User:KDRGibby/Old userpage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Stats[edit]

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=KDRGibby&dbname=enwiki_p

And a crap load of blocks :P most of which were very poor rulings by administrators that should have also been applied to those editors I was in dispute with at the time...

Political Quizes[edit]

Here are two of the best political quizes out there:

http://www.politopia.com/

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


12 Easy Steps for Ruling Wikipedia[edit]

  • 1. Make friends or multiple accounts
  • 2. Use friends or multiple accounts to dominate selected articles. For most articles it requires only 2 editors to dominate. More heavily trafficked articles may require 3-4.
  • 3. Delete all opposition
  • 4. When opposition demands an explanation provide one reason at a time allowing the most possible deletes. Once explanations have exhausted themselves continue to delete.
  • 5. When all else fails, blame them for not wanting to compromise and demand mediation or arbitration. Like tattle telling to a parent or a teacher the person who complains first gets the sympathy and thus usually wins.
  • 6. It never fails to have friends who are administrators that way you can use them to block opposition or protect pages, with of course your own edit protected.
  • 7. If opposition returns demand they cite sources...if sources already cited demand explanation of why sources are used. If this is done, demand more sources. Once more sources are given demand that these sources be moved to the exact location where the paragraph requires said citation. Once this is done complain about the citations as having some sort of POV or that there are too many sources.
  • 8. When sources are removed delete the entire section on the grounds that it is original research and not well cited.
  • 9. Make many minor edits or reverts that your opposition can't live with and get them to revert your petty edits. When they do tattle to your administrator friend so they are blocked.
  • 10. When your opponent is blocked make as many changes as you can and contribute to the discussion page, that you have to this point ignored, so it appears as if your opposition is intolerant and uncompromising.
  • 11. Continue the processes until you have worn down your opposition and they quit their futile attempts to bring balance back to wikipedia.
  • 12. When dealing with stuborn opponents misrepresent things they've stated, pretend your feelings have been hurt and you've been attacked, copy and paste only half the story, then get lazy admins who won't bother actually reading the thousands of pages of disputes between you and your opponent and hope they side with you when you get arbitration against a person whose been attempting to prevent you from vandalizing and edit waring the whole time. Remember rat on them first and you'll win, afterall, who has the time to really investigate this silly BS anyway? Hopefully by now you'll have them blocked, and you'll be free to censor and misinform the public as you please...that is afterall the purpose of Wikipedia.

Observation[edit]

Wikipedia is run and edited by alot of logically inconsistant editors, it really isnt worth your time participating, unless you enjoy it.

Wikipedia should not be treated as a good source of information for any reason.

I encourage everyone to avoid it as a learning tool wherever possible. It is just far too easy to insert or delete anything you like, regardless of factuality or not. It is way to easy for editors and administrators to bend and break rules in favor of their own prefrences...and they do, including blocking editors whith whom they have content disputes.

Be prepared for revert wars when your competeting editor stops providing discussion because they dont have legitimate complaints, they just hate what you have to say (even if what you say is cited by Nobel Prize winning economists).

Often your opponent will get admins to block you for reverting "Wars" that they clearly start by deleting whole sections without discussion or without even bothering to properly edited the disputed material. They, likely because they tattled, rarely get blocked. I've confirmed 2 editors who have CLEARLY gotten away with this while administrators refused to block them...without so much as a remark why.

I've been criticized for citing nobel prize winning economists and had the cited material deleted as "propoganda" and was later blocked for returning it back to the page.

I've also been blocked for making editorial changes to address complaints made by my opposition (they delete, I ask why, they supply a reason, I make a change based on their reason, they delete anyway, I ask why, they supply a new reason, I make an edit for that new reason, and they delete anyway: repeat process until I'm blocked for 3rr...total bs!) However when other users, my opposition, has made multiple edits to a page on the same section they were not block as that 3rr rule was suddenly changed to not include the exact same reason why I was blocked not too long before. Again, no logical consistancy among admins or editors.


Wiki Edits and Disputes[edit]

It is really sad but because of the level of vandalism and outright deletion of material from people who disagree with the premise of added sections because their ideology disagrees with the new opposition...I've had to copy my additions to this page in order to have a place to store them when the are reverted and deleted without discussion (as they usually do). It is really sad, but no matter how much you cite or how much you argue for the logic of your addition, many people feel the need to delete simply because they disagree and your addition makes their prefrence look bad. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a disinfopedia.

LIberalism[edit]

For several days the revisionists refused to allow a dissenting view point, sincerly believing macroeconomic "liberal" povs were the only valid expressons.

Gibby finally won the following paragraphs in a long hard fought battle:

  • Other liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market. In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he elucidated government regulation that occurred before the great depression including heavy regulations upon banks that prevented them, he argued, from reacting to the markets' demand for money. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. This pegged value created a massive surplus of gold, but later the pegged value was too low which created a massive migration of gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand created a run on the banks that the banks were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the Great Depression by creating, and then not fixing, deflationary pressures. He further argued in this thesis, that the government caused more pain upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class.

AND

  • Other liberal interpretations on the rise of totalitarianism were quite contrary to the growing body of thought on government regulation in supporting the market and capitalism. This included Friedrich Hayeks work, The Road to Serfdom. He argued that the rise of totalitarian dictatorships was the result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market which caused loss of political and civil freedoms. Hayek also saw these economic controls being instituted in the United Kingdom and the United States and warned against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments "Keynesians liberals" were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch; all of which sought the elimination or reduction of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus Hayek believes the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical.
  • Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. Classical liberal studies by the Canadian "conservative" free market oriented Fraser Institute, the American "conservative" free market oriented Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal state that there is a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms to the extent claimed by Friedrich von Hayek. They agree with Hayek that those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms.

NEXT

Communism[edit]

On Communism Gibby is up against Natalinasmpf, Mattley, and 172, to date they have said:

  • "POV" (There is no POV I've edited it relentlessly to remove any suspected POV, offer assitance if you can (editors with major complaints have failed to do so to date). Complaints have resulted in deletion rather than editing to help improve.
  • "Original Research" (this section does not constitute original research. Everything is verifiable through respected sources...which are even cited. More can be given if needed! Likely these people have problems with the selected sources or the person who ORIGINALY typed the section)Editors have also failed to give examples as to how this is Original Research other than to throw out this complain. Words have meanings...and so do rules. You cant make up stuff as you go along!
  • "Covered elsewhere" (so is lenninism, maoism, stalinism, the soviet union are not only mentioned elsewhere each their own pages. Market oriented reforms are barely mentioned, even when in its own page)
  • SEZs are state capitalism thus already covered in the page (SEZs are not state capitalism. State capitalism is command economy, SEZs are market economies. They are too seperate things and the SEZs and market economies of some present day "communist" countries is not actually included in the article)
  • "Not relevant to communism" (how is the fact that communist governments conducting market reform not relevant to communism as the ideology? Especially since the ideologies of communism included are ideological schools that have allowed monetary systems, private property, and a few other things that defy the basics of communism)
  • "not enough google hits" (title Free Market Communism had 178 google hits, more than some of the other section titles in the page)
  • "The article is about communism not China." Despite the fact that it includes an entire section on soviet Russia.
  • "The article is about communism not policy prefrences or economic policy." Despite the fact that it mentioned Russia's peristroika economic reforms.


What I have proposed and constantly edited to improve is the following[edit]

-->Note: I was blocked multiple times attempting to edit this in futile attempts to appease leftists into allowing it to stay. They had no interest in allowing any contradictory information to their own personal views and used numerical superiority to delete all edits without discussion.

Market Reforms of the Modern Communist


Contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles and later adapted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [1].

These Special Economic Zones have few restrictions upon businesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [2]

Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam.

What was eventually allowed was this compromised edit by Electionwood:

  • However, China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; and China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth.For example, contrary to communist theory as it developed, the Communist-ruled People's Republic of China runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. Several other communist states have also attempted to implement market-based reforms, including Vietnam. Communist parties, or their descendent parties, remain politically important in many European countries and throughout the Third World, particularly in India.

Wal Mart[edit]

A few editors want this deleted for various reasons...again no discussion just deletion. Still working on improving it.


The Critical Errors of Wal-Mart Criticism

  • Wal-Mart states that it is not anti-union but pro associate, arguing that Wal-art associates need not pay third parties to discuss problems with management. This is remedied through Wal-Mart's open door policy which allows associates to make complaints and suggestions all the way up the corporate ladder. Wal-Mart's so called "anti union policies" is merely the providing of information on the harmful effects of unionization like this [3]
  • The documentary "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low prices" mislead its viewers by suggesting that "Wal-Mart factories" were in poor condition and that Wal-Mart factory workers were subject to abuse and inhumane conditions. Wal-Mart is a retail store and owns no factories and creates no products of its own.[4]Wal Any inhumane working conditions are not the fault of Wal-Mart but the fault the contracted factories which are defrauding Wal-Mart by not providing the promised working standards demanded by Wal-Mart.
  • In regards to the use of illegal aliens by contractors Wal-Mart executives did know because, according to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, they had been helping the Federal government with the investigation for the previous three years. Critics have also mislead the public by arguing that these illegal aliens were hired by Wal-Mart when in fact they were employees of contractors who won bids to work for Wal-Mart. [5]
  • Critics argue that Wal-Mart destroys communities and suggest that Wal-Mart forces its competitors out of business. In fact, Wal-Mart operates through competition, meaning that all transactions with Wal-Mart are voluntary. If competitors upend, it is because of consumers not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's competitors include thousands of local buisnesses, Target, K-Mart, Dollar General, Dollar Store, Family Dollar, Sears, Dillards, Krogers, Food Lion, Farm Fresh, Albertsons, Costco, 7-11, Toys R' Us, Safeway, Winn-Dixie...to name a few. See Competitive market for more details on how retail competition operates.
  • Wal-Mart pays all associates above minimum wage. Wages for each locality are determined by the cost of living, wages of competitors, and supply of labor within the local market. Furthermore, critics typically point out an "average wage" of unspecified competitors which may or many not include managers/supervisors/high skill labor (thus adjusting this average higher) while singling out one waged position at Wal-Mart for comparison. This makes for unfair and deceptive comparisons. Meanwhile, microeconomist minded individuals point out that consumers dictate wages, not companies. This the wage Wal-Mart associates recieve is the fair wage that consumers are willing to pay for that service. [6] Consumers are free to shop at any other competitor and pay higher prices (if said competitor does charge more for goods) if they have a higher willingness to pay for higher valued labor.[7]
  • Critics of Wal-Mart wages, like those found in the documentary “Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices” argued that Wal-Mart is so large that the “meager” pay it gives employees has a major impact on driving down the wages of labor worldwide. This is not possible as Wal-Mart’s global sales were less than $300 billion which represents only a fraction of the GDP (more than $10 trillion) of the United States alone.[8][9] Thus its impact on world labor wages is negligible when factoring in the GDP of every state in which Wal-Mart operates.
  • "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices" appropriatly pointed out that it is unfair to subsidize Wal-Mart through taxpayer funds and not their competitors but it is tenuous to make this an arguement against Wal-Mart (as the documentary does) rather than an arguement against government influence/prefrencing over economic outcomes. Wal-Mart does not create these subsides, governments do.
  • Many critics of Wal-Mart, including those in "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices" argue that associates are paid so little they cannot afford health insurance. According to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, more than 90% of Wal-Mart associates have health care coverage, with fifty percent recieving coverage through Wal-Mart.
  • In a move to scilence left leaning critics of Wal-Mart wages to hourly employees, CEO Lee Scott, has advocated (for better or for worse) a federally mandated raise in minimum wage. [10]
  • Contrary to the idea that Wal-Mart increases poverty, economist Jerry Huasman argues that Wal-Mart's low prices and savings are more effective at combating poverty than government programs. [11]


EDITED TO

Response to Criticism

  • Wal-Mart states that it is not anti-union but pro associate, arguing that Wal-mart associates need not pay third parties to discuss problems with management.[12][13] According to Wal-Mart, this is remedied through Wal-Mart's open door policy which allows associates to make complaints and suggestions all the way up the corporate ladder.
  • The documentary "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low prices" suggested that "Wal-Mart factories" were in poor condition and that Wal-Mart factory workers were subject to abuse and inhumane conditions. Defenders of Wal-Mart claim that Wal-Mart is a retail store and owns no factories and creates no products of its own.[14] Wal Mart performs inspections at factories which Wal Mart purchases products to ensure workers have humane working conditions (as is required by Wal Mart).[15] Any inhumane conditions are not the fault of Wal Mart but of those factory owners who fraud Wal Mart with false information on actual working conditions.
  • According to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, Wal-Mart executives did know that the company was using illegal aliens as contractors because they had been helping the Federal government with the investigation for the previous three years. Some critics argued that Wal-Mart personally hired illegal aliens when in fact they were employees of contractors who won bids to work for Wal-Mart.[16]
  • Critics argue that Wal-Mart destroys communities and suggest that Wal-Mart forces its competitors out of business. Defenders of Wal-Mart argue that the company operates through competition, meaning that all transactions with Wal-Mart are voluntary. If competitors upend, it is because of consumers not Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's competitors include thousands of local businesses, Target, K-Mart, Dollar General, Dollar Store, Family Dollar, Sears, Dillards, Krogers, Food Lion, Farm Fresh, Albertsons, Costco, 7-11, Toys R' Us, Safeway, Winn-Dixie. Such economists point out that the net gain in jobs as a result of Wal Mart is positive. [17][18][19]
  • Wal-Mart pays all associates above minimum wage. Wages for each locality are determined by the cost of living, wages of competitors, and supply of labor within the local market.[20] Critics point out that Wal-Mart pays below an average wage of unspecified competitors which may include managers, supervisors, and high-skilled labor (thus adjusting this average higher) while singling out one waged position at Wal-Mart for comparison. Meanwhile, economists point out that consumers dictate wages, not companies. According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization, Wal-Mart associates receive the fair wage that consumers are willing to pay for that service. [21] Consumers are free to shop at other competitors and pay higher prices (if said competitor does charge more for goods) if they are willing to pay for higher-valued labor.[22]
  • "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices" stated that it is unfair to subsidize Wal-Mart through taxpayer funds and not their competitors, but it is tenuous to make this an argument against Wal-Mart (as the documentary does) rather than an argument against government influence and preference over economic outcomes. Defenders of Wal-Mart claim that the company does not create these subsidies, governments do.
  • Many critics of Wal-Mart, including those in "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices" argue that associates are paid so little they cannot afford health insurance. According to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, more than 90% of Wal-Mart associates have health care coverage, with fifty percent recieving coverage through Wal-Mart.
  • In a move to silence critics of Wal-Mart's hourly wages, CEO Lee Scott has advocated a federally-mandated raise in the minimum wage. [23]
  • Economist Jerry Huasman argues that Wal-Mart's low prices and savings are more effective at combating poverty than government programs. [24]
  • Critics of Wal-Mart wages, like those found in the documentary “Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices” argued that Wal-Mart is so large that the “meager” pay it gives employees has a major impact on driving down the wages of labor worldwide. This is a questionable statement to make given Wal Mart's 2005 revenue of $285 billion which is a fract

GLobalization and its Discontents[edit]

According to Daniel T. Grizwald of the CATO Institute, he believes the book to be a "score-settling exercise distorted by the author's own political prejudices and personal animus." He continues "Contrary to economic thinking since Adam Smith, the book reinforces the myth that protectionism enriches those nations that practice it" believing that protectionism has been a benefit to the United States while it has, in fact, been a retardation to our progress and growth of wealth (p. 567).

On the subject of the East Asian Finacial Crisis, Grizwald states "while he is not questioning free trade, Stiglitz is disparaging the free flow of capital. The book blames the East Asian Financial Crisis almost entirely on one factor: capital account liberalization" Stiglitz demonstrates his belief by "prais[ing] Malaysia for spurring IMF advice...by imposing capital controls to stem the flight of short term flows." Grizwald also states that Stiglitz provided no evidence to support his belief that Malaysia was rewarded for their efforts. He counters that Malaysia's GDP had fallen much farther than the other countries listed by Stiglitz, down to 6.7% and "recovered less rapidly in 1999 and 2000 even though [others] did not resort to capital controls Stiglitz champions" (p. 568)

Overall, Stiglitz "distorts the history of the East Asian Miracle", with Russian privatization he "ignores the fact that Russia's initial reforms were timid and half baked" and that the IMF with its beliefs in bail outs and non-market exchange rates is not the "great symbol of market fundamentalism".[http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/cato/v22n3/cato_v22n3grd01.pdf

edited to

Daniel T. Grizwald of the Cato Institute labels the book a "score-settling exercise distorted by the author's own political prejudices and personal animus." Grizwald takes issue with Stiglitz's assumption "that protectionism enriches those nations that practice it" and notes that "while he is not questioning free trade, Stiglitz is disparaging the free flow of capital. The book blames the East Asian Financial Crisis almost entirely on one factor: capital account liberalization." Stiglitz demonstrates this belief by "prais[ing] Malaysia for spurring IMF advice ... by imposing capital controls to stem the flight of short term flows." Grizwald also states that Stiglitz provided no evidence to support his belief that Malaysia was rewarded for their efforts. He counters that Malaysia's GDP had fallen much farther than the other countries listed by Stiglitz, down to 6.7% and "recovered less rapidly in 1999 and 2000 even though [others] did not resort to capital controls Stiglitz champions." Grizwald concludes by arguing that Stiglitz "distorts the history of the East Asian Miracle", with Russian privatization he "ignores the fact that Russia's initial reforms were timid and half baked" and that the IMF with its beliefs in bail outs and non-market exchange rates is not the "great symbol of market fundamentalism".[25][26]

oft deleted information[edit]

The Cuban American National Foundation and Lawrence Solomon of the Urban Renaissance Institute claim that Cuba masks the truth behind the Cuban health care system. They argue that real Cuban healthcare is abysmal and that what is shown to non-Cuban foreigners is a healthcare system unavailable to the average Cuban.[27][28][29] The National Review has made similar criticisms.

According to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the Cuban government consumes nearly 35% of the GDP, employs 73% of the labor force, and investment of capital has large restrictions including required apporval by the government. The Cuban government sets most prices and rations goods to citizens, has decreased inflation by restraining its monetary policy, but "State salaries average $15 to $20 per month in Cuban pesos... Cuba is chronically dependent on credit accounts that rotate from country to country. Typical imports are food, fuel, clothing, and machinery. Exports include nickel, cigars, and state-sponsored labor, for which the government charges many times what it pays in state salaries. Lacking investment, Cuba's sugar industry is no longer viable"[[30]]

Implicit in the word "progressivism" is the assumption that the policies advocated by progressives are a form of progress. However, since different groups of people have different views on the meaning of "progress", not everyone agrees that progressivism truly promotes progress.

The two main opponents of progressivism are conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives, by definition, advocate tradition and the status quo. They are skeptical of notions of "progress" and social change - in any direction - believing that it is best to retain social relations that have been proven stable by past experience. Libertarians, on the other hand, advocate their own brand of radical social change, which is in many ways opposed to the kind of change advocated by progressives. For this reason, libertarians claim that they are the true promoters of progress, and that the policies of progressivism are actually "regressive". A notable supporter of this view is Brink Lindsey, an economist working with the Cato Institute. Lindsey believes that by terming themselves progressives, liberals and social democrats have put a positive spin on what he claims to be regressive economic tendencies. Being a libertarian, he argues in favor of free market capitalism and believes that progressive economic policies (such as minimum wages, income taxes, payroll taxes, most social safety nets and trade barriers) help to increase unemployment among the poor and unskilled, as well as increase costs for all members of society. Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel believe in her book "The Future and its Enemies" that without the dyanmic society and economy that free trade brings technological innovation and corporate competition will deminish, prices will rise, and the quality of life will slow perhaps even stagnate. All of these outcomes they (Lindsey, Postrell, and Friedman) believe leads to a static existance, one where opponents of free trade actually argue for preserving much of the status quo. As such, these scholars believe that anti-free trade advocates are conservatives and reactionaries while free trade advocates are true progressives.

Progressives beleive that free market capitalism can be demonstrated to be regressive due to negative social consequences caused by its rejection or mitigation of labor policies to improve corporate efficiency, and the fact that it is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue for labor rights and social justice in international relations and economics. They further argue that the kind of policies advocated by libertarians like Brink Lindsey would and have created severe poverty, widened the gap between rich and poor and allowed those who are already rich to gain an excessively high amount of both wealth and power over the rest of society.

Wiki Contributions[edit]

Gibby has worked on and watches:

Response to criticism[edit]

(note: there are some really stupid, and some other editors who have demanded more and more sources on this section of the Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart critisism page...often without requiring the same sources from their own edits in their wal-mart hating sections. Interestingly enough, in areas where their own complaints are so utterly rediculous as to defy logic, the mere mentioning of how rediculous their points are (Without actually using the word) are deleted at any available opportunity. Once again the socialist/leftist crowd deletes at will without regard to factual information that makes their arguements look...well rather poorly thought out)

Wal-Mart and unions[edit]

Wal-Mart states that it is not anti-union but "pro-associate", arguing that its employees need not pay third parties to discuss problems with management as the company's open-door policy enables employees to lodge complaints and submit suggestions all the way up the corporate ladder, though most employees state that they undergo fierce intimidation and scare tactics when attempting to report problems in the workplace. [31][32]

Wal-Mart "factories"[edit]

The documentary "Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Prices"[33] states that "Wal-Mart factories" were in poor condition and that Wal-Mart factory workers were subject to abuse and inhumane conditions.

Wal-Mart states (and financial reports confirm) that it is a retail store and owns no factories and creates no products of its own [34][35]. Wal-Mart states that it "believes in doing the right thing" and that it is "developing monitoring systems to ensure contractors that do business with us comply with all relevant laws and regulations." [36]

Wal-Mart and illegal aliens[edit]

According to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, Wal-Mart executives did know that contractors were using illegal aliens as because they had been helping the Federal government with the investigation for the previous three years. [37] Some critics argued that Wal-Mart personally hired illegal aliens, while Wal-Mart claims they were employees of contractors who won bids to work for Wal-Mart. [38]

Wal-Mart and local communities[edit]

Critics argue Wal-Mart destroys communities and suggest the chain forces competitors out of business.

Defenders argue the company operates through competition, meaning that all transactions with Wal-Mart are voluntary. Wal-Mart's competitors include thousands of local and national businesses. Wal-Mart operates in competitive economies where consumers are free to choose any number of other competitors such as:

Economic research also often suggests Wal-Mart results in more employment.[39][40]

Wal-Mart, through research done by Global Insight, claims it saves working families more than $2,300 a year, while creating more than 210,000 jobs in the U.S. (10% of the jobs created). [41] Other investigations have revealed that for every 2 jobs created by Wal-Mart, 3 jobs are lost through due to many smaller companies going out of business. [42] There has been much debate about the effects of Wal-Mart in the community, with some organizations calculating that taxpayers pick up the tab for Wal-Mart employees who cannot get health care through their employer, thus relying state and federal health care supplemental programs which are paid for by American taxpayers, at an average cost of $2,300 per Wal-Mart employee per year. [43]

Wages and benefits from Wal-Mart[edit]

Wal-Mart has said that it pays all employees above minimum wage, and that wages for each locality are determined by the cost of living, wages of competitors, and supply of labor within the local market.[44] Critics opine that Wal-Mart pays below an average wage of its competitors, but have not presented evidence to prove this. According to a Global Insight study, a "limited analysis...based on a large sample of employee wage data, did not find evidence to conclude that Wal-Mart pays its workers below-market." According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization, Wal-Mart employees receive the fair wage that consumers are willing to pay for that service. [45]

Many critics of Wal-Mart, including those in "Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Prices"[46] argue that employees are paid so little they cannot afford health insurance. According to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, fifty percent of Wal-Mart employees receive health care coverage through Wal-Mart. This could be in part because Wal-Mart only offers benefits to its part time employees who have been employed there for at least 2 years.

In a move to silence critics of Wal-Mart's hourly wages, CEO Lee Scott has advocated a federally-mandated raise in the minimum wage. [47]

Economist Jerry Hausman argues that Wal-Mart's low prices and savings are more effective at combating poverty than government programs. [48]

According to Jay Nordlinger, and Wal-Mart, more than 80% of Wal-Mart associates have healthcare coverage; and according to Wal-Mart more than 150,000 associates have been given healthcare coverage under the new healthcare plan implemented in 2005.

Wal-Mart and Product Controversy[edit]

As a part of the principles of free enterprise, Wal-Mart is free to stock and sell whatever products it wishes, even if the exclusion of certain products leads to lost profits. Consumers are always free to shop at competitors who have no moral objection to the same products rejected by Wal-Mart. See Free enterprise to get a better understanding about why product discrimination is a petty criticism of Wal-Mart given the fact that Wal-Mart operates exclusivly in competitive markets.

Wal-Mart and Economic Criticism[edit]

Wal-Mart has been accused by some of engaging in predatory pricing despite the noted fact by microeconomists that predatory pricing is generally not a profitable venture even in the long run. It is so difficult to come out ahead under predatory strategies that very few ever attempt it. It is thus, not likely that Wal-Mart actually engages in this behavior.

Wal-Mart has also apparently been criticized as a monopsony, which means they are the source of demand for a particular economic factor. Wal-Mart rarely, if ever, actually fits the definition of monopsony. Conversely, Wal-Mart has never fit the definition of monopoly, or the source of supply for a particular economic factor. See monopsony and monopoly for your own comparisons.

(<NOTE>The previous two sections are so self explanitory that no citation is actually needed...citation however is required for the critics to make this claim...any smart informed person who knows the definitions should understand that Wal-Mart is not any of these things...IT DOES NOT FIT THE ECONOMIC DEFINITION...)

Che[edit]

New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a “sociopathic thug”. Other US newspaper critics have made similar remarks. These critics claim that the Che Guevara was "personally responsible" for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons,and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. They also believe that Guevara was a blundering tactician, not a revolutionary genius, who has not one recorded combat victory. Some critics also believe that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. [49] ,[50], [51], [52], [53],[54],[55]

Deaths By Communism[edit]

Altogether estimates of the loss of human life as a result of communist regimes and insurgencies vary greatly. In Black Book of Communism, the authors suggest that approximately 95 million people died: The Soviet Union at 20 million, People's Republic of China at 65 million, Vietnam at 1 million, North Korea at 2 million, Cambodia at 2 million, Eastern Europe at 1 million, Africa at 1.7 million, Afghanistant at 1.5 million, Latin America at 150,000.

Estimates by R. J. Rummel's Death By Government put the Soviet Union at 61.9 million, the People's Republic of China at 76.7 million, North Korea at 1.6 million, Cambodia at 2 Million, and Poland and Yugoslavia at 2.5+ million, for an estimated total (based on these six countries alone) of 144.7 million. [56],[57]

Matthew White in the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, 2001, estimates death by communists at 92 million.

Popular myths about trade deficits[edit]

Microeconomists do not believe that trade deficits are inherently good or bad. They do believe that trade deficits are generally harmful when countries engage in currency controls such as fixed or pegged exchange rates. They argue that fixed exchange rates do not allow the market to naturally correct any current account “problems”.

Milton Friedman believes that much of the fears of trade deficits are unfair criticisms in an attempt to push macroeconomic policies favorable to export industries. He states that these deficits are not harmful to the country as the currency always comes back to the country of origin in some form or another. He continues by informing readers that the "worst case scenario" of the currency never returning to the country of origin is actually the best possible outcome; as the country just purchased goods by exchanging pieces of cheaply made paper.

If these current account "problems" become unstable and unsustainable, Friedman notes that the market will correct any "problems" as floating currency rates will rise or fall with time to encourage or discourage imports in favor of the exports, and then possibly reverse again in favor of imports as the currency gains strength.

Friedman and other microeconomists also point out that a large trade deficit (importation of goods) signals that the currency of this country is strong and desirable. Citizens of such a country also receive the benefit of having the ability to choose between many competing consumables and lower prices than they would otherwise experience if the currency was weaker and the country was "enjoying" a trade surplus. To Milton Friedman, a trade deficit simply means that consumers get to purchase and enjoy more goods at lower prices; conversely, a trade surplus implies that a country exported goods that its own citizens did not get to consume and enjoy, while paying high prices for the goods that were consumed.

These trade deficit "problems" were explained in detail by Milton Friedman in Free to Choose, and his simple points re-examined by Dr. Reed. They can be found here: [58]

Criticism of maximum wages[edit]

Critics of maximum wages, like Milton Friedman, argue that they reduce incentives toward innovation and reduce incentives for the highly skilled to pursue difficult jobs. They argue for example, that reducing the possible earn of medical doctors reduces the incentive to become a doctor. Potentially high skilled doctors find that they can make the same earnings (now under a maximum wage) at a more simple and less stressful job. Those now attracted to the medical profession can be said to be less skilled than otherwise could be under a non restricted wage system.

Friedman and many microeconomists point out that wages are a reflection of the laborers' time and skill, as well as an incentive to work. Without this incentive, they argue that people will not work in difficult or high skilled employment such as being doctors, lawyers, entertainers.

Furthermore, Friedman and other micro economists argue that inflation is not caused by wages but by the printing of money by governments. In addition, they point out that currency is a commodity, like butter or cars, whose value is subjected to supply and demand.

Finally, these microeconomists state that given the diverse prefrences of the multitude of individuals within any given society it is impossible to determine by a central authority what is sufficient wealth. They believe that having no restrictions upon wealth provide a great incentive to build wealth rather than remain impoverished.

From the Cycle of Poverty Page[edit]

Causes[edit]

There are two different and distinct political camps which give different reasons for the cycle of poverty's existence. The political Left argue that social injustice and social inequality. As such, those with existing wealth to create more wealth, and those with little wealth not being able to create enough wealth. Free market proponents and libertarians may argue that the a strong presence of the state in the economy erodes property rights and thus the incentive to create wealth.

Unbalanced distribution of wealth[edit]

Lack of education, or human capital, is thought to be one of the biggest causes of the poverty cycle. Education in a modern knowledge-based economy is one of the conditions to achieving economic growth, as it increases skill. A maximised education would require devoted time and energy, or extra-curricular reading. Children who are from poor families and have to work cannot maximise their education, even if the education is free. It would also require a conducive and hygenic environment, which is often not available to the poverty-stricken. This is even worse in countries such as India where public education in many areas is not available for free due to budget constraints. Tertiary education is often not free. These theorists believe that children often will not be able to break out of poverty because their reduced skillset reduces their potential income. With no means to provide a conducive educational environment for their own children, the cycle begins again.

Excessive intervention by the state[edit]

Many neoliberals attribute certain cycles of poverty to insufficient protection or recognition of property rights. To be more exact, in an environment where one's property can be stolen at any time, such as countries with a weak rule of law, there is very little incentive to save and invest.

Others like the free market proponent Hernando De Soto argues that poverty is sustained by government overregulation that generates high costs to property ownership through bureaucracy and big government. He argues that many of the poor in the world economy are unable to develop their property or own property because this regulation is too costly to overcome. As a result, they argue they are unable to generate wealth in a legal market that is full of regulation and are forced to resort to operate in an extralegal market that hampers wealth creation, thus hampering their ability to be pulled out of poverty.

Economists such as Milton Friedman argue that tariffs, income taxes, payroll taxes, savings tax and tax on investments all provide perverse incentives toward wealth creation that hurt the poor the most. He further argues that some of these arrangements are also wealth transfers from poor to rich; such as tariffs and social security. He argues that these regressive tax burdons encourage low productivity and little savings and investment that would otherwise lift the poor out of poverty.

Others have argued that welfare perpetuates poverty by providing incentives counter to wealth creation. Proponents of the FairTax and economists such as Milton Friedman favor eliminating welfare programs that prevent benefits from those earning above a certain income. They believe that these income caps as eligibility to recieve benefits provide an incentive for laborers to earn less than they actually could in order to gain free benefits from government programs.

Solutions[edit]

There are no complete solutions to the poverty cycle, and many proposed methods are undergoing experimentation.

Left-wing solutions[edit]

Those on the political Left emphasize the effects of economic repression through social inequality as causes, as well as a lack of resource flow downwards from the wealthy due to insufficient redistribution of wealth.

Universal public education and welfare are the most commonly used methods by modern governments. In many places the rule of law also needs to be strengthened, by creating efficient legal systems that protect the acquired capital of the poor. Mixed-income housing is being implemented in more and more cities as a possible solution to poverty issues. It is an attempt to bring middle and lower class families together in the same neighbourhoods. This interaction between low and middle-income families helps the low-income families.

The famous Hills v. Gautreaux case in Chicago provides a sort of case study of the potential of mixed-income housing. The cycle of poverty is often cited by opponents of capitalism, such as communists, anarchists, and others as an argument against the capitalist system. They often insist that there can be no effective solution to the cycle of poverty while capitalism remains in place, and that it would be necessary to overthrow capitalism and establish either a planned economy or a gift economy in order to eliminate the cycle.

Free market solutions[edit]

Free market economists argue that planned economies and welfare will not solve poverty problems but only make them worse. They believe that the only way to solve poverty is not by shuffling and sharing existing wealth through redistributing wealth but by creating new wealth. They believe that this is most efficiently achieved through low levels of government regulation and interference, free trade, equal property rights, money systems, wages, and tax reform and reduction, thus converting even the poor members of society into capitalists. Some further extend this criticism to any alternative to free market economies.

Implication and criticism of solutions[edit]

Revolutionary critique of progressive reform[edit]

By implication, the only way to get out of the cycle of poverty is through an external intervention, from the outside. Left to themselves, the poor cannot get out of poverty; they are trapped in the cycle. Reformists argue that the well-off have a moral, religious, or human obligation to make that intervention.

Critics of this view, especially revolutionary socialists, argue that reformists forget that keeping people in poverty may be a deliberate policy of the ruling class or elite, and that "do-gooder" interventions aiming to improve the lot of the poor might actually have the effect of making their problems, or those of other people, worse, not better. It is argued that the poor must themselves show the will to revolt against poverty, and improve their lot, through becoming politically aware and taking charge of their own destiny.


Anarchists recognize the problem that public schools may not effectively resolve the poverty cycle due to issues with incentive and attitude to lifelong learning. The provision of free schools in the context of a gift economy might also preserve incentive as those unwilling to gain such skills would not be looked upon favourably.

Advocation of privatization[edit]

Some also contest the provision of public educations as a partial solution, and do not believe that public education is a right or a suitable public service. There is further contest whether or not provision of aid for tertiary education is a necessary condition to build wealth. Others argue that paying to gain skills merely represents how determined a person is to gain those skills, and is thus an incentive to work and study hard to turn those skills into income. Milton Friedman is one such critic and is outspoken against the government provision of free education, government aid and free career training on the grounds that it eliminates incentives to seriously gain skills and become a productive member of society.

Friedman also believes that public education, while a good intention, has failed society in properly educating children. He also believes it has been an inefficient use of resources as private schools have done a better job of educating children at a lower cost per capita. Friedman believes this educational failure is the result of public education not being subject to market forces so they remain inefficient and incompetitive and unaccountable to students and parents while severely hampered by central bureaucracies.

Some theorists believe that the poverty cycle is not a catch-22 as it is believed. Free market microeconomists such as Friedman believe that every individual owns at least one important factor that is capable of building wealth, which is their own labor or time. From their own unskilled labor, persons may spend or save as they wish and along the way build wealth. Whether or not they use this wealth to purchase an education and or build skills to improve income is their own business.

Alternative provision of public service[edit]

Anarchists recognize the problem that public schools may not effectively resolve the poverty cycle due to issues with incentive and attitude to lifelong learning. The provision of free schools in the context of a gift economy might also preserve incentive as those unwilling to gain such skills would not be looked upon favourably.

From Gift Economy[edit]

Free market and rational choice theorists argue that alternatives to free market economies will provide weak incentives, beyond altruistic individuals, to produce, work, be efficient, or innovate. With such weak incentives, they believe that no good or service will be produced for society. They believe that without property arrangements, prices, and wages, there is no way to calculate individuals' needs and wants, and hoarding may result. Milton Friedman and other microeconomic free market thinkers have written extensively on the information contained in prices, the incentives of profit, and the role of private property in structuring incentives to build wealth for society. They have also extensively criticisized alternatives to free market economics as reducing or even eliminating incentives for wealth creation, production, efficiency, and innovation. They argue that prices and wages are the most accurate reflection on the value, demand, and need for products and labor, and thus result in the most efficient form of economic transaction and resource allocation. Reed examines Friedman's basic economic principles in "Prices and Information" for non-technical reading.[59]


Criticisms of "Participatory" Economics[edit]

Below are generalized criticisms of alternatives to market oriented economics. While nothing specific is said against the title participatory economics, what are supposed to be its basic functions of eliminating property, prices, and wages, are heavily criticized. Milton Friedman argues that economies need functioning prices and private property in order to function properly and that the more restrictions that are placed on prices and property the less well the economy will function. Friedman believes that the elimination of prices, wages, and private property will lead to an economy that does not function at all.

Prices and Wages[edit]

Microeconomists and free market scholars such as Milton Friedman have written extensively criticizing alternative economic arrangements to free market economies. Friedman has argued that it is very difficult and inefficient for central planners to guess or approximate values and demand for goods and services and that it is better to let prices float freely by allowing the market to determine them. Friedman also believes that free floating prices and wages help to best approximate the needs and wants of society and that many alternatives to the market oriented economy have no real way of quantifying "needs".

Freidman does believe that workers who take risks deserve more pay than workers who do not, but he also believes that workers are paid based on the utility and skill they provide their company. These microeconomists believe that pay scales based on sacrifice, as well as the elimination of wages or even implementation of maximum wages, are insufficient to provide the necessary incentives toward innovation and efficiency that occurs in a market oriented economy through the unlimited income rewards for innovators, managers, entertainers, ceo's etc. Friedman believes that an inefficient, non productive and non innovative economic society would emerge if you eliminate these incentives.

Markets and Cooperation[edit]

Friedman also believes that the market, especially the free market, provides appropriate incentives toward promoting cooperation, even among strangers. He believes market oriented economies are the most efficient at transmitting information on supply, demand, and the reallocation of resources, all of which are necessary to bring diverse people together for the common purpose of producing for consumption.

The Role of Private Property[edit]

Free market critics such as Friedman also argue that private property is the staple by which people and society build wealth and that eliminating private property eliminates a primary incentive to build and protect wealth. Friedman also notes that wealth is not a zero sum game, as is generally believed by advocates of market alternatives, but a positive sum game as wealth is almost always growing; meaning one person may gain alot while no one else may actually lose.

Externalities[edit]

Milton Friedman does not deny that there are market externalities and offers many solutions to solving problems such as pollution. For example Friedman advocates the selling of pollution rights via permits to any and all legal persons. This allows the transmission of information of how harmful society believes this pollution to be as private citizens may purchase pollution rights and never use them which forces corporations to innovate and pollute less or face a stiff penalty. He notes that without selling pollution rights to all legal citizens there is no way of transmitting information to solve this externality and that simply regulating pollution away does not solve the pollution externality but only hides it temporarily. Friedman also believes that economic externalities occur in all forms of economic arrangements but are most harmful when they are the result of government intervention as it is very difficult to solve government made externalities. He believes that the elimination of private property, wages, and free floating prices will result in serious government externalities such as shortages, ineffecient use of resources and waste.

"Participatory" Capitalism[edit]

Finally, Milton Friedman will not, as would many other microeconomists, that consumers constantly participate in market-oriented capitalism with every purchase they make. By making purchases, they argue, every individual signals to producers in the market what goods are valued, how much of such good to produce, of what quality, what it shall be made of, what color it should be, etc. Furthermore, they believe market alternatives would not properly transmit this information to the market and would would occur is very little product diversity, thus many people would not get what they really wanted or would otherwise be willing to pay for.

My Classical Liberalism Contribution[edit]

Part of a series on
Liberalism
Schools
Principles
History
Philosophers
Politicians
Organizations
Regional variants
Related topics

Classical liberalism (also called classic liberalism or simply liberalism) is the original form of, and is today a tendency within, liberalism. It is a political school of thought that first emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, upholding individualism and free market economics. Classical liberalism focuses on concepts of individual autonomy and private property, and argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to defend these. Classical liberals promote the use of precisely delineated constitutions that are difficult or impossible to modify, intended to prevent governments from assuming an interventionist role.

The term "classical liberalism" itself was coined in the 20th century, and applied retroactively to pre-1850 liberalism, to avoid confusion with an accepted modern definition of liberalism. Modern libertarians see themselves as having revived the original doctrine of liberalism, and calling themselves "libertarians", "classical liberals" or "market liberals."

Introduction[edit]

The classic liberal philosophy places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. It forms the philosophy underpinning of the laissez-faire philosophy. The precepts of classic liberalism were probably best described by John Locke and Adam Smith, and illuminated much of the thought at the time of the American revolution. As a result, the United States Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence are both documents that embody many principles of classic liberalism.

Modern liberalism tends to deviate from this definition of the term "liberal" in that it espouses the use of the power of government to achieve a variety of desirable goals, ranging from social justice to economic equality. The term classical liberalism is often used interchangeably with the term libertarianism. Raimondo Cubeddu of the Department of Political Science of the University of Pisa says "It is often difficult to distinguish between "Libertarianism" and "Classical Liberalism." Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those who we may call libertarians of a "minarchist" persuasion: scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a State is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights." [60] The Cato Institute briefly discusses these changes and their views on the term classical liberalism, stating from their website:

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy. Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals."

Thus the Cato Institute[61] sees Classical Liberals, liberals, and libertarians being from the same ideological family. Classical liberals, like those within the Cato Institute, often prefer to call themselves liberals because they see themselves as the only rightful inheritors of Liberalism.

Origins[edit]

Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy. With roots in ancient Greek and medieval thought, it received an early expression in the 16th century by the School of Salamanca and its classic formulation in the Enlightenment tradition. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith is one of the classic works that rejects the philosophy of mercantilism, which advocated state interventionism in the economy and protectionism. The classical liberals saw mercantalism as enriching privileged elites at the expense of well being of the populace. Another early expression is the tradition of a Nordic school of liberalism set in motion by a Finnish parliamentarian Anders Chydenius. Classical liberalism tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual liberty and private property. The phrase is often used as a means of delineating the older philosophy called liberalism from modern liberalism, in order to avoid semantic confusion.

Adam Smith

Classic Liberalism is close to 18th century Liberalism. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith is considered one of the classic foundations of liberalism. While Adam Smith provides an explanation of liberalism and economics, the legal and philosophical understanding originates with scholars like John Locke and evolves through Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Immanuel Kant, in the Perpetual Peace, creates an international liberal framework to foster a sustainable world peace.

The term "liberal" derived from this time period (generally the 18th and 19th century) with its origination stemming from the belief in individual freedom, economic freedom (including free markets), and limited representative government. This original understanding of the word "liberal" carries the same meaning in a few countries, but in most countries the meaning and ideology behind liberalism differ to certain degrees (e.g. social security, tariffs, intervention and regulation into the economy, wage and price controls) from its meaning in the eighteenth century. In many countries liberalism holds a position between classical liberalism and American liberalism. Only a few major parties adhere to classical liberalism, most of the liberal parties accept limited government intervention in economics.

Immanuel Kant

Classic Liberals include all original liberals such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Stuart Mill with his work On Liberty, and even more modern liberals such as Von Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Classical liberal institutions include the Frasier Institute (Canada), The Hoover Institution (Stanford University), and The Cato Institute to name a few.

In Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty, in the chapter, "Why I am not a Conservative" Hayek tells us that he was not a conservative because he was in fact a liberal; and had refused to give up that label. In the United States the term liberal had changed meaning, and according to Hayek this was because Franklin D Roosevelt had been labeled a socialist and a leftist because of his New Deal Policies. Fearing the consequences of that label, FDR called himself a Liberal instead. Since that day, Liberal in the United States has had a different meaning from the orginal, 18th and 19th century meaning of the word. People who stayed close to this orginal meaning label themselves often "Classic Liberal", "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian" to avoid confusion (especially in America ).

Classical liberal philosophy[edit]

Classical liberals subscribe to a very basic and universal understanding of the world and the rights of all humans. Classical Liberals believe in private property, free markets, economic competition, freedom from coercion, limited government (all economic freedom), the rule of law, and individual rights (natural rights is also used). These are inherent to all people, of all faiths, cultures, societies, ethnicities, and histories and that all peoples are capable of achieving liberal government and liberal societies not just western cultures. (Classical) liberals prefer a laissez-faire style of government with a microeconomic focus and understanding of economic operations.

Classical liberals reject wealth transfers (though admire the goal of helping the needy), tariffs, or other trade barriers such as quotas, regulated markets (also known as a Mixed economy ), capital controls, wage and price controls. As a general rule these macroeconomic policies are considered by them as reducing the general welfare of society. Social security and tariffs, for example, are viewed by Milton Friedman as a perverse wealth transfers, meaning a wealth transfer from poor to rich. Hayek and Friedman also believed that economic freedom would help build and protect political and civil freedoms, while a loss in economic freedom ment a loss in civil and political freedoms.

Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom are examples of this philosophy updated for modern man and woman to understand (classical) liberalism.

Classical liberalism during the Great Depression and the rise of dictatorships[edit]

Some liberals, what are now known as classical liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market but also that such intervention can and will lead to international conflict (World War I and World War II) but the rise of totalitarian regimes and the loss of political and civil freedoms. They, along with a few more contemporary economists and historians have argued this thesis contrary to populist, socialist, and Keynsian opinions that the Great Depression was caused by too little government and free markets.[62]

Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, believed that the rise of totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist, fascist, or Nazi, were the result of the restriction of economic freedom. Economic freedom was, thus, restricted by government intervention and regulation of the economy. Hayek states:

"…economic planning, conducted independently on a national scale, are bound in the aggregate effect to be harmful even from a purely economic point of view and, in addition to produce serious international friction. That there is little hope of international order or lasting peace so long as every country is free to employ whatever measures it desires in its own immediate interest, however damaging they may be to others…" Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, The University of Chicago Press, 1944. p. 240.

Here Hayek is demonstrating the rationale behind why economic policies like those subscribed to by Keynesian economists can not and could not be compatible to freedom and peace much in the same way Nazis, Fascists, and Communists failed to retain or create free and peaceful states

The more economic freedom that was lost, he said, the more civil and political freedom would be lost as well. Hayek's work The Road to Serfdom remains influential, argued against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments Keynesians were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch that sought the elimination of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical. The same outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt.

Nobel Prize winning economists such as Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued for years that economic freedom leads to greater political and civil rights and those governments who control the economy tend to limit economic rights and eventually will limit political, civil rights of their people. Friedman states,

"economic freedom is simply a requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction it reduces the area over which political power is exercised." Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Harcort Brace Janovich, 1980, p. 2-3

The Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini often defined fascism as a contrast to classical liberalism and its individualist foundation. For example: "The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual." And, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government."

Classical liberalism, economic freedom, and their relationship with civil and political freedoms[edit]

Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. (Classical) liberal studies by the Canadian conservative Fraser Institute, the American conservative Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argue that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once said. They agree with Hayek's statement that those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms. On the other hand, economic freedom does not necesarily imply civil and political freedom.

FA Hayek and Milton Friedman have both observed that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. A link between a lack of economic freedom and human rights violation has been observed over the last century; easily seen by the atrocities committed by the least economically free countries in the world which include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia...

Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. The facts of history in the post-war era affirmed in his vision the accuracy of his thesis. Clement Attlee's Labour Party, after winning a land slide election in post World War II England, encouraged private business owners to hand over their property, nationalized many industries, instituted wage and price controls, and even attempted to place restrictions on their citizens ability to seek employment at will, by requiring citizens to seek permission from the central government. Another example, in the 1960s the Labour Government of Harold Wilson placed a limit of £30 on money people could take abroad to avoid the consequences of an inflatonary policy pursued to create full-employment. Nevertheless, British democratic institutions survived and in 1979 a radical Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher was elected, which, sometimes painfully, re-liberalised the economy.

Recent empirical studies by the Frasier Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argued that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once observed. As he stated, those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms.

Classical liberalism and rhetorical liberalism as practiced in the United States[edit]

In the United States, the Republican Party has been accused by some of merely paying lip service to classical liberal philosophy since the New Deal era. Republican president Richard Nixon, for example, instituted price controls on goods during an economic crisis in the 1970s (an act inconsistent with a strict classical liberal view). While the "New Deal" Democratic Carter administration oversaw the deregulation of the airline industry while also restricting the money supply (a harsh monetarist policy) to combat stagflation which plagued the United States. Many small liberal gains were achieved under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as liberalism gained steam world wide, but the country continued to mount a national debt because of an imbalanced budget. The Democrats, under Bill Clinton, took things a little further, balancing the U.S. budget, creating NAFTA, and influencing the birth of the GATT94 WTO, all of which helped usher in a prosperous decade for the United States. The current President Bush has been accused of only verbally supporting free and open markets, while continuing to mount public debt and even raising trade barriers to protect the American steel industry. Despite some strides toward liberalism, the changes made have been small, to the point where some argue that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans maintain political platforms that reflect classical liberalism even though segments of both parties argue for less free trade and more managed trade. The Libertarian Party is an example of a party in the United States that wholeheartedly supports classical liberalism.

Within the United States, classical liberalism is rhetorically confused with conservatism. The Cato Institute, a think tank known for its advocation of classical liberalism in government, states from its website: [63]

"Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives."

Many classical liberals argue that modern liberalism, as it is practiced, is mostly rhetorical lip service to liberalism's highest ideals of freedom, rather than a function of its basic assumptions: the free market. See liberalism for further understanding.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

References[edit]

[[Category:liberalism]] [[Category:Political theories]] [[es:Liberalismo clásico]] [[zh:古典自由主义]]

research interests[edit]

Beyond approximately 1,500 edits so far on Wiki, Gibby's interested in the history, philosophy, ideology, and economics behind liberalism in the United States and within International Relations. He is currently researching to discover ways on how liberalism can be worked to end poverty, promote social cooperation, as well as international cooperation with the hopes of world peace. Gibby also believes that capitalism, under the guidance of economic freedom, can be made to promote social equality, fairness, and justice.

favorite books[edit]

  • Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose", "Capitalism and Freedom"
  • Friedrich A. von Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"
  • Hernando De Soto's "The Mystery of Capital"
  • Henry Kissinger "Diplomacy" , "Does America Need a Foriegn Policy"
  • Richard Nixon's "The Real War"
  • John Linder and Neal Boartz's "Fair Tax Book"
  • Fareed Zakaria's "Future of Freedom"
  • Brink Lindsey's "Against the Dead Hand"
  • Christenson's "The Innovator's Dilema"
  • Pillar's "Terrorism and U.S. Foriegn Policy"
  • Yergin and Stanislaw's "The Commanding Heights"
  • Payne's "Costly Returns"
  • Tammy Bruce's "Thought Police"
  • Stiglitz's "Globalization and its Discontents" - because it is a funny book if you know how much information he's left out of it.

favorite documentaries[edit]

  • The Commanding Heights: Battle for the World Economy - a very good documentary on globalization and the economic history of the 20th century
  • The Corporation - they tried to be balanced by including Friedman and the Fraiser Institute bu overall it was a very funny movie (Corporations are pyscopaths....oh no!)
  • Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Prices - very entertaining because its arguements are mostly bogus, fallacious, and tenuous.
  • Unconstitutional - made by the same guy as the Wal Mart video, not quite as entertaining but just as tenuous in its arguements. More of a "We Support Illegal Immigrants" than actually making good points on why the Patriot Act is bad...thus it ruins its objective.


Gibby's list of really bad ideas[edit]

The following are really bad ideas, athrough a few have good intentions, they remain very bad ideas that would produce the opposite results of what they claim they can achieve. Basically, if you ever want to become a supervillain, implement these following ideas to collapse the world economy and send every society on the planet into utter chaos and total war.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KDRGibby/Old_userpage&oldid=749841866"