http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21626-...-terrorism

Quote:in 2006, under heavy lobbying from the pharmaceutical, animal agriculture and fur industries, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). The AETA is designer legislation that targets political dissent directed at any business that uses or sells animals or animal products - or any company "connected to" such "animal enterprises." Simply hurting the profits of these businesses - by, for example, producing and screening a film that inspires people to boycott foie gras or other animal products - qualifies as a terrorist offense. Indeed, a distressingly high number of my closest friends have been convicted as terrorists for engaging in free speech and civil disobedience advocacy on behalf of animals.

"Designer legislation" in instances like this means that corporate capitalist scumbags write the laws for some dickhead congressman that they own to introduce for their benefit.

It's as though you were a creationist claiming that eugenics and Nazism are by-products of the wide acceptance of evolutionary theory. The 'invisible hand' is a metaphor used by neoclassical economists to describe the self-regulating nature of a market economy. Corporatism is not a free-market institution. I recommend that you become at least passingly familiar with classical economics before you start attacking it.

Yeah, cause that law sure doesn't deserve to be attacked. Instead lets focus on the miss use of a word in the title

I think that it is a given that the law is ridiculous. My post makes it clear that I hold corporatism in contempt. It doesn't change the fact that at best, Minimalist has been misinformed; at worst, he's being disingenuous. Moreover, this isn't the first time that Minimalist has made this mistake. Check out the 'Possibly Related Threads...' box below.

What will PETA do now?

(February 3, 2014 at 8:35 pm)Gish Wrote: It's as though you were a creationist claiming that eugenics and Nazism are by-products of the wide acceptance of evolutionary theory. The 'invisible hand' is a metaphor used by neoclassical economists to describe the self-regulating nature of a market economy. Corporatism is not a free-market institution. I recommend that you become at least passingly familiar with classical economics before you start attacking it.

Self-regulating my fucking ass.

(February 5, 2014 at 4:49 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(February 3, 2014 at 8:35 pm)Gish Wrote: It's as though you were a creationist claiming that eugenics and Nazism are by-products of the wide acceptance of evolutionary theory. The 'invisible hand' is a metaphor used by neoclassical economists to describe the self-regulating nature of a market economy. Corporatism is not a free-market institution. I recommend that you become at least passingly familiar with classical economics before you start attacking it.

Self-regulating my fucking ass.

Free markets are amoral, not bad, not good just money making machines. That is why they should not be a part of any agency that requires compassion.

An invisible hand that you can actually see. Wow. Once again Min, you misuse terms. Quoting from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia Wrote:In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. Individuals can make profit, and maximize it without the need for government intervention.

Bolding mine. I mean, can you get more wrong with your terminology that this? You post a link to a story about a government passing laws that make it a crime to try and hurt business profits, and then try to claim this is an example of the marketplace operating without government intervention? Ridiculous.

Is it prohibited by the free market to use your resources and your willing allies to force others to play by your rules?

Divi Tiberio, I simply do not think you are as naive as you come across. When you speak of the invisible hand of the market you sound like Drippy whining about his fucking god and with good reason. Neither exist. In the case at hand these corporate cocksuckers are buying influence and access to government to pass laws (which they are writing for their wholly owned legislative subsidiaries) to introduce and which do exactly the opposite of what you claim capitalism is all about. They are corrupting markets by stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

Kindly wake up. You are smarter than this. Which makes me suspicious of your motives.

Meanwhile.....

You can whine about this one too.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/03...tail=email

Quote:When economists talk about how a market "regulates itself," what they mean is that markets reach an equilibrium between supply and demand.

This says nothing about whether or not this equilibrium will be a good thing for society. It simply states that if consumers choose what to buy and producers choose what to sell and how to produce it, the market settles on a product distribution and prices.

Lately, many people I know have argued that "free markets" mean something more. They see markets as ethically right or ethically moral, meaning pursuit of profit always somehow leads to a greater good.

Unfortunately, morality isn't built into markets.

Markets were fine with child labor and slavery. Both were viewed simply as cheap sources of labor. It wasn't until people fought against child labor and slavery that these things became unacceptable in a market (at least in most Western countries).

This is why markets must be subject to other forces such as ethics and government if we want them to work for the benefit of the many (not just a select few).