The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout: How "Free Market Capitalism" Really Works. Nader and Chomsky Explain the Game, a Nanny State to Take Care of the Rich
http://tinyurl.com/ChomskyCD
*
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2008/09/truth-about-wall-street-bailout.html
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader (subscribe to the Nader channel http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=votenader08 ) has a good video about the wall street bailout, I'll play you a short clip and also a clip of Chomsky talking about capitalism in the real world .
Nader is right, the bailout is yet another example of socialism for the rich which has been the game that's always been played.
I recommend this CD of Noam Chomsky talking at Harvard in 96.
Chomsky explains that the free market theory sold to the public is just a fantasy. He shows how in the real world, different rules apply to the rich. the rich make sure they have the nanny state to take care of themselves. We are being played for fools. Let's get the word out. Send this link to others: http://Tinyurl.com/BailoutTruth
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2008/09/truth-about-wall-street-bailout.html
Channel: News & Politics Uploaded: September 29, 2008 at 6:38 am Author:representativepress
Exactly! Socialism has been around...let's say over 200 years. (Although the concept of looking at human welfare over tradition, transactions, power, or religion has been around for much longer.) A brief moment in history in which one country fought hard to convince Marxists to break away from his teachings, hardly accounts for socialism. The USSR does its own thing and other countries tried to follow somewhat can be attributed to Lenin, not Eduard Bernstein, G-man Orwell, or Upton Sinclair.
cayetanoluis(Sunday 9th of November 2008 05:03:18 AM)
Nah, not even then. The US government has always guarded the economy by implementing protections and other advantages to US manufacturers and industries that it demands be torn down for the Third World. Whenever the rich countries played by the rules they demanded of everyone else, they have either quickly aborted them and gone back to a protectionist stance, or else made sure that they were so powerful and well-off that they could afford to play the game.
cayetanoluis(Sunday 9th of November 2008 04:58:51 AM)
Whenever the free market has been attempted, it's been quickly aborted. Capitalism - as it exists in the fantasies of free market utopians - wouldn't survive for three minutes.
Adam Smith believed economists should look at labor markets, as he believed they were the true indicators of an economy. Today, do we look at labor markets or financial markets to study the shape of the economy? Do we look at competition or corporate power?
cayetanoluis(Sunday 16th of November 2008 02:11:37 AM)
I suspect that we look more at financial markets, but in a sense this is beside the point. The system itself is inherently unstable and inefficient, whatever we look at.
Capitalism leads to cartels and the concentration of wealth, so I think that while we might pretend to look at competition, corporate power has pretty much always been what really matters.
bagariddum(Wednesday 5th of November 2008 08:49:30 AM)
i think we should know WHEN the top 100 MNC's benefitted from govt policy. it's common economic policy to 'pick winners' in which a country has a comparative advantage and push it to create jobs. when they are on their feet the idea then is to let them fend for themselves. also politicians love to be elected and sometimes (before elections)save a co 'cos the jobs at threat are in their electorate. yes, the result is the same (cash to the rich) but the motivation is different.
