is the doctrine of "the free market" inherently defective or it only fails if it's run by crooks?

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

The traditional model of a free market is based on unrealistic assumptions, for example that, most of the people are well-informed about their choices, and that the cost of switching between things is negligible.

I think that this is more of an indictment of central banking and fiat currency control. The fundamental problem that led to this is that it's politically favorable to have low interest rates so that there is 'growth' in the market, even if that causes long term problems. The economy is basically going through loose-money withdrawal.

this is just the beginning of the unwind. Down the line, we are going to see a lot of other corrections across the board that some economists are estimating to be in the neighborhood of 5 trillion instead of 700 billion. That's one reason that throwing 700 billion to Wall Street to rescue it from the toxic waste it created is insane, when that is not going to be the real fix that is promised.

we interpreted "free market" to mean "unregulated market?" I would think it likely that the unscrupulous and the dishonest might tend to gain power over time as they persuaded their less enterprising colleagues to participate in opaque, profitable schemes. Confidence men should flourish until schemes crumbled.

The doctrine of the "free market," really economic neoliberalism, e.g., as enunciated by the Chicago School of (Socio)-Economics, is essentially flawed in that it is not essentially an economic prescription as claimed, but a socio-economic one with a political agenda. As such, it is based on mispresentations of fundamental economic principles and their consequences for society.

The "free market," aka economic neoliberalism, is represented as a solution to all problems socially, politically and economically because of its supposed "economic," i.e., "scientific" basis.

However, it is largely a normative theory, which when tested, leads to consequences other than the social utopia that its champions claim, that is, as benefiting "everyone" but the lazy and willfully indigent.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

Fed Pumps Further $630 Billion Into Financial System (Update3)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9MTZEgukPLY

This almost unlimited financial dictatorial power possessed by the Treasury Secretary and especially the Fed chief was described at Balkinization even before Bush decided to take the matter to congress.

My guess is that Bush and the Republicans felt they should get the Democrats in on the fleecing of the public so they don't take the political hit alone. I can't find a link to the discussion at Balkinization since they don't seem to have their older posts available through archive index links. At this point the political aspect might well have been enough to provide political cover since more Democrats voted for the fleecing than did Republicans.

but I called all my representatives and senators and asked them to vote against it.

I saw Dennis Kucinich on democracy now and he did a great job talking down the bill.

Moreover, I've read that 90% of americans, or more, were against it. When I was moving to minnesota, i heard people in the heartland hoping that one day wall street would crash back done to their earth.

In my opinion, America has a lot of healing to do.

Call to Stop Paulson's Plunder
(1) Call your Representatives and Senators at 800-473-6711 or 202-224-3121 and say No Bailout!
(2) Email them too and tell your friends:

http://democrats.com/stop-paulsons-plunder

After a week of high-drama negotiations, Congress and Hank Paulson issued Bailout version 1.1, which is just the original Paulson pig with a lot of lipstick.
Republicans say the deal will be profitable for taxpayers, but they are lying - just as they did about the invasion of Iraq producing lower gas prices. It's a lie because Paulson has full power to pay too much for the securities and he will because his real goal is a bailout of bank executives and shareholders with our money - a massive ($2,333 per person!) transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.
Democrats say they got oversight, accountability, and limits on executive compensation but each of these provisions is so full of Republican-written loopholes that they are meaningless - just like all other restrictions imposed on the Bush Administration, from Iraq to wiretapping. And that's before Bush simply negates any restrictions he doesn't like with one of his unconstitutional (and hence impeachable) signing statements.
So our answer remains ABSOLUTELY NOT.
The House will vote on Monday and the Senate will vote on Wednesday.
So call your Senators and Representative right now to say "No $700 Billion Bailout for Wall Street" - dial the Capitol switchboard at 800-473-6711 or 202-224-3121 or dial direct using the instant phone lookup on the right side of http://usalone.com
And if you have not e mailed your Senators and Representative , please do it now:
http://www.democrats.com/stop-paulsons-plunder
Find more information and comment here:
http://www.democrats.com/still-no-bailout

1700: "Abolish slavery!"
1800: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

excerpt:
"This bill meets fear with fear, and compounds greed with greed. It leaves in place those who created the crisis, profited from profligacy, and have hoped to forge the chains of slavery to debt around our necks. Their hope, as is the hope of every generation of aristocrats, is to force the living to be slaves to the dead. Never have so few, stolen so much, from so many, for so little return."

please read the entire article, if like me you were looking for more from Stirling. Thanks to you both!

1700: "Abolish slavery!"
1800: Woman's Suffrage!"
2000:"World Peace!"

it seems to me a victory for McCain is more likely

"Country-first" McCain is being perceived now as having unwittingly torpedoed this bill for personal ambition.

He was against it before he was for it.

And got nothing for his vote.

And is "eratic."

The problem with McCain is that he is a corrupt political hack. If he had been a maverick, he'd have gone all against the Paulson proposal, taken the credit for it going down if it went down, been the hero of populism if if didn't, and would be in this election.

Now? He's made the mistake of giving the public a choice of two wall street elitist Democrats, and the public is deciding to pick the real thing. The whole re-emergence of racism from the Republicans is their last firebreak against Obama.

We should see state polls shifting, and we are seeing senate races shifting.