Free Markets, red tape and Gillian Tett, a comment by Political Observer

The Party Line of ‘too much red tape’ can be traced back to the early 1960’s where I first heard that line of argument from the Ev and Charlie Show:

The whole issue revolves around the deeply held notion that ‘Government is the problem’ , the Reagan political bromide, that eventuated in the economic collapse of 2008, to foreshorten considerably.  With an assist from New Democrat Bill Clinton and his Free Market allies Phil and Wendy Gramm and other ‘reformers’: the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the harbinger of disaster!

What does all this ‘red tape’ really mean? That businesses and their owners and operators have a real civic obligation to operate honestly and fairly inside a civic structure. Now that is something that the Free Marketeers can’t fathom. It is beyond their ken. In the Neo-Liberal world view, The Free Market is the historical/political/ethical singularity that is above question. Not mentioning the greed, mendacity and chicanery empirically demo started by Capital since that 1999 ‘Reform’.

Those ‘innovators’, like Apple and the rest of the tech giants, have exported their jobs to the sweat shops of Asia and their Help Line customer service centers to India. All in the name of profitability. The newest ‘innovator’ is Uber that skirts around laws that protect consumers against unlicensed taxis, because those ‘innovators’ can’t be bothered with the law, or the interest of public safety. The issue is public safety, in the interests of the commonwealth, not of some utopian chatter about entrepreneurs/innovators being held back by draconian bureaucracy. After 55 years of this endlessly repeated propaganda: the myth of the innovators squelched by state bureaucracy, a central claim of Neo-Liberal Theology. Yet we are in the 7th year of our ‘economic recovery’, that resembles stasis rather than the argued dynamism of the apologists for a Capital!

Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.