Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: [corp-focus] Reclaiming Economic Freedom
Keith Addison wrote: doesn't it? For the minority who wield (weild? Sometimes I HATE this language!) ... :-) What's the problem Robert? Just follow the rules: i before e excepting after c. Simple. So please rein in all this unseemly language-hatred. It's weird that you can't spell wield. Um, not sure there's such a word as heisted, sorry about that. All best Keith/Kieth Or in the sound of an a such as neighbor or weigh, hmm? ;) English, I actually love it. -Kurt Keith Addison wrote: Every year, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, dutifully churns out its annual Index of Economic Freedom, a ratings guide to countries' relative corporate hospitality. Anything that comes out of the Heritage Foundation makes good fireplace fodder . . . For the last several years, the report has been subtitled The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, and a central thesis of the report is that removing controls on corporations will create economic wealth. Sigh . . . Adam Smith all over again . . . When apples are compared to apples -- that is, when countries of similar economic development are compared -- this claim is revealed to be nonsensical, as various studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and many others have shown. But more important than the asserted connection between removing corporate restraints and prosperity is the report's definitional maneuver. It claims economic freedom -- and all of the justifiably positive connotations with freedom -- as part of the corporate agenda. It equates economic freedom with corporate superiority to popular control. I guess that all depends on WHOSE economic freedom we're counting, doesn't it? For the minority who wield (weild? Sometimes I HATE this language!) power and wish to exert control, for those who wish to expand into new markets for the sake of gaining even greater wealth, then yes, it's freedom. I liken this type of freedom to the freedom of slave owners, who were free to own slaves. The slaves, of course, didn't see things that way. The Index of Economic Freedom is not the only tool to spread this propaganda, but it is among the most influential. The idea has seeped deep into the culture. It's become a kind of orthodoxy against which any dissent is silenced by ridicule--even among people who don't really benefit from the imposition of unfettered markets on the world economy. What's even more ridiculous about it, however, is that this orthodoxy of free markets is a myth. Do any truly FREE markets in the world? Does not the illegal drug trade have rules it must follow? Are not markets ALWAYS rigged to serve certain interests groups? The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which was supposed to be the major Bush administration anti-global poverty innovation (but has in fact failed to distribute more than a tiny fraction of funds allocated to it) by statute selects recipient countries in large part based on measures of their economic freedom. The MCC actually relies on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom for determining a component (countries' trade openness) of the MCC's economic freedom rating. Does anyone else see a dichotomy here? Members of Congress have introduced dozens of bills and resolutions referencing economic freedom over the last decade. One small example: Senator Barack Obama, along with Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, and Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, in 2007 introduced the Global Poverty Act of 2007. (A version in the House of Representatives, introduced by Adam Smith, D-Washington, has 84 co-sponsors.) The bill would require the President to develop a strategy to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the number of people in the world living in extreme poverty by one half. Although the bill is mainly aspirational -- operationally, it doesn't require anything than development of a strategy -- it embraces a noble goal, and the world would be a better place if the legislation became law. But it is noteworthy that a finding of the bill is that Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. But it's a bit disingenuous of us to promote freedom when we deny the basic right of people for self-determination, or prevent those people from obtaining the benefits of their own resources. Witness what's happened in South Africa as an example. Why couldn't the ANC make good on its promise to distribute land? If we, the wealthy and powerful, impose structural barriers that prevent economic benefits from reaching the majority of people, how can we call the rule just, even if it IS democratic?
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: [corp-focus] Reclaiming Economic Freedom
Hi Robert Indeed so, alas. The winds of free trade favour the ships with the biggest sails. But you malign the much misquoted Adam Smith. He's supposed to be the darling of the neo-liberals and the corporate world, but he'd have hated them. It's not just the term economic freedom that got heisted, they heisted him too. Have a look at this: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg34207.html Re: [biofuel] The Wealth of Nature 5 May 2004 Going back two centuries, economists have worried about what Adam Smith described as the tendency of chieftains in a market system ''to deceive and even to oppress the public. People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices (The Wealth of Nations). He said businessmen always yearn to escape from price competition through collusion. He didn't like corporations, nor governments. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.' Adam Smith commented in 1776 that the only trades that justified incorporation were banking, insurance, canal building and waterworks. He believed it was contrary to the public interest for any other businesses or trades to be incorporated and that all should be run as partnerships. All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. (The Wealth of Nations) Whenever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred of the poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many... (The Wealth of Nations) Guess: how many times does Adam Smith mention the invisible hand in The Wealth of Nations? Once. And he doesn't think much of it. Anyway, we're not short of someone to blame just because Adam Smith turns out to be a good guy. Try this: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70989.html [Biofuel] Specters of Malthus: Scarcity, Poverty, Apocalypse Sat, 15 Sep 2007 There simply HAS to be a more equitable way to run business than the global corporate personhood model. Schumacher, Gandhi... Why do so many average people in my country find this kind of drivel compellling? Because of Edward Bernays, largely, IMHO. A menage a trois made in heaven: Malthus, Bernays and the Heritage Foundation. Aarghh!!! doesn't it? For the minority who wield (weild? Sometimes I HATE this language!) ... :-) What's the problem Robert? Just follow the rules: i before e excepting after c. Simple. So please rein in all this unseemly language-hatred. It's weird that you can't spell wield. Um, not sure there's such a word as heisted, sorry about that. All best Keith/Kieth Keith Addison wrote: Every year, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, dutifully churns out its annual Index of Economic Freedom, a ratings guide to countries' relative corporate hospitality. Anything that comes out of the Heritage Foundation makes good fireplace fodder . . . For the last several years, the report has been subtitled The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, and a central thesis of the report is that removing controls on corporations will create economic wealth. Sigh . . . Adam Smith all over again . . . When apples are compared to apples -- that is, when countries of similar economic development are compared -- this claim is revealed to be nonsensical, as various studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and many others have shown. But more important than the asserted connection between removing corporate restraints and prosperity is the report's definitional maneuver. It claims economic freedom -- and all of the justifiably positive connotations with freedom -- as part of the corporate agenda. It equates economic freedom with corporate superiority to popular control. I guess that all depends on WHOSE economic freedom we're counting, doesn't it? For the minority who wield (weild? Sometimes I HATE this language!) power and wish to exert control, for those who wish to expand into new markets for the sake of gaining even greater wealth, then yes, it's freedom. I liken this type of freedom to the freedom of slave owners, who were free to own slaves. The slaves, of course, didn't see things that way. The Index of Economic Freedom is not the only tool to spread this propaganda, but it is among the most influential. The idea has seeped deep into the culture. It's become a kind of orthodoxy
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: [corp-focus] Reclaiming Economic Freedom
Keith Addison wrote: Hi Robert Indeed so, alas. The winds of free trade favour the ships with the biggest sails. Or, perhaps, the biggest guns . . . Why does this unfettered marketry require repression of some kind? Perhaps most people see the rules of unfettered markets favoring a minority, and those who wield (grumble, grumble, grumble) such control simply HAVE to force their will in order to sustain this supposedly free market? But you malign the much misquoted Adam Smith. He's supposed to be the darling of the neo-liberals and the corporate world, but he'd have hated them. It's not just the term economic freedom that got heisted, they heisted him too. Ok, I'll admit that I'm judging Adam Smith through the lens of a particular college professor who quoted him to further free market ends. Maybe I should read The Wealth of Nations myself before passing further judgment. Maybe Mr. Smith isn't smiling in a warm place after all . . . He didn't like corporations, nor governments. I may not like corporations in their current form, but in their historical role they certainly DID provide a necessary means to spreading risk among many investors for the sake of public good. (Building bridges and canals would have been more difficult without them, I think.) But a world without governance is a world in which the knuckle-draggers prevail, and I'm too skinny and too much of a lover to have ever been very good at self-defense. I've read somewhere that: He who rules over men must be just. As I've thought about this sort of thing, it's become clear that social justice has an economic component. If all wealth ultimately derives from the earth and sea, whoever controls access to these resources ALSO controls the levers of equity and opportunity. Now, I write this in a comfortable, custom home where it's warm inside while snow lies on the ground outside. I have a hot cup of my favorite Indian tea on my desk. I'm listening to my youngest son practicing the piano while my sweetheart is cooking and my eldest son is using his computer downstairs. When compared to most people on earth, we are fabulously wealthy--yet we only control a tiny, suburban lot on a clay-soiled, north-facing hillside. Had I been born in my mother's home town, I seriously doubt I'd have the opportunity to amass the fortune I'm blessed to own. So why does more opportunity for financial success exist in the northern, developed nations? It's clear to me that we can't credit the people of northern nations themselves, given that my family derives from the dark-skinned masses of the south who are supposedly incapable of pulling themselves out of perpetual debt and poverty. My equally intelligent, diligent and educated cousins in Brasil don't live in the same degree of comfort and success that I do. There must be something systemic in a world of such unequal opportunity. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.' Ah, but these words can be construed in a very different light, as my college economics professor did. The rich NEED a defense against the poor because they've been more industrious, and the blind favor of the market benefits them. I've actually heard this kind of talk many times before. The people get the government they deserve. This is another statement used to justify the success of northern nations when contrasted against the grinding poverty observed in most places on earth. Adam Smith commented in 1776 that the only trades that justified incorporation were banking, insurance, canal building and waterworks. He believed it was contrary to the public interest for any other businesses or trades to be incorporated and that all should be run as partnerships. All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. (The Wealth of Nations) I see that I'm going to have to read this book myself! Whenever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred of the poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many... (The Wealth of Nations) Guess: how many times does Adam Smith mention the invisible hand in The Wealth of Nations? Once. And he doesn't think much of it. Anyway, we're not short of someone to blame just because Adam Smith turns out to be a good guy. Try this: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70989.html [Biofuel] Specters of Malthus: Scarcity, Poverty, Apocalypse Sat, 15 Sep 2007 Right
[Biofuel] Fwd: [corp-focus] Reclaiming Economic Freedom
From: robert weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [corp-focus] Reclaiming Economic Freedom Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:13:45 -0500 Links and forum to comment on this and other columns at: http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog Reclaiming Economic Freedom By Robert Weissman January 24, 2008 Every year, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, dutifully churns out its annual Index of Economic Freedom, a ratings guide to countries' relative corporate hospitality. The book-length report makes a quite modest global media splash every year. A Lexis search shows the 2008 report, issued last week, garnered (mostly quite short) stories in New Zealand, Australia, China, Russia, Thailand, Bahrain, the United Kingdom, India, Ireland, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Ukraine, Taiwan, Korea, the United States, Zimbabwe, and various wire services. If past years are any guide, over the course 2008, the report will likely be referenced several times in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, and in various other publications. Not bad, but not earth-shattering. The Index of Economic Freedom is significantly more important than this news coverage suggests, however. For the last several years, the report has been subtitled The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, and a central thesis of the report is that removing controls on corporations will create economic wealth. When apples are compared to apples -- that is, when countries of similar economic development are compared -- this claim is revealed to be nonsensical, as various studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and many others have shown. But more important than the asserted connection between removing corporate restraints and prosperity is the report's definitional maneuver. It claims economic freedom -- and all of the justifiably positive connotations with freedom -- as part of the corporate agenda. It equates economic freedom with corporate superiority to popular control. The Index of Economic Freedom is not the only tool to spread this propaganda, but it is among the most influential. The idea has seeped deep into the culture. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which was supposed to be the major Bush administration anti-global poverty innovation (but has in fact failed to distribute more than a tiny fraction of funds allocated to it) by statute selects recipient countries in large part based on measures of their economic freedom. The MCC actually relies on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom for determining a component (countries' trade openness) of the MCC's economic freedom rating. Members of Congress have introduced dozens of bills and resolutions referencing economic freedom over the last decade. One small example: Senator Barack Obama, along with Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, and Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, in 2007 introduced the Global Poverty Act of 2007. (A version in the House of Representatives, introduced by Adam Smith, D-Washington, has 84 co-sponsors.) The bill would require the President to develop a strategy to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the number of people in the world living in extreme poverty by one half. Although the bill is mainly aspirational -- operationally, it doesn't require anything than development of a strategy -- it embraces a noble goal, and the world would be a better place if the legislation became law. But it is noteworthy that a finding of the bill is that Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. The Global Poverty Act does not specify what economic freedom means, and the sponsors of the bill would almost certainly disagree with some of the detailed definition supplied by the Heritage Foundation. But they have, at least in passing, adopted the framework. Just what exactly does the Heritage Foundation mean when it says economic freedom? The Index of Economic Freedoms contains a preposterously precise formula for measuring and comparing so-called economic freedoms, based on the following 10 factors: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption and labor freedom. OK, that's not much of an answer to the question. What do these grand phrases mean when Heritage translates them into concrete terms? Here are some examples: * Trade freedom measures not just how low tariff rates are, but the extent to which a country maintains non-tariff trade barriers, such as safety and industrial standards regulations and advertising and media regulations. Heritage considers national restrictions on biotechnology products -- which apply equally to domestic and foreign genetically modified foods -- as trade restrictions.
Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: [corp-focus] Reclaiming Economic Freedom
Keith Addison wrote: Every year, the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Wall Street Journal, dutifully churns out its annual Index of Economic Freedom, a ratings guide to countries' relative corporate hospitality. Anything that comes out of the Heritage Foundation makes good fireplace fodder . . . For the last several years, the report has been subtitled The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, and a central thesis of the report is that removing controls on corporations will create economic wealth. Sigh . . . Adam Smith all over again . . . When apples are compared to apples -- that is, when countries of similar economic development are compared -- this claim is revealed to be nonsensical, as various studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research and many others have shown. But more important than the asserted connection between removing corporate restraints and prosperity is the report's definitional maneuver. It claims economic freedom -- and all of the justifiably positive connotations with freedom -- as part of the corporate agenda. It equates economic freedom with corporate superiority to popular control. I guess that all depends on WHOSE economic freedom we're counting, doesn't it? For the minority who wield (weild? Sometimes I HATE this language!) power and wish to exert control, for those who wish to expand into new markets for the sake of gaining even greater wealth, then yes, it's freedom. I liken this type of freedom to the freedom of slave owners, who were free to own slaves. The slaves, of course, didn't see things that way. The Index of Economic Freedom is not the only tool to spread this propaganda, but it is among the most influential. The idea has seeped deep into the culture. It's become a kind of orthodoxy against which any dissent is silenced by ridicule--even among people who don't really benefit from the imposition of unfettered markets on the world economy. What's even more ridiculous about it, however, is that this orthodoxy of free markets is a myth. Do any truly FREE markets in the world? Does not the illegal drug trade have rules it must follow? Are not markets ALWAYS rigged to serve certain interests groups? The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which was supposed to be the major Bush administration anti-global poverty innovation (but has in fact failed to distribute more than a tiny fraction of funds allocated to it) by statute selects recipient countries in large part based on measures of their economic freedom. The MCC actually relies on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom for determining a component (countries' trade openness) of the MCC's economic freedom rating. Does anyone else see a dichotomy here? Members of Congress have introduced dozens of bills and resolutions referencing economic freedom over the last decade. One small example: Senator Barack Obama, along with Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, and Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, in 2007 introduced the Global Poverty Act of 2007. (A version in the House of Representatives, introduced by Adam Smith, D-Washington, has 84 co-sponsors.) The bill would require the President to develop a strategy to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the number of people in the world living in extreme poverty by one half. Although the bill is mainly aspirational -- operationally, it doesn't require anything than development of a strategy -- it embraces a noble goal, and the world would be a better place if the legislation became law. But it is noteworthy that a finding of the bill is that Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. But it's a bit disingenuous of us to promote freedom when we deny the basic right of people for self-determination, or prevent those people from obtaining the benefits of their own resources. Witness what's happened in South Africa as an example. Why couldn't the ANC make good on its promise to distribute land? If we, the wealthy and powerful, impose structural barriers that prevent economic benefits from reaching the majority of people, how can we call the rule just, even if it IS democratic? The same thing is happening to Hamas-controlled Palestine. We really talk with a forked tongue when we speak this way. The Global Poverty Act does not specify what economic freedom means, and the sponsors of the bill would almost certainly disagree with some of the detailed definition supplied by the Heritage Foundation. But they have, at least in passing, adopted the framework. Just what exactly does the Heritage Foundation mean when it says economic freedom? The Index of Economic Freedoms contains a preposterously precise formula for measuring and comparing so-called economic freedoms, based on the following
