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 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 10 factors: business >>>freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary >>>freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, >>>freedom from corruption and labor freedom. >>> >>> > > Property rights and labor freedom are two important issues, for >certain. But if people are prevented from owning property, how can they >be free? If labor is suppressed and wages kept artificially low, how >can workers be free? > >>>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. >>> >>> > > As I wrote above, nothing from the Heritage Foundation is worth more >than fireplace fuel. What happend to the soul of American conservatives? > >>>* "Fiscal freedom" is simply code for how low tax rates are. This >>>includes corporate tax rates -- which the Heritage formula weighs as >>>heavily as taxes on individuals. >>> >>> > > Naturally. Corporations are "persons" after all . . . > >>>* Countries are awarded more points the smaller the size of the >>>government relative to national economic output. The most points are >>>awarded for a government with zero size! >>> >>> > > Who said something about drowning the government in a bathtub? >These people call themselves "conservative," but I'd like to see THEM >living in a society without a government . . . Anarchy can be >ugly--especially for the outnumbered and outgunned rich! > >>>* "Investment freedom" actually has almost nothing to do with the >>>ability of people in a country to make investments. Heritage defines > >>investment freedom as whether there are restrictions on foreign >>>investment, including whether any industrial sectors are off limits >>>for security reasons, and whether expropriation is permitted -- even >>>with compensation paid to investors. >>> >>> > > Adam Smith is smiling from a warm place, down below . . . > >>>* "Financial freedom" means whether banks and high finance are >>>unregulated. The United States is apparently penalized for the >>>various modest Sarbanes-Oxley rules passed after the Enron and >>>related debacles. >>> >>>* Heritage contorts "labor freedom" to mean the ability of >>>corporations to fire workers without restraint and the absence of >>>any minimum wage rules (with countries penalized the higher their >>>minimum wage relative to average value added per worker). >>> >>>The successful effort by the Heritage Foundation and its allies to > >>capture the term "economic freedom" is not just a propaganda coup, > >>it is a heist. >>> >>> > > Usually done, like most criminal activities, behind the barrel of a gun! > ><snip> > >>>"These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost >>>sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern >>>world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political >>>systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these >>>expectations." >>> >>>"Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate >>>improvement. As examples: >>> >>>* We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age >>>pensions and unemployment insurance. >>>* We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care. >>>* We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or >>>needing gainful employment may obtain it." >>> >>> >>> > > There simply HAS to be a more equitable way to run business than the >"global corporate personhood" model. Why do so many average people in >my country find this kind of drivel compellling? > >robert luis rabello >"The Edge of Justice" >"The Long Journey" >New Adventure for Your Mind >http://www.newadventure.ca > >Ranger Supercharger Project Page >http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
