Stop calling it "The Free Market" because that's Right Wing spin
"Freedom" sounds good, doesn't it? Saying you are into "freedom" makes you sound good too.
The "Free Markets" sounds like a good thing too.
But ask yourself, what EXACTLY is the "Free Market" free of?
Regulations, or in other words - LAWS.
From now on, when someone says they support "The Free Market" correct them by saying they support "A Lawless Market".
Suddenly, they don't sound like such a "good guy" anymore. You've taken away their time tested, focus group talking point and white cowboy hat and made them the bad guy.
I hope this idea spreads far and wide.
Even if a market is not run by an authority, it is never "free." Some party will have an advantage, or somehaw unfairly control the transaction.
"Free market" refers to how lines behave on a paper in an economics class.
Whenever my conservative friends talk about the free market, I challenge them to identify it or even describe how it might be set up. It can't be done.
free enterprise. You are to free to do a business as you please within the constructs of your laws.
Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Great website by the way
There are so many terms that are used by the Repugs because they make something sound good when it isn't. This is their specialty and we have to start taking a page from their playbook.
Who knows? It could spread to TV pundits who lurk DU.
It could even end up being repeated on a Sunday talk show.
using descriptors 'Lawless' and 'Anarchy' points out the reality that the 1% is actually ape-ing the characteristics of their caricacture of the 99%. 'They break laws, they destroy things, they'll take your stuff, they're a threat.' The O.P. gives a true version of a false Luntz word spin.
The only thing free is the CEO's that should be in jail.
It's probably time to nationalize big oil so the people can see there is more to life than big profits.
Macroeconomics. The term is discussed in Adam Smith's "Wealth Of Nations", first published in 1776, but it's probably much older than that. It's an old term that was co-opted by the right. The thing to do is not to discourage its use but to define it for what it really is and how bad total laissez faire economics can be. There is no "invisible hand".
The majority of people's eyes will glaze over if you try to explain the details of the "free market" or macroeconomics or laissez faire economics. We have to start doing the same thing that is working for the Reps by using simple phrases that are easy to picture.
I hate to say that most people are simple, but the sooner we understand that, the sooner we may find success in this word game. We have tried for too long to educate the public. I say we need to start redefining phrases.
The public already dislikes "deregulation" and "free trade" which they link to outsourcing jobs but still likes the idea of "free markets" but if it's exposed what that actually means they will realize that's something to dislike as well.
Not to mention "Free Markets" is at the core of Republican philosophy.
If this one falls it will cascade through many of their others.
dumb down the public? "I say we need to start redefining phrases." I say we fight for public education and an "informed public." Doesn't mean we have to make "their eyes glaze over" OR learn to LIE as well as Repukes do.
I have watched this for too many years. Quality public education is important, and will lead to an informed public. But let's face it, the entire country will not be full of intellectuals no matter how much we try. I don't think that we have to be helping the Republicans or lie like they do. But I have to admit that they are masters of controlling people with words. Example: We wanted "Medicare for all" which everyone would understand. But we were unable to get that phrase in use for the health care reforms. Instead, we get "death panels" and "Obamacare" for a plan that was too watered down----and you bet that everyone knows those terms, even if they don't know what they are talking about.
I wish that we could reason with people, but that is just not working. We can continue to take the high road and try to get people to listen to us with intellectual discussion as we have done in the past, or we can fight fire with fire. I'm lighting a torch.
the reason we can't "get people to listen to us" or "get that phrase in use" is not about framing, it's about media control.
Also, who are you trying to reach. The stupider and more pointless communication becomes, more of the informed voters tune out, give up on messaging that isn't speaking to them at all.
I always heard from my conservative friends phrases like "prove your worth in the free market" as if talent, intellect, character can be tested out like lines and equations drawn out on a piece of paper. In college I remember reading Polanyi's book on debunking the self-regulation that free marketers held dearly, making the "lawless market" even more appalling in the face of logic.
"The free market" and "free enterprise" are words that I will never use. We should avoid right-wing doublespeak at all costs because it is ultimately misleading. Once you dig deep enough you figure out the truth.
Right-wing freedom is the freedom to rob, steal, and loot from everyone else and get away with it. It is freedom from morality and conscience. Real freedom is progressive even if it means that members of society have to compromise with each other.
That's a good point, I'll start saying lawless market now I do like most aspects of lawless markets
Focus group talking pints...take that away from them and they are exposed.
There's too much legal fiction.
For instance: Saying a company has "gone public" means it is now in the hands of a greedy few who are using it to make themselves richer. Damn the owner, the employees and even the customers. IOW: THE PUBLIC. The goal BY LAW is to see to it the investors get their money even if the company or the entire PLANET has a bad quarter.
for essentials. Profit gets in the way. Health care, energy, communications do not belong in the "market."
power and can force out small competitors long before Government wathdogs can get around to doing anything about it. NOt because they are incompetent. It just takes so long to build a case and go to court with it. Long before that can happen the small fries are crushed or bought out.
GOPers propaganda talks a lot about entrepreneurship, but with the large corporations it's very hard for a small operator to really succeed big with a good idea. If he has a good idea he will be bought out ( the corporation will tell him: "Well, maybe you don't think were offering enough for your idea/product, but if you don't accept it, we have engineers who can come up with a knock off of your product and before you can bring a case to court you will have been put out of business a decade earlier.
Freee market, HA!
The free market is anything but free - unless you are a corporation.
Corporations write the laws that regulate them, and often water them down to the point of being almost meaningless.
They also get laws passed that regulate *others* in such a way as to benefit themselves; tilting the market in their favor.