Unfortunately I was awake last night to catch part of an episode of Brand X on FX. In the course of an incoherent argument, propped up by a Harvard graduate who used to work for congress (yes, you are supposed to be impressed), the host presented the audience with two examples of "the free market". The basis of the argument was something like America doesn't need a Dalai Lama because we have the president of the united States, Oprah Winfrey and "the free market" to worship. This is really too asinine to get in to, but who did he present as models of the free market? Warren Buffet and Alan Greenspan! I have previously explained for those who don't already know how Warren Buffet is a poor example of a free marketeer, but Alan Greenspan, seriously?! Perhaps when he was writing about the use of gold as currency for Ayn Rand's Newsletter that would have made sense, but he is most well known as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a banking cartel affiliated with the federal government and dedicated to controlling the monetary system! Do I really need to explain how controlling a fiat currency and manipulating the banking system are not actions that can be associated with a free marketplace?
In the interest of full disclosure, I stopped watching the show at this point, so it is possible that this was an elaborate set-up for a more informed discussion of economics and freedom. I feel comfortable with the assumption that it was not.
A couple weeks ago a friend posted something related to government interference in the marketplace on Facebook, and one of his contacts claimed that whenever the free market gets involved in something, price goes up and quality goes down. His evidence? Iraq and Afghanistan - holding out companies like Halliburton and Blackwater (or Xe or Academi or whatever they're calling themselves these days) as examples of the private sector.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you come across arguments that are so asinine it would take a lifetime to unpack all that is wrong with them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI can not pinpoint what it is about this type of argument that makes it so frustrating. Is it that the person is so poorly informed about their premises, or that they are so smug and sure of the veracity of their position? The fortunate thing about people who hold positions such as you have mentioned and I have ranted about in this post is that they may eventually be convinced that their examples are bass ackwards and that their position is upside down. I much prefer this to an individual who just thinks socialism is great no matter what the evidence.
Delete