Whistling in the wind, Linda. So long as Harpo is at the helm, we'll continue to have plenty of autoworkers collecting unemployment insurance. The Canadian government should be buying out these American branchplants and retooling them for solar-panel and wind-turbine production.

Trashing the theory of evolution while worshipping free-market theory is the new religion. We all must obey...

Not just worshipping the free-market theory, but re-writing history as well. I can't believe all of the conservatives (and some "progressives" here on this site) that talk about how FDR's policies proloned the great depression.

Thank you Linda for the Keynesian quote at the end of this article. It's true that all of the administrations leading up to the depression were staunt free-marketers. Have we learned nothing? Here we are again, perched upon the precipice, looking down once again into the abyss of a depression, replete with robber barons on one side and crushing poverty on the other.

This thanks to our "compassionate conservative" helmsman. The "truth" is a lie, and history has been re-written.

the North American Free Trade Agreement ruled out "domestic content" requirements and the World Trade Organization outlawed the Auto Pact.
That's not the only thing it 'ruled out', nor even the most impotant. It effectively prohibited any kind of Canadian energy policy that could have sustained self-sufficiency, thus tying Canadians to the U.S. 'full speed ahead' consumption ethic, not to mention its speculative pricing structures.

I wonder if Canadians still believe that they are an exception to the U.S. imperial forces (CIA black ops, etc.) that influence 'regime changes' elsewhere. If so, they might do well to examine more closely their 'elections' of people like Mulroney and Harper as well as the true beneficiaries of separatist and 'western alienation' movements that weaken any consolidation of broader national interests.

An excellent book by David Sanborn Scott (Smelling Land) shows that not only Canada, but the U.S. too are in an ideal position to launch a hydrogen revolution. Of course he is a firm believer in global warming and the consequences predicted. Though Scott advocates a gradual change, he does give examples that can get the ball rolling ASAP such as trains, planes and public transportation. No more energy crisis, no more global warming, no more pollution and no more fossil fuel dependency in a generation or so. But those gentlemen in the frock coats will fight it tooth and nail to prevent it.

free market premise = making as much money as possible is a winner.

in practical terms that means selling weapons to both sides and instigating wars = more weapons to sell, another win for the free market

Or even if you can't sell arms to both sides... then just accuse one side of having WMD's... and that should ensure a nice profit margin for the side you do sell to.

Individual free enterprise should be seen as a right, not a solution to any other problem. It's an end, not a means, and it's neither the highest end nor the most intrinsic human right.

Arvy June 17th, 2008 3:42 pm

Canadian and American workers have been badly hurt by NAFTA, but its the Mexicans that are suffering the most. They are hurt twice as bad.

Especially the farmers. They have lost the most. I doubt Obama will do anything about NAFTA and we can be sure McCain won't.

So I don't know what we can do to help them. We've lost about 5.5 million jobs, I don't know what Canada's lost nor Mexico, but I'd bet you could be safe in saying its put 20 million or more Mexicans out of work.

Anybody got a bowling ball?

Markets have existed for millenia.

Capitalist market are a different beast all together.

Pre-capitalist markets were usually divided into two spheres which rarely met.

First, there was the local market where peasant-producers and craftsmen would attempt to sell any surplus they happened to make.

This suplus was not planned; it was usually accidental.

I call this the "Jack-and-the-Beanstalk" market.

There were international markets which traded in very expensive luxury goods: spices, gems, silk, etc.

These were items that were easy to carry on caravans and monsoon driven ships.
Of course, these goods were bought by the members of the aristocracy, some leading merchants and all royalty.

Many of these goods were also sold in market fairs.

Long distance trade was mostly territorial; it required taking great risks because very few governments or tribal heads thought of merchants as an important bases for long-term wealth creation.

Also, merchants (local or long-distance) did not price goods according to an abstract supply/demand mechanism. Instead, they would usually "haggle" over the price; haggling was an art form and skill which required the abilities of an expert gambler.

It was based on individual talent, social intelligence and experience.

(In local markets, many of the best hagglers were "hags", or older women. Thus the negative connotation of the word, hag.)

In other words, long-distance trade was face-to-face and the price mechanism was based on a form of craftmenship: a verbal duel.

Under capitalism, prices are set by "faceless" mechanisms such corporations, states and supply and demand.

Corporations -and the states that support them- are the new equation that changes markets into capitalist markets.

Also, much of capitalist long-distance trade was not territorial; it was oceanic. Today, it is still mostly oceanic though railroads, trucks and state-subsidized highway systems have increased territorial trade.

Ports and warehouses are still the base from which trucks and trains come and go.

Additionally, capitalist trade connects local and long-distance trade; as it does so, corporation tend to destroy and take over local trade in goods and services. Thus McDonaldization.

In turn, corporations reorganize local labor markets and place them within a global hierarchy of production. Withing this hierarchy some labor is paid much more, while labor is paid muchmore depending where they are located within this tiered system of production.

In addition, international corporations dominate most governments because they control much of the formal labor, technology and they hold economic power.

Before capitalism, most merchants and their organizations had to look out for themselves.
They were such easy pickings for nomads, penurious monarchs and aristocrats.

The extreme, laisez-faire, free market ideology allows adherents to be careless about the public interest and justifies their own excessive greed as good for everybody.

BTW, if you can believe it, I heard just today on Fox Business's "Bulls and Bears," a Managing Director at Oppenheimer Funds, Fidel Gheit, say "We do not have a free market in oil." On FOX! Isn't that a cause for some hope?

Capitalism thrives on competition. Monopolies kill competition. Therefore monopolies kill capitalism.

ezeflyer

Capitalism is monopoly or oligopoly.

If a new important innovation is developed, many will attempt to profit off it. Quickly, most enterpises (seeking to profit from the new innovation) will lose and this new innovative sector of the economy will become essentially monopolized.

Play the game "Monopoly". It teachs how capitalism actually operates.

If there is a major form of competition, it is within international trade. But within nations, most important economic sectors tend to dominated by two to four firms.

In other words, monopoly is as evident, within capitalism, as is competition.

In economics textbooks, their authors would do well with starting with explaining the logic of monopoly markets rather than starting their discussions with an idealised market model of competing entrepreneurs.

Of course, if one starts economic texts by discussing the workings of monopoly markets, the authors would necessarily have to introduce the state.

Monopolies and states always work together in tandem. They need each other.

Anyway, monopolies invest in political parties, politicians and political programs and expect a return on their investments.

The state needs access to the technology, and other resources controlled by monopolies in order to continously develop their military capabilities.

They also need the jobs these monopolies control.

I figure it's always been a bit of a hoax, a bit of free enterprise 'enterprise' to say that business' main role is it creates wealth in goods and services. Business does this, but it is not the main role that business carries out.
Business entities exist primarily to accumulate wealth, not create wealth. They cut costs and maximize their take. That they produce goods and services of value for the rest of society is determined by our system of laws, regulations,by-laws, licences, and so on. You can make money selling this product (govt inspected hams), but not that product( BC bud).
Our collective activity, through our government, and through other organizations (like the family) create a lot of our basics

The myth about the saintliness of business says that everyone else is a burden on the business community. For example, gvt largesse to the business community is called infrastructure and investment. Gvt largesse to single parents, or any parents, is called welfare, with 'welfare' being a pejorative.

Free Enterprise is a religion, with a priesthood (have you ever seen anything so canonical as the worshipful pictures of business people in the business pages of a daily paper?) and a deity callled UNSEEN HAND. Geo H W Bush was actually on to something in 1979 when he used the phrase, 'voodoo economics.'

I figure a lot of the goods and services we have started with gvt money into university research, and then gvt agencies, schools, military and so on, providing the initial customer base. Computers and internet is an example.

Busness has a place, and a worthy one in our communities. But it should be kept in mind that a business is primarily a vehicle for accumulating wealth.

I could rant on...don't get me started...

Grandma said, money trickles up- not down.

Sadly, she is right.

fakedemocracy, absolute unequivocal truth from grandma! And productivity is the only "real" wealth builder.

4 things:

1) As an object in motion, money actually obeys Newton's Laws of Motion, which means there is always an equal and opposite effect...

2) Unbridled capitalism and unregulated free markets do not equal "fair and balanced."

3) Not one iota of free market justification matters as long as the principal commodity used to facilitate trade and exchange (money) remains a privately-owned for-profit resource. There is nothing "free" about it.

4) Necessity is the primal driver of the market place. Beyond necessity is little more than individual perception and desire. The higher up Maslov's hierarchy, the less applicable become market fundamentals, and thus the easier and more likely for market distortions to occur.