Free Markets, Liberty, and Culture

In a strictly economic sense the free market is about competition and maximum choice. It is important to understand that a market cannot fail. The markets job is simply to distribute production, the market is the interaction between human beings when they buy and sell goods and services. Markets just bring buyers and sellers together. If there is one buyer and one seller, that is still a market as the act of buying and selling took place. The market can either be free or controlled. As long as there is production the market will exist, to talk of market failure is to show ignorance of the market and what it is. One can talk of failure of production and reduced goods and services available in the market, but the market itself is a neutral concept, it can never fail, as long as there is exchange of goods and services, the market has done its job.

A free market concept merely says that anybody can participate in the buying and selling of goods and services. The free market says anybody capable can produce goods and provide services. This is opposite to a market that is under total government control where only the government can provide goods and services. The free market again is very different from a situation where the government decides who in their private capacity can produce goods and bring them to market, this is not free market, once you hear there are legally only so many banks, so many phone companies, so many insurance companies, that is not the free market, the government has decided who can produce and provide services. But remember, a market still exists, be the market free, partially controlled as in fascism or totally controlled as in communism. Once you hear of bailouts and subsidies, rest assured that market is not free, the players, the suppliers of goods and services have already been decided by the government. A free market says that the suppliers of goods and services are left to their own devices, if you are inefficient then you lose, the government will not come and bail you out or give you a subsidy, nobody gets special treatment.

Sports is an excellent example of the free market, there are set rules and the individual or team plays. The authorities do not handicap one team or individual in favor of another, that would be rightly called cheating. No one capable is refused a shot if they believe they can make it, one can go to the gym right now and try out their luck in any of the martial arts competitions, tennis or golf for example, as they win they would move up the rankings, authorities do not make rules to handicap anybody, the winner is clear. How does this apply to life outside sports?

When Mike Tyson lost his fortune no government came in and said Mike you were a great champ here is your money back, people would have cried foul, not fair, it is his fault, and rightly so. When a banker loses his money should he not be forced to get another job, he is no good as a banker, he has no aptitude for it, others have better aptitude, but he is bailed out. All over the world government protect monopolies, in Canada, Europe, Africa, Asia the telecommunications sector is protected creating false billionaires who never worked for their money but relied on the government to protect them from competition. They owe the government everything right down to the underwear they wear. Government protects them because they fear those better than them would do a better job if they are allowed.

The government does not subsidize for example the Dallas cowboys or any other Football team, nor does British government subsidize Arsenal or any other soccer team, that would be considered abhorrent and unfair to the others. These are businesses, private businesses, the same logic and principles should hold up for other businesses. What makes one private corporation so special that they can be subsidized by the government and call themselves talented and others lazy whilst they reside in mansions bought for by tax payers.

The free market is a simple concept, nothing evil, it guarantees an individual’s right to be allowed to bring goods and services to market that other individuals have brought to the market. If they are allowed to bring certain goods and services to the market, if you have the resources and business acumen, then you as an individual can do the same?

This brings about the legal aspect of a system of free markets and liberty. The basic legal requirement for a free market system is that everybody is equal before the law. How is that evil? If A can do it so can B. If A can own property, even if A is the government, then B can own property. No individual, no institution, no organization has greater rights than B. If A can take certain action with his property so can B because they are equal under the law, they have the same protection and rights from the law. Equality before the law is a massive concept.

If A can own property so can B. If A can take a certain action so can B. If A can have an opinion so can B and if A has right to tell others his opinion so does B because they are equal under the law, Equality before the law guarantees free speech.  If A can believe in a supernatural being of his choosing so can B believe in a supernatural being of his choosing or none. If A can own arms, equality before the law must guarantee that B can also take the same action. How then is this concept evil, because you cannot have free markets without equality before the law, how then is an idea that says you are free to take action you desire to make a living evil. Anybody who says this evil is the one who is evil as they want to control people and give certain people advantages over others, they want to create serfs, they are the absolute evil, they are the selfish who say their self interests are best served when most of society is handicapped and they have clicks that are more equal before the law than everybody else.

The market is about human interaction. For a seller there must be a buyer, there must be interaction. To provide a service you must be providing that service for another human being. You get to choose the human being you want the service from, you want the goods from. There can be no market for anything without human interaction, it does not make sense.

The free market ensures maturity. A mature mind accepts change, that there is a possibility somebody else can do it better. This is a cultural attitude. A free market is for human beings, by bringing your goods or services to the market you accept you are dealing with other human beings. By accepting that you are dealing with human beings and that money is just that money, a tool of exchange, but to serve its purpose it must have the ability to store value, it is just money, it is human action that gives that money value, not faith, goods and services. When money accepts money is just money, they accept goods and services can come from anybody no matter the religion, the culture, the race, the sex, money will purchase the good or service the owner wants, and will allow anybody else to purchase their good or service.

The free market ensures a culture of positive human action, as all are equal human beings will see that they do not have to join fraternities, political parties, or donate to political parties to get legislation that is beneficial to them, because they can take any action that any other member or members of society can take. Those who advocate any other system advocate inequality before the law, by this they are spreading the culture that some humans are superior to other humans, and their pseudo scientists will keep claiming they have found the intelligence gene in their people and therefore must rule everybody else and laws must be bent for them to get bailouts. Well, if they are so intelligent why do they fear a free market, a culture that accepts all are human beings, a culture that will accept knowledge from any human being, if it is correct it is correct. Only a free market mentality can do that, allow humans to accept other humans.

The free market promotes the idea that one must look after their own self interests, without harming anybody else. Anything less than a free market promotes a culture of selfishness, everything for me, subsidies for me, bailouts for me, government contracts for me, the rest deserve nothing, I don’t even have to be good, I just need the connection who will bend laws towards my favor, that is selfishness. They will use my services or else, and I shall get rich because I have made donations to the right people. Who cares if others are more talented than me. But the media I advertise in will say I am talented or else. The media I advertise in will only show scientists of my people as great, a truly selfish, fearful, thieving, con artist of a human.Yes to them the Free market, equality before the law is their greatest threat.

Accepting all are human beings means people will interact freely with each other not stratified by race, religion, sex, or wealth, but what you have to offer. Free market promotes a superior culture, how can accepting we are all human beings be evil? The most confusing thing is when a descendant of slaves or descendant of apartheid, colonialism  calls the free market evil, what a fool, he/ she thinks equality before the law is evil. Well back to slavery the opposite of free markets and equality before the law.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Twitter @bhekukhumalo

If you like what you read, be generous if you can it will be appreciated

Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and Free market

“Free markets and civil liberties are the same. You can’t just pick one and not the other...”(Jose Shnanderson on Twitter). The Civil rights movement that culminated with Martin Luther King’s I have a dream speech and the decolonization of Africa was a fight for justice, if justice encompasses the principles of righteousness and equitableness.

For a movement to be known as a Civil Rights movement, it follows that the past generation of black leaders in America where leading in the demands for civil liberties. The leaders in the Caribbean and Africa who at the same time where leading in the demands for civil liberties for black people in Africa. It is no coincidence that these movements occurred at the same time.

Nobody just stands up and demands civil liberties, what are people in actuality demand when they ask for civil rights, when they demand equal rights and justice. When somebody demands civil rights, they are demanding in actual fact to be treated as not less than a human being. They are demanding that the law treat them as it treats anybody else, that nobody has fewer rights under the law.

Civil rights ensure that everybody is treated equally by the law, if one can vote, so can another vote. The civil rights movement of the past was guided by the principle that the question of race should never be a factor in how the law treats anybody. The concept of the civil rights movement in principle can never be detached from the concept of civil liberties, though seemingly broader in nature, at the core of civil rights has to be the principle of civil liberties, one is demanding the same civil liberties as another human being, in effect civil liberties guarantee that all are human and all have the same rights and protections from the law.

The concept of civil liberties ensures the law treats us all the same. The process of the civil rights movement is to demand civil liberties for all. The free market is more than just about the right to make money, a free market can never operate in an arena where there are no civil liberties. The free market cannot exist without the concept of equality before the law, a pillar of civil liberties. Equality before the law ensures that what anybody else can do, all others can do it. You cannot have a free market without that concept that is what is behind competition in the economy. If A can do an economic activity, so can B, as long as A is a legal body. Therefore if the state can do an activity, B can also do that activity, how can the state be more equal than the general citizenry that it claims to represent?If the state can own property then other citizens can own property.

The state cannot be more equal than the citizens, the state is run by citizens, it would by logical deduction mean that the citizens running the state have more rights than other citizens. That is why wise people ensure that the people have a right to be armed, the right to bear arms, because the state cannot have greater rights than everybody else, if the state can bear arms, surely the people can too if there is any respect for civil liberties.

One cannot at the same time demand civil liberties, demand civil rights, and at the same time demand that the state have more rights than individuals, it is illogical. Sure people do it, but by that very action, they are being illogical. One cannot at the same time talk of civil liberties, demand freedom and say people must be disarmed, the state should have a monopoly on the right to arms. Even if the state is the most benevolent state, the fact that it has more rights than the people suggests an illogical setup, what happens when the citizens who run the sate are no longer benevolent.

People with proper civil liberties intact understand that everybody is entitled to legally be equal with another person. One cannot at the same time for example demand civil rights and attack the concept of civil liberties, by demanding that the state somehow have more rights than the other citizens who are not a part of running the state.

One cannot at the same time demand civil rights and attack the concept of the free market. The free market is an offshoot of equality before the law, it is an offshoot of civil liberties. Civil rights is about demanding civil liberties for all, then those who advocate civil rights cannot at the same time attack the free market, it is illogical. The free market can only be based on the concept that if one can do an activity, all can do that activity, that is how you get competition. Being based on civil liberties, the free market essentially says all are human beings and are capable of being active in the economic process in the manner that best suits them. To claim to believe in the free market and refuse civil liberties is insanity. One is essentially being a con artist.

These concepts of civil rights, civil liberties, and the free market take great maturity to accept, only an immature mind splits them and tries to make them different issues when they are essentially the same issue. To believe in civil liberties and the free market is to believe in human beings, is to accept all as human beings and capable given opportunities by the law, given opportunities by culture. Civil liberties are a culture, people who truly believe in civil liberties must also believe in humanity and individuals, there are some individuals capable of a certain activity, there are some who are not, but all must be equal in front of the law.

One who truly believes in the free market and is not using it as a smokescreen for some other believes they have accepted by logical extension that all human beings are potentially capable.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Twitter - @bhekukhumalo

If you like what you read, be generous if you can it will be appreciated

The Woes of Haiti

Cholera outbreak in Haiti, this in Haiti, that in Haiti, Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. After the massive earthquake, at the beginning of this year, in January one would have hoped that Haiti was going to start afresh, with new thinking, a new attitude and new drive. The sympathy of the world was poured into Haiti like few other natural disasters in human history. There was a huge fund created for Haiti, and co chaired by none less than Bill Clinton.

According to reports US$777 million has been announced for projects to help build up Haiti, but unfortunately people do not realize it is not money that is important but rather the attitude. After the earthquake Haiti had an opportunity for a new beginning, but sometimes there is a block on people, Haiti like Africa has a leadership full of style and zero substance, full of hot air whilst people are suffering. Even giving Haiti a ten billion dollar gift would not help, why because the leaders want to make big announcements and have pictures taken of them by the western press, shaking Bill Clinton’s hand or Obama’s hand will not change the situation of the ordinary man in the street.

Haiti needed to change its laws to allow the people to be, free the markets and let people bring their skills and knowledge to the market and see for themselves what they can do. Free up the telecommunications sector, free up the media, free up the transport sector, free up power production, free up the wage sector, free up the labor market, create an environment inductive to local and foreign investment, it is not difficult, what in god’s name are they protecting in Haiti, broken down industries, broken down plantations, broken down infrastructure, broken down telecommunications sector, foolish indeed, by now having followed right policies Haiti’s economic growth for 2011 should have been around 10 – 15%, there is nothing there.

The government having freed up the people would concentrate on providing security for the people and building the infrastructure, stop giving places like Haiti money until they also step up for themselves, how on earth can a government that relies on donations believe it can give anything to every Haitian, let the Haitians create for themselves, last round I heard that due to demographics and structural changes in a Japan that has 5.1% unemployment needs a save place to relocate some of its industries, obviously Haiti is not a safe haven because they do not trust themselves.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

American Poverty Rate Rises: Time for Knowledge Economics

Today must be a sobering day in the USA, and indeed in the global economic system, though not at an all time high in terms of percentages, American Poverty rates have soared. According to CNN in number terms, 43.6 million Americans are in poverty the highest number in 51 years of record keeping. As usual it is the Southern ex slave states that have the highest rate of poverty, thinking one is entitled to have somebody do things for you is never a great way to create wealth it just leaves one believing their entitled to the mind of those they see as their slaves as those must remain poor in order to satisfy their theories, however this is not the point of this article.

It is time to realize that America can not save the world, in an economic sense, or any sense for that matter, America could never save the world. It sure is nice when one hears that South Africa is going to the UN at some debate at the UN between September 23 to 30, will demand changes at the UN and the Minister International Relations and Co-operation Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane will make a case for “"We are calling for free trade, acceleration of the conclusion of the Doha (Development) Round. "We are calling for market access for African goods and services to the developed world."We are also calling for gradual, if not total, removal of agricultural subsidies from the developed world that makes it difficult for smaller countries' products to enter the developed markets," she said.”

This is great for grand standing however, why can she not call for free trade acceleration within the African context, why does she believe the West can save Africa or if the West has any desire to save Africa. The West wishes Africa was still a colony, why should they help Africa or Africans move one step forward, Newt Gingrich a popular American politician says the problem with Obama is that he is anti colonial, "Newt Gingrich has unleashed some of his most explosive language yet against Barack Obama, telling National Review Online that a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mindset governs the president's actions, which he blasted as "authentically dishonest" and "factually insane."(Politics daily). Therefore to be accepted by a Westerner one must be pro colonial, one must accept the colonial philosophy that blacks are inferior to whites and that whites have a claim on everything black from cheap labor to black thoughts, how then does an African minister ask for anything from such, it is a sign of incredible immaturity from Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, somebody who hates you can not help you move forward. And when there is increasing poverty in their own society they will be less inclined to think of helping you, note to think of because a Westerner has never ever helped Africa or an African move forward in a genuine manner, the Westerner wants something s newt Gingrich has said, you must believe in colonialism for them to help you, you must let them exploit you for them to help you, Jacob Zuma’s minister is proving to be incredibly self deluding, Western whites will agitate until colonialism in some form is brought back, a state like Sierra Leone where now the British practically run the country, they where invited to because the blacks failed, not realizing their failures where a constant agitation by the West.

With the rising poverty levels in America, and I have been warning this on this blog for a long time, a new permanent underclass has sprung in America, this can only be stopped by stopping the export of jobs, but nobody will say this because both parties are controlled by the money elite who want to sell goods more cheaply and hence export jobs to Mexico, Thailand, etc. The idea of a free market is that we exchange useful knowledge, useful knowledge includes goods made, if one can not make goods then they should learn to create useful products, honestly if not then we will get a global disaster because people would have put money over and above people, it can not work, countries should not seek to be a source of cheap labor, but should seek to produce products, this greed fortunately has cost the west the world, the world is to be shared by all who inhabit it, true a very anti colonial sentiment because the west as Newt Gingrich has pointed out clearly wants the whole world to bow to them why, nobody knows what is going on in such a pathetic savage mind, he is a direct descendant of the savages that committed the worst genocide in history, wiping out the native Americans, such a mind can not be your equal partner, it has too much hate and loathing.

My greatest advise is countries each and every society should respect knowledge, use knowledge to produce goods and services, goods that can be used locally. President Jacob Zuma, you can not demand free trade from the world, where goods compete with each other in terms of price and quality whilst at home you do not demand free trade. Have free trade at home first, let people compete at home first, stop trying to use West as a crutch, they have already told you they hate you, and will do anything to create colonialism in one form or another, let the free market operate at home before demanding it on a global context, can any south African have a telecommunications company, can any South African open a bank, Can any South African have a cell phone license, if not do not demand it from the world. Simple.
Corporate greed has cost the USA as a society, those high poverty levels are easy to diagnose, exporting jobs, that is not trade, trade is selling a surplus, wake up, been fooled by those neo con economists they are just plain evil, trade is selling a surplus and buying what you do not have cheaper, moving production to another country is just plain greed, because it is not one world, American corporate greed has cost the world.

Bhekuzulu khumalo