xiphias: (Default)
[personal profile] xiphias
[Error: unknown template qotd]

I didn't camp out, but I did drop off a six dozen hard-boiled eggs to Occupy Boston.

Because the OWS movement is the spearhead of a movement that at least offers the possibility of returning our country to greatness by creating an actual free market, not twisted by the Wall Street/corporate/Washington collusion which creates an oligarchy which twists capitalism into a form that is damaging to the societal fabric, instead of being a force that brings better lives to people. Which is what capitalism can be, when powerful forces don't control and twist it.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-05 08:28 pm (UTC)
gingicat: the hands of Doctor Who #10, Martha Jones, and Jack Harkness clasped together with the caption "All for One" (all for one)
From: [personal profile] gingicat
Well said.

I want to take your last paragraph and paste it in comments to all of the people who said nasty things about OWS.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-05 08:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com
Feel free, if you like.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-06 01:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com
"...creating an actual free market, not twisted by the Wall Street/corporate/Washington collusion which creates an oligarchy... "

That's an interesting theory... I'd like to see the evidence.

(I am, by the way, more in support of OWS than not... it's just that I've never heard the relationship between free markets and current Washington policy put in quite that way, and it runs counter to my expectations)

Kiralee

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-09 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shmuelisms.livejournal.com
I'm with Kiralee. Possibly NOT what she intended, but I fail to see HOW an "actual free market" would NOT always favor the Big-Players. The bigger you are the more freely you can devastate the competition.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-09 05:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com
Because the term "free market" doesn't mean "unregulated market." It means "market with regulations which keep barriers to entry low." The twisting of the term "free market" to mean "laissez-faire market" is one of the nifty tricks that corporatists have done over the past 150 years or so.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-10 01:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com
So this has to do with the evolution of langauge... because you're not using 'free market' in the sense that I've always heard it used... interesting.

Kiralee

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-10 01:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com
Adam Smith used the term "free market" to mean "one without monopolies or trusts, or restrictive government tariffs."

Since that time, people seem to have dropped out the first half of that concept.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-01-10 01:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com
That doesn't mean it isn't a case of language evolution... Adam Smith defined 'free markeet' one way, but the phrase has evolved in the suceeding centuries to mean something slightly different... now, political sloganism is moving it back towards it's original meaning.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but being pedantic, I'd prefer something more precise, although that often leaves me trying to invent new language for the specific concepts I want to articulate...

... in this case, that might be a good idea, but I think I'd want to do some fact checking with an economist first.

Kiralee

November 2018

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags