Forum Post: Name a market fundamentalist.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 7:32 p.m. EST by livemike
(57)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many leftist movements blame "market fundamentalism" for problems, often calling it the "dominant ideology". Now I am a market fundamentalist and I don't know of ANY market fundamentalists in a dominant position in politics, finance or the media. So could somebody please name some for my education?
Note, siince we're talking about market fundamentalists nobody doesn't want to abolish the Federal Reserve counts, or anyone who would retain public funding of eduction, drug laws, immigration controls, the Wagner Act, or any of several thousand things that violate the market.
Paul Ryan.
But generally, it's a gradient.
Barack Obama is more of a market fundamentalist than Dwight Eisenhower.
The liberal era of Keynes was replaced, with the election of Reagan, by the neoliberal era of Friedman. That's what we're talking about. We further point out that the rhetoric of true market fundamentalists like (Ron/Rand) Paul and the Koch brothers plays into the continued movement away from the last vestiges of the liberal consensus which provided us with the great period of prosperity and relative equality from the 40s-70s.
The acceptance that there is no choice but free trade, that market solutions are better for everything from healthcare to social security to city trash service, these are all aspects of neoliberal market fundamentalism.
There's more to it than that. It's also grounded in American ideology.
[Removed]
Ok, looked on Paul Ryan's website and it said nothing about eliminating the Federal Reserve, a bare minimum to be considered a "market fundamentalist". What it did talk about was now to reform (not eliminate) the way the US government subsidises student loans. I looked up one section of his policy platform and found him to be far from a "market fundamentalist".
Barack Obama is not more of a market fundamentalist than Dwight Eisenhower. Can you imagine BO talking about the MIC? Did Ike give the banksters a trillion damn dollars? Or voice approval when his predecessor did? There has been no presidential term in which government spending in the US has gone down as a percentage of GDP since the 80s so clearly "market fundamentalists" aren't and have never been, in charge. So stop repeating lies other people told you and do basic research.
It's not just about spending. Revenue as a percent of GDP is at the lowest in 60 years. Starving the beast and austerity for the many with socialism for the few are all part of the neoliberal playbook. I admit they use free market rhetoric more than they actually implement it on the supply side, but they sure like market solutions on the demand/people side.
And, yeah, I stand by BO as more market oriented than Eisenhower. Obama-care is one big market-based handjob to industry, his free trade deals are getting to be a joke, he's put Medicare/SS on the table, and hasn't once talked about capital gains or restoring 91% marginal tax rates.
Check out: http://www.blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal
Your narrow criteria on what constitutes market fundamantalism is your opinion in what is a subjective/relative question.
Right so you think that market fundamentalists would have 40% of GDP spent by government if they were in power? Since when do market fundamentalists support more government debt? Hell I'm one and I support the abolition of government, which implies less government debt.
So let me get this straight, you believe that BO is more market oriented than Eisenhower (and that's no boast) because he gives money to industry? What has BO done that is "market based"?
My criterion isn't "narrow" it's based on what is claimed about "market fundamentalists" by leftists, that we want all choices determined by the market. The term was created and defined by leftists and I'm using their definition.
Here's my definition: Anytihng economically to the right of, and including, the policies of Reagan (Friedman).
Market fundamentalistm in our view does group together libertarians and neoliberals, because the outcome is the same for the little guy: austerity and privatization of public institutions we think are good. The corporate welfare aspect is something you need to take up with the neoliberals. We both want it gone. I'd like to see the corresponding shift back to policies that benefit the general welfare.
Re-read the last two paragraphs of my initial reply and you'll see I'm being consistent. I know there is a difference between "pure" free market theories and neoliberalism, but it's not a difference that matters on my side of things (desire for government as a moral agent providing services that promote the general welfare).
Also, how can you "do" something in government that is "market based?" The whole point is what he's not doing, and instead letting the market do; like continue to rape people on insurance premiums and overpriced medical care, or ship jobs overseas, or redistribute the wealth upwards, etc.
No as I've already told you leftists have already defined the term and repeated the definition time after time. I'm going with their definition. You're not being consistent, you're deliberately avoiding the question. The claim I've heard made isn't that "neoliberals" are in power (although of course I've heard that too) but that "market fundamentalists" are in power.
You can do something market based in government by stopping doing something. E.g. abolish the Federal Reserve. Or you could do something like make banks buy Credit Default Swaps for say 20% of their deposits as a condition of government deposit guarantees. That's not totally market based but it's far more so than the present system.
It's all about Friedman. Compared to Keynes, he's a free market fundamentalist. Not so much as Hayek, but again it's relative. Friedman rules. "Government is the problem" and "The era of big government is over" are signs of his influence at the very top, not to mention the Obama embrace of Wall St, etc.
So, no, I don't think Hayekians are in power - I think that would be even more extreme than the free market fundamentalist Friedmanites that are in power. It's all relative. It's like me saying a Salafi is a religious fundamentalist but you objecting because you're a Wahabbist and don't consider Salafis to be fundamental enough. IMO.
Ok now you're being dishonest. I asked for someone who's a free market fundamentalist, not someone who's closer to it than Keynes. I mean seriously you're trying to pretend that the phrase "The era of big government is over" means anything? How much bigger would it get before you conclude that "free market fundamentalists" aren't in charge?
By definition (and it's not my definition) free market fundamentalists want to leave ALL decisions to the market, that includes at a minimum, abolishing the Federal Reserve System and government funding of education. There is nobody like that in power, the closest we have is Ron Lawl, who's about as effective as a bulletproof vest made of fly screen.
But let's use your definition of someone at least as free market as Friedman, there is no such person in power. Would Friedman have sanctioned a trillion? Or the massive monetary expansion which caused the bubble that caused the bailout? Or the massive expansion of both the number of regulations and the funding for enforcing them under Bush II?
Stop lying.
loosely struck a nerve huh?
You're being just as arbitrary in your definition.
I am using the defintion I have heard over and over again from leftists. I have never heard "market fundamentalist" defined as he wishes to define it. My time is limited and when people decieve it is wasted, which yes, strikes a nerve.
"He tried to define "market fundamentalist" as someone who is to the right of Friedmann, which it has NEVER been defined as. Look for someone defining it as that, nobody does."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism#History_of_the_concept
Not even necessary to qualify as "to the right of."
__
This comment will induce further spasms.
Ha. Awesome loosely. Reading the rest of the article, it pretty much agrees with your definition.
By the way I agree completely that it's a relative term. That one can be more fundamentalist than another. By that standard, your Obama/Eisenhower argument holds up as well.
Except that the only source you have is George Soros is clearly wrong here. Reagan did not believe that that "markets tend towards equilibrium and the common interest is best served by allowing participants to pursue their self-interest." because he kept the Federal Reserve. The idea that Reagan, the guy who brought in the "plunge protection team" was a "market fundamentalist" is fundamentaly wrong. In any case he didn't define "market fundamentalist" as "as right as or more so, Friedman". You're just lying.
I don't see how he/she deceived you, just because you don't agree on a definition.
The definition is the one in wide use and he did not initially dispute it. He only started to dispute it when I pointed out that Paul Ryan, his proposed "market fundamentalist" didn't even remotely fit. So that was dishonest, if he had proposed a different defintion then suggested Ryan then I would have corrected him but not called him dishonest. Then he claimed that Barack Obama was more of a "market fundamentalist" than Eisenhower, which is absurd and either dishonest or incredibly ignorant. He tried to define "market fundamentalist" as someone who is to the right of Friedmann, which it has NEVER been defined as. Look for someone defining it as that, nobody does. People define it as what it sounds like, someone who wants to leave all decisions to the market. Friedman doesn't. Pinochet didn't. He's just lying.
I think you need to do a search on neoliberalism. Particularly as it pertains to Chile and Central and South America,where the battle against the flawed system your advocating has been going on for a long time. Every R candidate for the presidency with the possible exception of Buddy Roemer, is a free marketer. Obama just pushed 3 new free trade bills. The congress passed them.
I don't need to do a search on neoliberalism because we're discussing market fundamentalism. Chile NEVER eliminated the central bank, government funding for education etc. and it was never suggested by the Chicago Boys that they do. There was literally no market fundamentalists involved in the Pinochet regime. Note what I said, nobody who doesn't want to abolish the Federal Reserve System, government funding for education etc. counts. Contrary to your claim only one candidate Ron Lawl even comes close to "market fundamentalism". Do some basic research.
Your definition of market fundamentalism is peculiar to you. The fact that Pinochet was unable to eliminate all market restrictions does not mean the goals and direction were not toward free market ideology.
No it's not peculiar to me, it's something I've heard time and time again, including on the links the other liar gave me. Pinochet was not a free market believers. That's well known, Free market believers don't run economies with hyperinflation because they don't just print money. If Pinochet believed in the free market then why were Friedman's suggestions two years after the coup so radically different from what he ws doing beforehand? Stop making shit up.