy what you want and free to produce what you want and sell it.It inspires invention and progress..Your Marxism (Neo-Socialism) is more the jailer type of barbaric cavemen that you prefer as is in Iran,yet choose not to imply on yourself.

When it comes to free society you are 'Do as I say,Not Do as I Do'.

Great! Thanks for daring to criticize capitalism

I see a situation in which the individual has been reduced to a consumer unit. Why does the quality of life suck so bad? Because corporations make all the choices for us...nothing is "personal" and no one is  individually served by the system...anything that doesn't create a profit for a corporation is not funded, is surpressed and ceases to be part of reality. The corporations are protected, the individuals are not...demand is contrived and created by the producers and it is not in society's best interest as a whole but only in the best interest of the corporations...the principle of competition pits everyone against eachother instead of against the capitalists...there is no revolution because we are all too busy fighting eachother to notice whose in charge, like Jason and the dragon's teeth story...it is this kind of greed that identified the US as the Great Satan in the minds and hearts of the reactionaries who drove Iran back into the Middle Ages in an attempt to escape "progress" and "modernity" and neocolonialism and to throw the foreigners and all things foreign out in 1979. Capitalism not only controls the means of production as Karl Marx figured out but it controls what people want, need and desire, it controls their hearts and minds and convinces them that what is good for corporations is good for them...it is extreme brainwashing. It has destroyed indigenous culture, tradition, community, clan, extended family and replaced all that with "buying things" (that corporations make...) Small wonder that the individual suffers from alienation, depression, indebtedness, loss of identity and a sense that life has no meaning...

Brian H. Appleton

aka

Rasool Aryadust

Borat

Who has the guts to live it up nowadays??? Get real ostad.

The fact of the matter is, Regardless of how a conservative you are with your credit, and no matter how much you prioritize, If you are not bringing home a sizeable amount of dough, they won't even look at ya! That IS the major factor nowadays for getting a equity loan.

VPK

You mention young people for whom housing is out of reach, but that's a very broad statement. Assuming you mean home ownership, there are other factors to consider. Take credit, for example. Many young people are living it up using credit cards. Very few of them save money from their paychecks. More and more people would qualify if they prioritize. I certainly would have been one of them.

Where am I harping on having it all? Having it all is nothing more than a state of mind, anyway. My idea of the economy is much simpler than you are picturing it.

kourosh

I am sorry but What exactly are those "safeguards" againts Fraud that would at the same time play a protective role and benefit consumers? And I am assuming that you are Talking about the consumers of Big ticket items (or all consumers in all categories?)

there are safeguards for all consumers.  for example, anti-trust laws against collusion and monopoly powers, environmental regulations for entities that pollute the environment (chemical companies, farms, …), labor laws (minimum wage), property rights laws (protection of intellectual property, enforcement of property rights), …  if you look at every department in the u.s. government, you’ll see regulations.  for example, fda protects health of consumers by implementing costly regulations on food companies, importers, drug manurfacturers… examples are numerous.  does that mean these regulations will result in zero fraud?  no.

Because would it not be logical to deduce that had these mechanisms that are supposedly in place, and incorporated withing the system were activated in time We would not be in such a mess and People would not be struggling to keep a roof over they heads? I mean Have you even read about how those "bad Loans" were issued to Homebuyers? who was doing the protecting back then???

obviously, the housing market was not regulated enough.  the same goes for financial institutions.  therefore, as the economy is never in a steady-state, neither are the regulations that are supposed to uphold the free-market ideals.  there’s much literature on the relationship of the financial and housing markets and how the lack of regulation and oversight in combination with the consumers’ greed (speculation) and materialism led to the fiasco that you described.  traditionally, the rule of thumb for getting a loan for a house was that you have to earn an income equal to a third of the value of the house and you would put 20% of the value of house as a down payment.  that would be a wise loan to make.  historically, in areas where there were many qualified home buyers and the banks were too small to satisfy the demand, the government intervened by insuring banks for the good loans (sally mae, Freddie mac).  however, these institutions became privatized… (I can write pages on this topic, you’re better off looking up the internet). 

Aside from the ease with which Firms can come in and leave the market in a free market system, Would you not say that this same capability would allow them more chances to Mas mali things and Specially Collusion?? Is that not precisely why the meltdown took place to begin with? Where were all these protection measures? How did they fail? who was responsible? Why do we not have anything even near reasonable answer let alone a definitve one even to this day? You are doing an awsome Job explaining things in a highly theoritical fashion, But let us see The real thing, The economic that matters.

ease of entry means that there are not unfair obstacles for someone to enter the market.  for example, in iran, you have to have connections to enter in certain markets or acquire government contracts.  not that it does not happen in the free-market society.  but it is systemic in countries such as iran. barriers of entry limit competition and therefore diminishes consumer surplus.  more competition means cheaper products, which in turn, means larger consumer surplus.  ease of exit may be in the form of bankruptcy laws.  you do get penalized but if there’s not such mechanisms it would deter viable firms entering the market (increase competition) who are risk-averse.  most economists were and are against the bailout (in other words, let the firms exit; screw them and their shareholders).  that was a political decision.  don’t blame it on economics.  the same thing happened in east asia (tiger economies) in the early 1990s with mixed results.

You are saying that subsidies. in the case of iran are a bad thing, Fine. But how is it that this supposedly heavily centralized economy somehow went beyond such protections (that the free market provides)and  these subsidies, the removal of which  is currently wreaking havoc and threatening the real existance of a great majority of Middle class and even Upper middle class?

that is exactly my point (if i correctly understand your statement).  once you take off the band-aid off the large wound, then you have to deal with the wound.

I admire you for believing in more socially progressive policies, and being a socially-minded person, But you and I both know that Heavy-hitting lobbysts will never ever, not ever will let this thing about more social programs get off the ground. They have got more power than both Obama and congress possess collectively.  i agree with you.  this is where I think that the sense of fairness differs in the mind of average american from that of their cousins up north and across the pond.  that’s where i think, through debating, social-minded people try to influence the me-me-crowd (and vice versa).  i hope my answers were explicit enough and not just theoretical.  i will not be commenting anymore on this thread (that's a promise:).  but we should mindful where iri stands on the economic philosophy and their governance: far from free-market and closer to centrally-planned, and little or no regard for social justice.

HG

I am sorry but What exactly are those "safeguards" againts Fraud that would at the same time play a protective role and benefit consumers? And I am assuming that you are Talking about the consumers of Big ticket items (or all consumers in all categories?)

Because would it not be logical to deduce that had these mechanisms that are supposedly in place, and incorporated withing the system were activated in time We would not be in such a mess and People would not be struggling to keep a roof over they heads? I mean Have you even read about how those "bad Loans" were issued to Homebuyers? who was doing the protecting back then???

Aside from the ease with which Firms can come in and leave the market in a free market system, Would you not say that this same capability would allow them more chances to Mas mali things and Specially Collusion?? Is that not precisely why the meltdown took place to begin with? Where were all these protection measures? How did they fail? who was responsible? Why do we not have anything even near reasonable answer let alone a definitve one even to this day? You are doing an awsome Job explaining things in a highly theoritical fashion, But let us see The real thing, The economic that matters.

You are saying that subsidies. in the case of iran are a bad thing, Fine. But how is it that this supposedly heavily centralized economy somehow went beyond such protections (that the free market provides)and  these subsidies, the removal of which  is currently wreaking havoc and threatening the real existance of a great majority of Middle class and even Upper middle class?

I admire you for believing in more socially progressive policies, and being a socially-minded person, But you and I both know that Heavy-hitting lobbysts will never ever, not ever will let this thing about more social programs get off the ground. They have got more power than both Obama and congress possess collectively.

vpk aziz, it's all varying shades of gray

you were implying that the u.s. is on one extreme of the economic system scale, namely free market.  this is not so as i indicated: there are many regulations that go beyond protecting consumers from fraud not to mention subsidies and other programs that distort the maket.  these type of programs are put in place where there is market failure.  on the other extreme is an economy which utilizes centralized planning.  this type of economic system has never been totally centralized in the history of any government (e.g., existence of black market).  therefore, we always have mixed economy to a differing degrees (more toward the extreme of free market or more toward the extreme of centralized planning).  this is the economics part of it.

governments have different social programs for which they have to raise revenue. this is the political part of it.  as i explained, these social programs may be lacking in some countries (e.g. u.s., iran) because of the lack of sentiments of the people (u.s.) or lack of sentiment of the government (iran).  i don't think this is part of the discussion but somehow has been mixed up with the discussion.

my intention was to separate these two issues that were intertwined in many of the comments below.  the free market system is characterized by ease of entry and exit of firms into the market.  this is a good thing.  in a country that is more centrally planned (iran), there are many barriers to entry and exit.  this is a bad thing.  the free market regulates against fraud, collusion, and maket failures.  centrally-planned economies go beyond these protections and there are many subsidies that distort the market (in iran: gasoline, oil, sugar, flour; to give some examples).  this is a bad thing or at least a band-aid on a large wound.  people need to be more prosperous to be able to buy these basic commodities without the help of government.

i'll stop here as i know that this conversation is getting stale.  but i can come up with many examples that show a free-market system is superior to a centrally planned market system (not just the extremes).  however, i'm also a social minded person and think people should be taxed more and more social programs set up for the citizens of a country, namely a minimum basket of goods and services.  however, this is the political part and is not because of the free-market system.  and as i said, people in the u.s. with earning power don't have empathy for the segment that is poorer becaue of racial and ethnic segmentation (e.g., rich and middle-class whites don't care about poor black people).  i would prefer that the u.s. be more progressive and put more social programs in place but not at the expense of planning the economy.  i hope that was clear.

furthermore, instead of going after nokhod siah (intent of this blog), we should apply these thoughts to the state of affairs in iran!

hamsade ghadimi

I am not talking about Centralized Planning. Why do you guys always see things in extremes? The sole alternative to Free Market is NOT  Centralized Planning. For goodness sake man there are many options. 

For example we can have a "social safety net". We can have regulations that prevent the worst excesses of free market. Why is it that people in the US think in such extreme terms? It is like saying you either have to ban religion or have a theocracy! 

For 50 years the New Deal brought prosperity to America. Then Reagan came and brought total deregulation. Since then standard of living has plummeted and life has become rotten. Was FDR for "Centralized Planning" or a "Marxist"? 

I am not making these up it is factual history. Of course the ideologue does not see anything but the image in his or her own mind. I am done with this discussion. You guys believe whatever you want. I am moving to other issues.

NP

You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you have already labeled me as a "nasty piece of work". From what I have seen I truly wonder if you really are capable of engaing in a civil debate.

There is no onus on me to explain economic growth as it was I who originally made the request of you to explain it. Someone who is confident in their beliefs would conceivably have no problem doing so. I have a greater respect for the inability to answer or an outright refusal to answer, rather than this childish position you have taken, along the lines of, "no, you first!"

As far as I'm concerned this dialogue is finished. You will remain obstinate and closed-minded. The only victim is yourself. And the worst part about it is that you are also the culprit.

Borat

You definitely sound like your are from the Libertarian right.

If you read my post I did mention the so called expansions which were in many ways as bad as contractions. What kind of expansion puts housing out of reach of 90% of younr people. You can take this expansion and keep it.

As for leading the country to ruin; Milton Friedman; Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand did a very fine job. I do not imagine the worst enemy of America doing a finer job. 

You don't understand the concept of "sharing risk and reward". You keep harping on "having it all". Who said that? You have a convoluted idea of economy based on the idealized dreamland of free market which is wrecking real people.

vpk, borat

vpk,

i think that some of the economic problems that you described may be due to lack of regulation (housing, s&l), over-regulation, uninformed speculation by greedy people (dotcom, housing), and contraction (as borat mentioned).  the economy is not always at a steady-state; there's expansion followed by contraction.  sometimes, too much speculation by uninformed people and uncertainties in the market results in bubbles.  furthermore, u.s. does not have unfettered free markets; there's plenty of regulation in this country in addition to safeguards against fraud.

regarding the "agreed upon standards" of sustainable living.  three people in the same room may not be able to come up with an agreement.  now, when you talk about hundreds of millions of people, then you got an impossible feat.  for a more technical analysis of this aspect, you can read kenneth arrow's impossibility theorem.

furthermore, it has been demonstrated that an economy that resembles the free market system is more efficient than a centrally-planned economy.  however, when you talk about socialism, you're talking about political doctrines advocating fairness.  the free market economy does not address fairness.   hence, you should try to separate these two issues (efficiency and equity).  people of some countries, for some reason or other, believe more in equity; hence a more "socialist" government.  a good example is the scandinavian countries.  some argue that these countries have been historically more homogeneous; therefore, people have more empathy for each other.  in the u.s., there are many groups of people who don't have empathy for each other and don't want to share their hard earned dollars with the poor of another group.  i hope i've put my long and clumsy rant explains some of the issues that have been discussed in this thread.

borat,

i've enjoyed reading your comments.  anyone can read your comments and np's and decided who's the rude one.

VPK

As much as you believe that I listen to right wing radio, it appears to me that you adhere to the principles esposed by these socialists who will lead this country to complete ruin.

The reality is that all of these "failures", as you call them, were preceded by periods of growth and prosperity. You are focusing solely on economic contraction, without acknowledging that there was expansion.

Each and every person who bashes the current state of affairs, economically speaking, in one form or another reaped the benefits of the growth and expansion that preceded the economic downturn.

People who complain about the real estate disaster for example, refinanced their homes and cashed out their equity, or sold when it was a seller's market. People who complain about gas prices are in many cases driving gas guzzlers they bought when they thought a gallon of unleaded would be $1.35 forever.

People who complain about high electricity prices and rolling blackouts are the same ones who voted against construction of new powerplants.

This mentality of trying to have it both ways is leading society nowhere.

Borat

Sustainable living? According to what standards? Yours? Mine? A government bureaucracy's?

According to yours; mine and that of the society as democratically agreed upon. Then enforced by a governement agency. Yes the dreaded word "bureacracy". Reagan made it into a dirty word because he was a total jackass. I trust a government expert over private industry any time. I am truly sick of Reagan and his legacy of stupidity.

Borat

I am not defending NP; that is not my job. She is able to do that herself! We agree on some things and disagree on others. In general agreeing with a person on one issue does not mean defending a person in my book.

I do oppose the unfettered free market capitalism. The US has proved it won't work. This is a joke. For the past 10 years we keep seeing the failure free market. That on top of the past failures. Let me mention some:

• Savings and Loans disaster in the 1980s.
• lack of healthcare.
• Stock market bubble
• Dot Com disaster.
• Real Estate bubble.
• Real Estate disaster.
• The artificial inflation of electricity prices in California; rolling blackouts.
• The artificial inflation of gas prices.
• BP disaster.

Now there are plenty of other problems. This is just the US ones I came up with. In fact there is not enough time in a day to go over all of them.

The problem is that they have done a great job of brainwashing people. Using  garbage research by likes of Milton Friedman they make unjustified credibility. They fund loud mouth blow hards like Limbaugh and Beck to pump people. You get tea party idiots saying: "Get your government hands off my Medicare!" These guys don't even know that Medicare IS a GOVERNMENT run program. They minimize value of education and praise stupidity. It is just sickening.

I am afraid you may have been listening to some of this stuff. Nothing personal. I just rather see people see reality and not go for the right wing funded garbage on the right wing radio.

VPK

borat

that's funnier than i expected. f

irst of all, i dfinitely find it beneath me to enter into a civil debate with a nasty piece of work such as you. you walked in full of stupid insults and then act like a victim for me now?

and the onus is on you to explain economic growth as you brought it up. how the heck did i end up having to define the term that you raised?

and believe me it is not personal. i even wonder if you are now trying to turn this into a real conversation despite the nastiness. if so, i am game. but i expect respectful exchanges and i would promise you it from my side. but you sound far too vehement right now. how do you expect me to even understand the point you are trying to raise?

YES! Kucinich won't vote for finance bill

'Thought some on this blog might like this. From(full transcript and video):

//therealnews.com/

Dennis Kucinich: "Without real reform of the FED I won't vote for this bill " 

Every fascism is an index of a failed revolution - Walter Benjamin

NP

Your screen name is no more authentic than mine, therefore, the last thing you should be doing is criticizing me for it, or suggesting that I shouldn't be taken seriously.

Marxism is hardly scientific and it is definitely not sophisticated. And naturally, a Marxist such as yourself doesn't care if you are agreed with. Because what goes hand in hand with Marxist ideology is a lack of personal accountability. You behave as though those who disagree with you are beneath you. Your numerous posts serve as ample evidence to that effect.

Since you claim I have no knowledge of what "economic growth" is, why don't you enlighten us? If you are truly of superior intellect, then demonstrate it for all, so that others have the opportunity to live their lives with a level of knowledge on par with yours. You might even garner token credibility if you can manage to do so without quoting Das Kapital verbatim.

Lastly, my dear, neither you nor anyone else on this site like you have the ability to embarrass anyone. You embarrass yourself with your pseudo-intellect, and your exaggerated belief of being correct 100% of the time. And it's 100% personal. I, for one, am more than fed up with obnoxious, arrogant snobs such as yourself who look down upon everyone. You don't have to enjoy talking to me. Unlike you, I don't seek such petty validation.

eroonman

i would agree with a number of your points, but the fundamental problem is this: there is no such thing as a 'free market'. with the examples that you agree with, it is clear that we do not have such a system in place.

your point is that we should. this is an idealist position not backed up by history or the current situation. we do not have working models that can be shown as examples.

let me explain further: despite the rhetoric, every state has been fully interventionist since the dawn of capitalism. the only real difference - yes i am generalising, but some level of this is needed to keep the conversation short enough - is in the position of the state versus the private sector. for example, the east india company penetrated india with the full backing of the british military, but it was mainly the privately owned company that led the process. the us military opens up markets for the us, and keeps competing blocs - e.g. soviet union - in check.

but the military is publicly paid for. wopuld you seriously consider letting the national military forces to be privatised?

food is too strategic to be left to the free market. this is why it is not left alone. western subsidies to agriculture are around $200 billion a year, and have been for decades. the maize, wheat and meat we consume would be Far more expensive in the absence of such subsidies. this would create hunger, anger and insecurity in society. food security is national security.

i read somewhere that european subsidies for cows amounts to $2 a cow a day. this is more than a billion people earn a day globally. if there really were an open and free market in food, the west would be quickly depleted of its basic food - not processed food - sector because it is non-competitive.

you refer to 'fair market competition'. if you look at this idea, i think you would agree that it is clear that it would have to have 'regulations' that would make the market 'fair'.  isn't this self-contradictory? does it not nullify the concept of 'free market' by itself?

you write against the protection given to banks. and most people would agree. but in order to fix this problem, would it not be necessary to protect the weak with some other types of regulation? it takes us back to the issue of 'limited liability'? what is to be done about this if we want fair competition?

let me reiterate a point i made earlier. there is a tendency within the capitalist system for wealth to become concentrated in the hands of individual corporations. now a free market would require that this be allowed freely. but it presents huge problems. relatively small entities end up owning vast amounts of the earth's resources, and gain greater and greater power over people. what happens then to the rights of these people? should we regulate or not? if not, what happens to universal human rights?

there is a philosophical contradiction between 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'. these are very different types of freedom.

in the final analysis, i do not think society can - or should - be organised on the basis of economic priorities alone. and these often get logically inverted anyhow.

here is an example:

many would argue against universal health care on the basis of its 'market distorting' effect.  by this, they mean it makes the system 'inefficient'. but take a look at the issue from another angle: a healthy work force is more productive with fewer work days lost to illness. people live longer, less stressful and healthier lives too when there is universal care. take it away, and millions of people would lose access to medicine. their productivity would decrease, national wealth generation slows down, homelessness would increase, and other security costs would arise related to crime, illegal trade etc. 

if this does not convince, then consider 'water': would you really leave its ownership, management, processing, distribution and pricing in the hands of the private sector? this too has serious health and productivity issues associated.

Peace