The Free Market Myth is the Underlying Cause of Our Current Economic Crisis
Ranked #4,774 in Education, #109,043 overall
Market Fundamentalism Has Been Discredited
It Is Abundantly Clear That The Free Market Myth Is The Underlying Cause Of Our Current Economic Crisis
"The Market" doesn't exist. Supermarkets, open-air markets, farmers' markets and the stock market all exist in objective reality; but an overarching Market that lacks physical substance yet is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent is nothing more than a myth. Unfortunately, many of the decision makers who shaped the economic landscape which precipitated the near-collapse of the world economic system believe in that myth with the fervency of religious faith.
The following is an excerpt from a posting by Huffington Post contributor Charles A. Clarkson:
The fact is, our markets aren't free, nor should they be. The only really free markets we've seen in my adult lifetime were the Miami area after Hurricane Andrew and New Orleans after Katrina. For a day or so, "entrepreneurs" could sell ice, plywood or any other critical item for as much as they could get. Then civilization enforcement stepped in via law enforcement and shut them down.
Civilization and a truly free market can't coexist. Even those bastions of free market capitalism, the NYSE and NASDAQ can't function without myriad rules, regulations and laws, and the go-go Alan Greenspan era of market freedom was predicated upon them (in fact, the demise of some those rules, such as the SEC uptick rule repealed in 2007, contributed mightily to the current crisis).
If we want to rebuild the middle class, regain the wealth that's been lost, and reclaim the American dream, we must put the discredited ideology of market fundamentalism behind us and embrace a more pragmatic approach to managing the economy.
Deregulation Is No Panacea
For one thing, regulations which insure that the cash incentives of bank and non-bank providers of loans and finacial products don't clash with the interests of their clients are sorely needed. People will do a lot of things they wouldn't normally do, for money. I, for example, have literally dug ditches for the less-than-princely sum of $5.00 an hour (it was a long time ago). Imagine what people wouldn't do for millions, or even billions of dollars. Take a peek at the following link to see how much money a hedge fund manager can make by betting against the market. To be fair, and also demonstrate how volatile the world of hedge funds is, here is an example of how much money hedge fund managers can lose.
Of course hedge fund managers are not to blame for the current recession and credit crunch--other under-regulated sectors of the financial industry caused more damage.

The reason I bring up hedge fund managers is that they personify a class of people who can become fabulously wealthy without making anything that adds value to society, or in other words, without creating real wealth. In 2007, the financial sector claimed 41% of all U.S. corporate profits. There is something seriously wrong with a system that holds out the prospect of such rich rewards for people who create nothing. Bill Gates is a multibillionaire, and I don't begrudge him a dime because he has made the world a richer place: I'm using software that his company developed to type these very words.
Our economy has become too skewed in favor of financial institutions and instruments. An economy that is not based on the creation of something of real value to people in their daily lives is bound to collapse eventually. It is no surprise that everything came down like a house of cards.
Alan Greenspan On Deregulation
This video clip of Greenspan testifying before Congress is astounding. Greenspan just can't bring himself to admit either his culpability for the mess he did so much to help create, nor the fundamental errors in his intellectual framework. But he does admit to being "distressed" by the fact that there may have been a small, temporary flaw somewhere in his thinking.
When asked, "Do you feel that your Ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?"
Greenspan answers, "I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak." (Quote is 1:15 into the video.)
Free Trade has Cost Us an Arm and a Leg
Living in Japan, a neo-mecantilist economy, over the last 20 years, I have been witness to the complete debunking of that myth by real-world events. From my vantage point, I have seen a steadily widening gulf between the haves and have-nots in America and a gradual crumbling of the nation's infrastructure.
Every time I go home for a visit things look a little shabbier. At the same time, I've seen Japan's infrastructure go from spotty to absolutely immaculate. For example, Japanese has the most extensive, efficient and comprehensive rail system in the world, and I haven't seen a pot hole in any road in all the time I've been here. And why is that, what has caused America to visibly decline while Japan has steadily increased in evident material well-being? The short answer is: money.
Just take a look around you, wherever you are. How many Japanese products do you see? A lot I bet. And that's only on the surface. I'm using a Dell computer to write this. But Dell is not a high tech company--it's an assembler of high-tech components, which are mostly made in Japan. Where do you imagine the money spent on all those products ends up? Well, most of it ends up in Japan.
There is a basic contradiction in the classic arguments against mercantilism and protectionism. Both are described as self-defeating, but it is said that mercantilism is self-defeating because the successfully mercantilist nation will only end up beggaring it's trading partners, therein losing its market. On the other hand, it is claimed that protectionism is self-defeating because free trade is always beneficial to all trading partners, regardless of their relative strengths and weaknesses.
One problem with these arguments is that they are classic. Free trade dogma is based on the theory of "comparative advantage", attributed to a book written by David Ricardo in 1817. To put that in context, the modern bicycle wasn't invented until 1861.
Another problem is that they are overly simplistic. Trading partners, for example, don't necessarily all subscribe to the same theories.
So what happens when a staunch free trader meets a commited mercantilist? It seems to me that, fairly quickly, the free-trader would end up being "beggared" and the mercantilist would end up with a lost market for his goods. So, who would you rather be?
The Koreans and Chinese would rather be like Japan than the United States, and so they have been pursuing the same mercantilist policies.
The American government, media and people need to wake up to this reality. Thankfully, There are a few people, from a surprising range of the political spectrum, who are aware of this problem. To see their arguments, click on the preceding links.
Listen to Dr. Ha-Joon Chang Debunking this myth. He will change the way you think about "free trade"
The Meltdown has Dissipated America's Powers of Moral Suasion
... "There is a direct challenge under way to the paradigms that America has been trying to sell to the rest of the world," said Eswar S. Prasad, a former China division chief at the International Monetary Fund. The American banking collapse, which precipitated the global meltdown, has led to a fundamental rethinking of the American way as a model for the rest of the world.

... Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, said the president "must demonstrate to the world that he understands that it's not just about saving ourselves."
And Mr. Obama must try to do all of that in the middle of a global recession for which most of the world blames the United States. "The U.S. brand name has clearly suffered from this crisis, and the rest of the world is no longer willing to sit quietly and be lectured by the United States on how they should conduct economic policy," Mr. Rogoff said.
In the past, American officials traveled to India, Brazil, China and South Africa and lectured government officials on the need for open markets, free trade and deregulation. But now some of those very policies - particularly deregulation - are viewed as the culprits for the recent economic collapse.
"Emerging markets now think they can do what they want without hectoring from the United States," said Mr. Prasad, the former monetary fund official.
The following is excerpted from the March 29 article Anglo-American Capitalism on Trial:
"... As chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Brown (the British Prime Minister) celebrated the "light touch" regulation of the City of London under which American banks and investment houses flocked to build up their London operations. He appeared, to his critics on Labor's left, to have accepted a Faustian deal under which the unbridled excesses of the City were tolerated because they generated windfall tax revenues that allowed Labor to splurge on public sector spending.
But in Strasbourg, France, the prime minister seemed to fall back on his roots as the son of a Scottish preacher, and as a student politician of the radical left, focusing on the demons that detractors believe are inherent in the capitalist system. Europe, he told the legislators, had learned the truth that "riches are of value only when they enrich not just some communities, but all." He added: "As we have discovered to our cost, the problem of unbridled free markets in an unsupervised marketplace is that they can reduce all relationships to transactions, all motivations to self-interest, all sense of value to consumer choice and all sense of worth to a price tag."
If the implication was that Gordon Gekko-style greed was an American contagion, Mr. Brown is far from alone in Europe. Among some of those who worked through the boom years in the City of London, the moment when matters began to get out of hand under the international financial architecture that began to take shape at Bretton Woods can be dated to the collapse of the Soviet Union. One result, these people now say, was an American triumphalism that translated, in the financial world, to the kind of free-for-all Mr. Brown spoke about in Strasbourg.
The Free Market and Free Trade are Mythical Beasts
I would appreciate your adding any links that bear me out on that.
Japan Then, America Now: A Misleading Comparison
Article by Eamonn Fingleton2 points
Economic Recession History
Is the world facing an economic depression in 2009 more...1 point
Charles A. Clarkson: AIG Anger and the Free Market Myth
AIG Anger and the Free Market Myth - The Huffingto more...0 points
Alan Greenspan: The Oracle Or The Master Of Disaster?
Alan Greenspan: The Oracle Or The Master Of Disast more...0 points
25 People at the Heart of the Meltdown
In the second part of a week-long series looking b more...0 points
The Reckoning: Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy
Article by Peter S. Goodman0 points
Intellectual Deception Reveals Weakness of Free Trade Ideology
Critique of Libertarian free trade orthodoxy0 points
Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism
Article by John Locke0 points
Swans Commentary: Free Trade Ideology And The Constitution, by Michael Doliner
The flaws of Milton Friedman's free trade ideology more...0 points
Democracy Now! | Economist Ha-Joon Chang on "The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism"
The US government has poured hundreds of billions more...0 points
http://in.reuters.com/article/columnistNews/idINTRE56U4Y620090731?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11584
Christopher Swann makes a good case for continuing more...0 points
I Think It's Best to Let The Market Decide
If you worship at the shrine of the Free Market, post supporting evidence here.
Post links that point out why you think I'm wrong.
How Free Markets Make Our World A Better, Friendlier, and Safer Place
Free markets are equivalent to neighbors trading v more...1 point
Living a Win-Win-Win Life
Most of human history was a win-lose proposition b more...1 point
Historical Capitalism vs. The Free Market
Historical Capitalism vs. The Free Market: Richard more...0 points
Market Fudamentalism is an Antiquated and Misguided Theory
Please add a blurb and let us know what you think.
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byYour right! Market fundamentalism has been completely discredited.
MarkUpshaw says:
Show me where government regulation is not needed to protect the not powerful from the overly powerful. I hear the same people complaining about Walmart destroying their small mom and pop shops also complaining that the government should do something about it - these are you free market people doing the complaining. With no gov't involvement, we will have a handful of companies dictating what we buy and at what price, because there will be no competition.
Posted November 11, 2010
paperfacets says:
You are saying free trade which involves trading commodities or tangible services is "free trade". Everything that moves just money needs regulation and oversight. That is what is wrong with most medical services in the U.S. It has become the exchanging of money only between the various money holders like medical insurance, PDO's and HMO's and the caregiver's. That system needs regulation.
Posted August 23, 2009
Margo_Arrowsmith says:
Capitalism is a great and wonderful thing. However, unfettered capitalism is its own worst enemy, the recent problems show that. '
As for the 'free market'? A book named Cows, Pigs Wars and Witches by Marvin Harris gives us a unique view about them.
Posted June 20, 2009
California_Dreamin says:
In answer to BFuniv.com,
I agree that, in a perfect world, free trade is beneficial to all parties concerned. The problem is, as I think you'll agree, we aren't living in a perfect world. Also, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying on this lens. I'm not actually putting forth my opinion on free trade here. What I'm saying is that given the fact that the countries we buy most of our finished goods from--Japan, South Korea and China--are committed neo-mercantilists, sticking dogmatically to free trade policies is suicidal.
I live in Japan, and I promise, you could extol the benefits of free trade to the bureaucrats that run Japan Inc. until you were blue in the face and never convince them to change their policies. The Japanese see themselves as being at a natural disadvantage vis-a-vis the U.S. because "Japan is a small country with no natural resources" and so a "level playing field" would actually be an uphill slog for them, therefore they have no choice put to seek an advantage at every turn, or so the rationalization goes. And their policies have been very successful. The last 30 years have seen an enormous shift in wealth, and therefore power, from America to the Far East.
If you haven't yet, I recommend giving a listen to Dr. Ha-Joon Chang's talk, "Why The World Isn't Flat" on the above video. He has a lot of interesting things to say. He's also very funny. Here's a quote:
"When you meet a free trade economist next time, ask him what kind of car he drives. If he drives a Toyota, or for that matter any other Japanese car, he doesn't know what he's talking about, OK?"
Posted April 28, 2009
bgamall says:
This is the root cause of the market problem. The banks were permitted to establish off balance sheet banking at Basel 2 in 1998. This off balance sheet banking was a SCAM to rob the middle classes. And now the treasuries are being robbed by the same international bankers who allowed the problem in the first place. But Big Government that does not break up the banks is useless big government that serves the banks, and the international bankers.
Posted April 11, 2009
No way monkey brain! Big government just gums up the works of the free market.
HappySeasons says:
Anytime the government is involved... it is not a good thing.
Posted January 10, 2010
ANGEL says:
In my opinion nothing is wrong with hedge fund managers making money,the concept that they are making money doing nothing is a misconception based on the wrong idea that derivative markets(where they get most of their money )is a speculative and useless game,but whoever knows the origin of those markets understands that were born on necessity from the risk holders(farmers,producers,etc).The main function of speculators(like hedge fund managers) is to bring liquidity,allow for hedging, and bring to life entrepreneurial activity that otherwise wouldn't be able to get finance.So do you really think that something so strong as speculation was born and exist just because someone claim that believe on the free markets???.With no speculative activity in our markets the economy would probably collapse sooner rather than later.The only outcome would be a socialism with no right of property,We have to be clear :are we in favor or against communism an right of property???
Posted October 17, 2009
BFuniv.com says:
The first half of the sentence you quote is right. "The fact is, our markets aren't free, nor should they be."
Your thinking about free markets is stuck in the stone age, although that win-lose paradigm persisted and applied right up to the industrial age. If one person won - another person or group had to lose. For those that long for the comfort of mud huts, famines, and feudal government systems; win-lose still holds appeal.
Win-win is better and is available: it's called freedom.
In freedom a trade does not take place unless both parties, based on their individual value systems, believe they benefit from the exchange. This creates wealth for both parties, and by extension for everyone.
Every control on freedom adds injustice. Laws and regulations always favor the scheming and well connected, creating poverty for the many to benefit an elite few. Perhaps each inequity is small, but a constant drip of regulation and taxes ensures expanded looting of society.
We see the banksters and their too big government allies looting our taxes today. We will be ravished by the hidden taxes of inflation caused by excess money creation for generations.
Let's make it simple.
If Shoes have a 100% tariff to protect the shoe industry everyone will pay twice as much for their shoes.
Only the shoe industry prospers - and those that receive their political donations. After years of protection, not having to innovate and become more efficient, the local shoe industry will be allowed to fail.
Everyone but those in power has paid for "fair trade" favors given to the few. Some soon - other's later.
Free trade in contrast benefits all, you get what you want for what you want to pay, or you find another supplier. Innovation and efficiency are rewarded. Prices go down, quality goes up. Lifestyles will improve for generations. Simple!
"Free markets are like neighbors trading fruits for vegitables at a garden gate." - Allan Wallace
Posted April 28, 2009
Josh says:
You do realize the the economic meltdown was due entirely to exploitable holes in law, right? An interesting thing is that whenever game designers hear about how Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac -and most other institutions in similar logical positions around the world- were tasked with effectively "co-signing" loans for individuals who neither had the means nor had to supply the documentation to substantiate the loan for which they were applying, they shake their heads in disbelief. The root problem was not "Corporate America" and "Those Bankers"- they were just the proximal cause. The root cause was corruption and/or ineptitude on the part of those both crafting the laws that governed the financial markets and those who signed it into law. Incidentally, the impetus came from those calling for "affordable housing for all", which, ironically enough, backfired in nearly all ways possible roughly 12 years later (that being right now).
In general, rules imposed by an identifiable group on their own selves will tend to be the most efficient and effective. Those rules made by one group for another group will tend to "miss" various rather important details, resulting in inefficiency. In regards to the rules that governed the financial markets, they were largely specified by politicians and instituted for political reasons rather than solid necessity. Some have argued that they were made up too early in the development of the financial markets which they were aimed at. Whatever the case, the economic meltdown is a symptom of a poor set of rules and motivators. You cannot ignore the fact the specific rules governing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were put in place to pander, not to truly improve the economy. They did nothing but put the entire government, that is, society on the hook for any losses.
Posted April 24, 2009
The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown
by Charles R. Morris
Here is my favorite quote from this book: "As a general rule, only the very smartest people can make truly catastrophic mistakes." Charles R. Morris predicted very accurately how and why the Meltdown would happen. In the foreword of The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown, he makes these comments:
"It is impossible to exaggerate the sheer idiocy of the financial machinery of the 2000s...An evil genie could not have designed a structure more prone to disaster...The reason that all developed nations regulate their financial sectors is precisely because very highly leveraged players can make huge profits by risking other people's money. When the risks turn out badly, however, the costs tend to fall back to the public, as amply demonstrated by the events of the last several months. Uniquely, the United States adopted a pronounced hands-off attitude toward the financial sector throughout the 2000s, ensuring that taxpayers would eventually reap the whirlwind."
The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash
Amazon Price: $0.01 (as of 02/13/2012)![]()
List Price: $13.95
Used Price: $0.01
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Let's Play the Blame Game
Click on a name for background information
Some Interesting Books About How the Meltdown Happened
Some Interesting Books About The Free Trade Myth
Please leave a comment, you don't have to economize on your words
-
Reply
-
COUNTRYLUTHIER
Feb 25, 2011 @ 11:20 pm | delete
- This lens sweeps away a lot of cobwebs covering up how we got into this mess. Thanks for sharing.
-
-
Reply
-
MarkUpshaw Nov 11, 2010 @ 2:12 am | delete
- Great lens. Thumbs up and FB like.
-
-
Reply
-
weavz
May 1, 2010 @ 7:07 pm | delete
- Reagan's trickle down theory always struck me as a reverse house of cards. Hey!! just like the picture you have at the top. Doesn't work, never did. Good lens with lots to read.
-
-
Reply
-
d-artist
Feb 19, 2010 @ 8:01 am | delete
- 5* lens...great subject! interesting article you listed, written by Gary North "The Bible mandates free market capitalism"
My personal belief to the downfall of most everything, is based on GREED...
-
-
Reply
-
_Joan_
Feb 15, 2010 @ 11:38 am | delete
- Great topic!
-
- Load More
Market Fundamentalism on Google Blog Search
Fetching RSS feed... please stand byThe Economic Populist
Fetching RSS feed... please stand byCassandra Does Tokyo
Mostly original content that examines financial surreality in equity markets in general, and the Japanese Stock Market in particular.
Fetching RSS feed... please stand byFreakonomics
The Hidden Side of Everything
Stephen J. Dubner is an author and journalist who lives in New York City.
Steven D. Levitt is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago.
Their book Freakonomics has sold 3 million copies worldwide. This blog, begun in 2005, is meant to keep the conversation going. Recurring guest bloggers include Ian Ayres, Daniel Hamermesh, Eric Morris, Sudhir Venkatesh, and Justin Wolfers.
Fetching RSS feed... please stand byThe Financial Times
ft.com/alphaville
Fetching RSS feed... please stand byMarket Fundamentalism on Twitter
by California_Dreamin
I was born in Tacoma, Washington, way back in 1960 and grew up in Santa Barbara California. Nowadays, I run a language school and live with my beautiful... more »
- 23 featured lenses
- Winner of 9 trophies!
- Top lens » Texas Style Chili Con Carne


