Wednesday, 5 October 2011

(Another) Two For The Price Of One...

Turton put a piece up yesterday in which he discussed two articles; a piece at Asia Times (behind paywall) by Yvonne Su in Beijing (is this her here?), and a report in yesterday's Taipei Times by Chung Li-hua on the ECFA's effect on farmers in Taiwan. I haven't read the Yvonne Su piece as I don't have a subscription to Asia Times, but from what he quotes of it, I don't think I would disagree with him: the ECFA is similar in some ways to the Single European Act, in that it is intended as an economic precursor in a process toward eventual political union, or annexation.

However, referring to Turton's discussion of the Taipei Times report wherein he refers to "neoliberal fantasies", commenter "Readin" says this...
"The only thing you said that could be construed as "liberal" is your recognition that the government has a role to play in food safety - but even most conservatives recognize that."
Damned fool. "Recognizing" that government has a "role to play" in food safety is not "liberal" but rather, the opposite of liberal - since it presupposes that food safety can only be produced to a given value by coercion, rather than through voluntary cooperation made possible by liberty. Sorting out which sellers are selling "poisonous" goods, whether from China or anywhere else (remember the DEHP scandal in Taiwan earlier this year?), is best achieved by a competitive regulatory market - yes, a market for the provision of independent safety standards and regulations (e.g. see my argument in the comments section here). Not only is there ample historical precedent for such a thing (e.g. UL before its' business was subsumed into a broader governmental regulatory framework), but there are several good reasons to think it would be more successful than handing over the job of regulation to the caprice, corruption and incompetence which typifies government bureaucracies.

Conservatives are so stupid, they fall over themselves conceding everything to the Left without even realizing it - indeed, while believing that they are actually attacking the enemies of liberty! They can't even keep hold of the word "liberal", without validating the Left's disgraceful abuse of the term to refer to their own advocacy of government expansion - that's how goddamn stupid they are. It's like reading Orwell to the tune of "bring on the clowns!"

As for Turton...
"Neoliberals are people like Rosen et al, the 'free traders' who are actually corporate tools."
A person who is a "corporate tool" is not likely to be a "free trader" because a person who is a "corporate tool" is probably therefore also a government tool (assuming the mental lethargy implied by the term "tool"). The doctrine of free trade actually works against the interests of many large corporations* that fear competition and use the State to protect themselves from it in return for favours.

It is not in Turton's interest to have a frank and open discussion about this - which is why I must make my remarks here, rather than in the comments section to his post.

*Many, but by no means all - there are many corporations which would likely perform much better than they currently do in a freely competitive market.

7 comments:

  1. For greedy immoral bastards like you who have no values but money, money, money, the articles below probably mean shit. After all, if it doesn’t generate money, it’s worthless, isn’t it, according to your immoral economy-rules-everything philosophy? You are a very sad individual, having elevated selfishness and greed to your own pseudo-religion.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/print/2011/10/11/2003515437

    Lest we forget, London’s financial district thrives on greed

    By allowing partying amid the monuments to the dead, the authorities are asserting three propositions that have become so accepted that we have forgotten to be shocked by them: That there is nothing that money cannot or should not be able to buy; that government can ignore any scruple in its search for revenue; and that no one can gainsay the determination of plutocrats to celebrate their self-enrichment as the highest form of human achievement.
    Although then I suppose “those who have no grave but the sea” offer no opportunity for gain. You cannot turn them from an illiquid to a liquid asset, slice, dice and monetize them. The dead cannot generate an income, so all who want to make a profit can safely forget that they ever existed.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/print/2011/10/12/2003515548

    Hunger strikes to highlight poverty
    GETTING WORSE::The Anti-Poverty Alliance says the rich in Taiwan are getting richer, while blue-collar workers are being paid less every year and poverty is deepening


    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/print/2011/10/11/2003515435

    The Amazon or oil?
    The Yasuni National Park in Ecuador is on the brink of being destroyed as time is running out for a plan that would prevent oil drilling in the area

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Other than that my tolerance is like the Pacific."

    Yeah right!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "For greedy immoral bastards like you who have no values but money, money, money..."

    You're as crass as you are ignorant as you are presumptuous. As abrasive as I am, not even I take that tone on other people's blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "After all, if it doesn’t generate money, it’s worthless, isn’t it, according to your immoral economy-rules-everything philosophy?"

    Right, which is why I got so rich from sending my letters to the Taipei Times over the past three years. You pig-ignorant, presumptuous fool.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "By allowing partying amid the monuments to the dead..."

    Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The Anti-Poverty Alliance says the rich in Taiwan are getting richer, while blue-collar workers are being paid less every year and poverty is deepening."

    And this is because both the rich and the blue-collar workers in Taiwan operate in a free-market?

    They don't, you bloody idiot.

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.