--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote:
> What we have and are increasingly getting is cronyistic elitist statism -- > which has NOTHING to do with free markets, particularly free markets at the > at the mom and pop micro level. Right on! > > I recently finished, and highly recommend, "Banker to the Poor" by the guy > who won the Nobel prize for his work in implementing and promoting > micro-finance for the world's poor. Its a breakthrough position, in my view - Thanks for the book tip. I just put it on hold at my local "socialist" library! Guys like this are IMO, the true "spiritual" leaders of the world. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXDRNeCFxKQ&NR=1 > > > > I understand that you are linking his themes with the Maharishi quote > > Nabby. But I see it a little differently. > > > > It isn't capitalism that Patel is targeting as much as free market dominant > > capitalism. All markets have a continuum of regulation and freedom. One > > of our biggest problems in the US is that our system of regulations is > > corrupted by special interest corporate lobbying. This allows some of our > > biggest corporations to act in a way that doesn't serve the public good and > > can even cause disasters like our credit markets. > > > > And yet the incentives created by freedom in markets are a fantastic way to > > get people moving, to create systems of profit that can end up benefiting > > society through job creation. > > > Excellent distinction. There is a tendency (or thinking below our full > potential) to generalize Captitalism (or is it Kapitalism,) with all markets. > Often there is actually little corellation. > > What we have and are increasingly getting is cronyistic elitist statism -- > which has NOTHING to do with free markets, particularly free markets at the > at the mom and pop micro level. > > I recently finished, and highly recommend, "Banker to the Poor" by the guy > who won the Nobel prize for his work in implementing and promoting > micro-finance for the world's poor. Its a breakthrough position, in my view > -- giving copious red meat (ok red lentils) to both the right and left (a > defunct set of terms, in my view - how can politics and world view, world and > individual solutions be limited to one dimension?) Ending world poverty by > enabling the 10% of the population to create and grow their open businesses > -- getting out from under the hand of exploitative statist mini-Kapitalists > who control local politics and markets (an oxymoron -- who control controlled > transactions among unfree participants)and enabling the disadvantaged to > creatie wealth, dignity, skill base, and a much more textured and robust > economy. > > And then once again regulations assist so that an employer doesn't exploit > workers, which has not worked in all of our industries but has helped in > some. Looking at working conditions at the turn of the last century we can > see that some progress have been made. > > > > > For example we become shortsighted when we don't include our illegal alien > > workforce in our agro-business essentially thinking of them as not humans > > that we need to care about because they are not legally Americans. But we > > participate in the exploitation by buying food that is artificially cheap > > with no regard to the lives we are crushing with our food system. The same > > is true of our addiction to cheep clothes and other products made by > > countries with no worker protections. > > > > I believe that capitalism itself is not the problem but the way we have > > allowed it to function in our society needs adjustment. The people who > > argue for totally free markets as well as the people calling to an end of > > capitalism need to get closer together on the continuum of regulation and > > freedom which is the way our society works. No longer can we embrace > > extreme ideology on either side, because we have evidence that neither of > > them work. > > > > What I find compelling about the little I know about Patel's perspective > > (thanks to you) is that he seems to be approaching this with a reasoned > > appreciation of the virtues and limitations of both parts of the system. > > We need to make a more carefully reasoned choice about how we are going to > > mix these two concepts in our society rather than the random and corporate > > bullying style that has gotten us into trouble. > > > > America needs to change, but we also can't forget that people come to our > > country from all over the world because of our emphasis on free markets. > > Even if in practice we have not found the best balance to sustain us as a > > society yet. > > > > > > > > > >
