Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The new order
Recently I had a socialist economist as a guest speaker in my classroom. She was delighted by Alan Greenspan’s apparent concession to Marx and Keynes that capitalism is unstable. Last week Time predicted that the new interventionist order would rule for a generation. At least “until Sasha and Malia have kids.” Why? Because Joe the Plumber is sick of living in the market jungle. Even some of the WORLD’s readers are beginning to doubt the practicality of the principles of classical liberalism.
Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz notes that the world has not been kind to free market ideas. But that is not news—after all, the world is run by elites, not consumers. The history of the world is a history of tyranny interrupted by brief periods of economic liberalizations. In those rare cases where bureaucracy has been pushed off the back of the entrepreneurial, there has always been a significant increase in living standards for the poor.
It makes no sense for those at the top to embrace philosophies that threaten their privileged position in society. If laissez-faire policies had the tendency to redistribute wealth to the rich, the Caesars, the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, and the Romanovs would have used such policies. But historical experience teaches that when the rich have all the political power, they suppress economic freedoms in favor of government controls. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is right to warn against “over-regulation,” but his personal mistakes and association with an unpopular administration make his voice “a voice in the desert.”
It is too easy to blame the current mess on neo-liberal policies to justify an increasing intrusion in the market. Joe, beware—bureaucratic regulators claim to protect you but they always lead to monopolistic abuses. They promise you safety—what you get is an alliance of special economic interest with political elites. Anarcho-capitalism is not the answer and neither is the tyranny of control. Let our lawmakers adjust periodically the “rules of the game” to the changes in the market, and let us all pursue our own happiness within the established boundaries. But, for goodness sake, don’t let the referee decide what counts as a penalty kick on a case-by-case basis.
back to top26 Comments to “The new order”
The socialist economist is not named in the article. Do we fear libel if we call’em like we see’em?
Report comment to moderator
I am violating my suggestion, but not to comment on anything today. I am just reminding “rebels” of my request that you take one day’s break from posting.
This is not an order, new or old.
We tell my granddaughter to say “Please.” Please take one day break from posting. We tell RG to say “Thank you.” Thank you.
I am setting a good example for RG.
Report comment to moderator
Marxists and Socialists are anti personal freedom and anti political liberty at their core. They will embrace anything that sounds good if they think it will concentrate more totalitarian power in their hands. They are anti republic, anti democracy, anti individual, anti trade, anti capitalism, anti personal freedom and rights – except for themselves of course. As I have pointed out many times with examples, they are the ones who discriminate against people and try to restrict personal rights whenever it suits them so long as it does not affect their rights.
Without them, we would not know what was decent, right and good in the world. They are a necessary evil even if they are lead by a Messiah.
Report comment to moderator
OK, three posts in a row show that Tokarev is obsessed with his imaginary “socialism.”
Does anyone but me notice the internal contradiction here? People at the top, he alleges, support economic systems that benefit them … but regulations, which could have prevented the disasters of the last couple of years, are bad.
Sawgunner: I suspect Tokarev doesn’t name the “socialist economist” because the person isn’t a socialist at all, but it’s easier for Tokarev to make this argument, specious as it is, if he can hang that label on her.
Report comment to moderator
It was not coincidence that the housing crash, mortgage crisis, stock market crash, exploding unemployment and tanking economy that is now heading into a depression after the Messiah’s election all happened after lefty socialists were elected to take over the economic purse strings of this country two years ago.
The same thing happened the last time Socialists and Marxists controlled congress when Jimmy carter was the ‘Peanut Head’ President.
This is the only thing that you guys are good at – destroying the wealth of every American and driving the country into an economic depression. We have to put up with your nonsense every 35 years or so before people wake up and realize their New Messiah is an Old Pariah. Yep, it all happened on the the socialist watch as usual.
If they never would have been elected – none of this would have happened. But it all did happen after they were elected – that is a fact that cannont be denied.
Report comment to moderator
Even the romantic leftist, Obama, when give real power has chosen a team of solid free market economists including Geithner, Summers, and Romer.
Prof. Tokarev, coming from former Communist Bulgaria, knows whereof he speaks. The tinpot American liberals on this blog daily milk the free market cow and then turn around and castigate it. I should suggest that they emigrate to that crackpot haven nearby of Cuba for a taste of the Socialistic dregs. Then they might crawl back to America, get involved in a serious business, and provide some economic freedom for their families.
Report comment to moderator
Anarcho-capitalism is not the answer and neither is the tyranny of control.
Blah, blah . . . Milton Friedman wanted the negative income tax and Obama doesn’t want the expropriation of assets or central planning. Tokarev have no point.
Since the poor haven’t seen an increase in their living standards over the past eight years while bureaucracy has been “pushed off the back of the entrepreneurial” Tokarev’s theory don’t compute.
Then they might crawl back to America, get involved in a serious business, and provide some economic freedom for their families. OK, Pumpkin, you contemptuous little snob, show your family’s D&B and I’ll show you a liberal’s, which includes both a young business with billions under management and a 3rd gen business that is the largest private company in the US in its field.
Report comment to moderator
__The NEW WORLD ORDER?__
UK’s Brown: Now is the time to build global society
07:03 2008 PM EST
LONDON (Reuters) – The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, Brown — who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions — will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
“The alliance between Britain and the U.S. — and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. — can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order,” an excerpt from the speech says.
____LAST paragraph of article____
My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society.”
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CBUS/nbusinessNews_uUSTRE4A900K20081110?src=RSS-BUS
Report comment to moderator
“My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events.”
Hooray! Brown “gets it!”
These are all things any country or business that wants to thrive and prosper ought to be doing: turn outward rather than inward, and be proactive rather than reactive.
Report comment to moderator
“A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.”
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrur.htm
The piece above is front line NEWS right now on DRUDGE
http://www.drudgereport.com/</b.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, regarding #7, I am appalled at being called “Pumpkin” and a “contemptuous little snob” and have so reported to the moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Peter: The words Scroop was speaking of are contemptuous. It’s not an insult when it’s true.
Report comment to moderator
Gosh, Peter, I thought you were proud of your contempt, which you’ve shown by repeatedly calling me a fascist and a pansy. You’re forthright and famous for your snobbery, for example your approval of Bush on account of his family. As to “little”, you can’t be surprised that other’s don’t think these traits are big of you, and your reaction shows your vulnerability.
It’s a cruel world, but a big world. Perhaps there’s a place in the blogosphere where you can call people pansies and not be called pumpkin. Maybe that’s here, but I hope not.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, could you provide a specific example of where I have referred to you personally as a pansy or fascist. My use of these and other terms on this and other threads have been scrupulously used in a general sense.
Report comment to moderator
Over at the ACLU thread, you say “The ACLU is essentially an organization of pansies.” I’m an ACLU Guardian of Liberty and have attended the annual banquet in my state. Your comment is general, but not very scrupulous, and it’s definitely evidence of contemptuousness.
On the same thread you say to me, “The liberal fascists in this country, including you and your anti-Christian/American trolls on this blog . . .” Also contemptuous, not to mention direct.
I don’t take offense at your calling me a pansy and a fascist. It’s amusing. But I am surprised you take offense at being called contemptuous (as opposed to contemptible).
Report comment to moderator
I called the ACLU and you “liberal fascists” in the same sense that Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascusm meant the term, namely that that liberals historically since the French Revolution through the present have a tendency to strong arm their ideas and programs. There is a crucial distinction between this and you directly calling me “Pumpkin” and a contemptuous snob. Also, I referred to the ACLU as essentially an organization of pansies. The reference was to the organization, not to you. J hadn’t the foggiest idea that you are a member of this organization.
Report comment to moderator
In those rare cases where bureaucracy has been pushed off the back of the entrepreneurial, there has always been a significant increase in living standards for the poor.
In the two modern examples of deregulation — the Twenties and the late 20thC — there wasn’t a significant increase in living standards, the poor either remained mired in poverty or were sinking quickly as the gap between the rich and poor continued to grow. The later end of the Depression, WWII and the post-war period, all three of which feature heavy gov’t intrusion in the economy also featured a rise in the living standard of the poor. Once the New Deal was gradually broken by the neo-conservatives and the so-called Reagan Revolution; the disparity between rich and poor increased. Technological growth, the impetus derived from gov’t grants, helps mask the disparity.
f laissez-faire policies had the tendency to redistribute wealth to the rich, the Caesars, the Hapsburgs, the Bourbons, and the Romanovs would have used such policies.
An ahistorical comparison. The monarchs and despots are pre-capitalist whose wealth was based on land not production and distribution. If Mellon, Carnegie and others from the guilded age pursed statist policies, you would have a more convincing argument. An economist who ignores history is an economist who refuses to test his model in the real world.
But historical experience teaches that when the rich have all the political power, they suppress economic freedoms in favor of government controls.
Duh! which is why the rich currently demand policies and structures in the market which favor them. Currently, this means low taxation, little regulation and bailouts when they make a mistake or their model doesn’t work. Its not a question of free market or not free market, its only a question of how to design the market in the favor of those in control.
bureaucratic regulators claim to protect you but they always lead to monopolistic abuses. They promise you safety—what you get is an alliance of special economic interest with political elites.
Historically monopolies arose when there was a lack of gov’t regulation. The need for an Anti-Trust act occurred because monopolies grew in a unregulated environment.
No matter what economic model you propose and the gov’t enforces (even minimally) interest groups, economic and political elites will continually try to create structures that favor them. The question is not regulation or no regulation but for whom shall we regulate.
Now that I have finished my critique — I have one question where did WORLD finds this historical illiterate and why do they embarrass themselves in print.
Report comment to moderator
Forget me. When you call people fascists and pansies, and say it again and again, you express contempt, and you subject yourself to being labeled as contemptuous. When you judge people by the families they come from and look down on your interlocutors as crawlers who don’t have interests in family fortune, you can be labeled a snob (especially if the perception is generally shared).
You didn’t call the ACLU organization a pansy, you called its members pansies. From my standpoint, you’re perfectly within your rights to do so. I hope I’m within my rights here too. But that’s a question for the regime, not me. Perhaps the powers that be will let you live in your glass house while throwing stones. If not, cheer up. There are worse things than being called Pumpkin — fascist and pansy, for instance.
Report comment to moderator
the same sense that Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascusm meant the term, namely that that liberals historically since the French Revolution through the present have a tendency to strong arm their ideas and programs.
Goldberg is historically illiterate.
All revolutions tend to strong arm their ideas and programs into action. By your (and Goldberg?) defintion, the American Revolutionaries were fascist as they tried to strong arm one-third of the country into a republic against their will — which is why they migrated north as the first refugees to enter Canada.
Really Peter you lower your intelligence by trying to justify calling people fascists who obviously are not — and you expect to be taken seriously here?
Report comment to moderator
Seriously, Pumpkin … if you don’t want to be called a contemptuous snob, don’t be a contemptuous snob. I’ve observed for as long as I’ve been posting here that you have an utter lack of respect for any opinion you don’t share, and you don’t think twice about expressing your contempt.
Which is fine, but don’t then become a crybaby tattletale when mean ol’ Scroop Moth calls it what it is.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you need to understand the distinction between vigorously arguing one’s point of view and contempt. My experience has been that when liberals find themselves bested in debate they have a tendency to get pouty and sometimes nasty. Also, as I remarked to Moth, I don’t regard the terming of the ACLU organization as “pansy” or the style of liberal fascism as a personal attack. A bit inelegant perhaps but not a personal attack or the crudity of the using the diminutive, “pumpkin.”
Victoria, thanks. I greatly appreciate the support.
Report comment to moderator
Peter, you need to learn the distinction between “I strongly disagree with this organization’s positions” and “They are pansies who hate America.”
You ARE contemptuous, frequently and on a great number of topics. You make no effort to hide the degree to which you think those who hold positions other than yours are stupid, “pansies,” unAmerican or variations on those themes. That is contempt by definition. If you don’t see it, then that is part of the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Which reminds me of that famous philosophical limerick:
A pansy who lived in Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room
And they argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, to whom
Report comment to moderator
I would still like to know who the purported “socialist” economist was…
Report comment to moderator
It didn’t happen — not in Khartoum,
Not even in Aspen or Tappan,
Not in a pansy’s room,
And not on a flight to the moon on a broom.
Rather than argue,
They turned out the light, and soon
The kick of a brew helped them to [obscenity]
And make the best of their luck.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!