Stephanie Black. The IMDB Link is here.
I am a believer in free market solutions to our economic problems. This often gets me in to trouble because of films like this, but for false reasons. I will not defend our system of world banking, in no way could I ever do that, for our system of world banking only exists due to government edict and not from market forces. If no governments held up this system of banking with law and force, then it would fall apart like all monetary schemes like it: from the Roman addition of lead into gold to the Louisiana Bubble of John Law to our own recent and STILL on going inflationary crisis.
Our current system is based on the idea that Money is able to be created and supported and based out of, by and from debt. The underlying principle is this: so long as the units of measure continue to circulate through the markets of the world, then prosperity will follow. If a crisis happens, like if the lending system stops lending because no one wants to borrow anymore or because people have stopped spending the cash they were spending beforehand, then since it is the circulation of money which is important then is is just fine to either A) Remove the money from those who are foolishly not spending it and spend it for them or B) Create more units of money and inject it into the world market through spending which was stupidly not happening before. Therefore, it is important to make the interest rates as low as possible in countries which will borrow and not fully pay back the loans while making those countries which will fully pay back their loans pay higher rates than one could ever believe possible.
This is not silly talk: The US China and Japan have the largest economies in the world and they have the lowest rates for lending while those countries which have the least level of development are forced to pay rates which we would call immoral.
But this is capitalism, you say, this is how free markets work, I hear called out in the dark.
WRONG.
DEAD wrong.
There is a word before "Market" in the phrase "Free Market." It is the word "Free."
- Free as in free to act as one chooses, without coercion
- Free as in free to make agreements as you see fit with whom you see fit as you see fit, without coercion
- Free as in free to act as you will with your property keeping in mind you must never interfere with other people being able to do as they wish with their own property, without coercion.
Are you seeing a pattern?
A market is just that, a market. It can be free or not, directed or not, regulated or not. It doesn't care... it's a market! It's a system of exchange, and that is all it will ever be. If you pass a law, or make a regulation or tear down a trade barrier, it is still a market and will never cease to be one.
A FREE market however, is a much more delicate thing. As soon as one person, ONE PERSON uses force to get their way in a deal, then it's no longer a Free Market. It is now a market of force, a Slave Market. Slave Market is the only phrase which matches the full extent of what a coercive market means: one person wants and takes from the other, effectively owning that person's life for the time it took to make what was taken. This is true for Banks, Businesses, Family, Cartels, Governments and Unions. Once one side is able to force an agreement and the other does not have the choice to walk away from the table, the Freedom of that market has gone away.
A bit of an example:
One restaurant is on a street across from another. Both get along, both are selling products which don't interfere, one sells Italian food while the other sells Brazilian fine dining. The economy is good, so both restaurants do well. Once the economy dies down a bit, the Brazilian restaurant isn't raking in the cash anymore, no one can afford the cost for the superior quality of their meals. The Italian joint across the way is doing fine though, since it's food is simple and cheap to make and people can afford it. The people might really really want the Brazilian delicacies, but they just can't afford the cost.
What does the Brazilian restaurant do? It could cut costs, reduce the quality of the supplies, etc. etc. but that would mean they would not be what they were.
In our story, the Brazilian owner walks across the street and talks to the owner of the Italian restaurant. The Brazilian owner presents their argument to the Italian owner, and since the argument is a loaded gun at the Italian owners head, the Italian owner goes along with this plan. The plan is for a percentage of the profit from the Italian joint to be given to the Brazilian joint to cover the loss from the lack of customers for the more expensive food. Since the Italian is now giving money to the Brazilian, they are kept in business but just barely, while the Brazilian is able to keep producing food which is more expensive than the people really want or need at the time, but since they are now subsidized they can cut the cost to the level of the Italian joint. Does this sound like a Free Market to you? Sadly, this is what is thought of when the word Free Market is uttered.
Now, imagine that you are a small country, say Jamaica and imagine you have just signed an agreement which prevent you from having trade barriers to imports. Ok, fine. We buy cheaper from abroad now, but we have great stuff to export so it'll be ok. WAIT! That agreement also prevents you from subsidizing your exports, and since the your largest trading partner has some of the largest agricultural subsidy programs in the world and your country is based on agriculture, guess who will be selling cheaper than you? Guess who won't be buying from you? Guess who has the gun aimed at your head now that you have so eagerly put your own gun down?
True and honest Free Trade and Free Markets can only occur in ONE circumstance: when both countries who are doing so do not subsidize their exports nor place tariffs on their imports. Only in the above situation are both on the same playing field where honest and beneficial competition can happen. For this is the point in pushing for Free Trade and Free Markets: techniques and technology and systems will be created out of the need to be competitive which will push production and productive efficiency higher than they were before, but only as long as people are free to compete without a gun pointed at their head.
Posts
