Free Market Fantasy

There are two dominant rival schools of economic thought:

1. Keynesian: balancing the role of government in our economy. Most popular thinker on this was John Kenneth Galbraith.
2. Neoliberalism: believing the Free Market will balance itself without government intervention. The most popular thinker on this was Ayn Rand.

Before we go on, let's be clear, these are not political ideologies, but economic theories. This is not about "fascist" or "socialist," or "conservative" or "progressive." And because we are talking about economic theory, we should compare Ayn Rand to John Kenneth Galbraith:

1. Ayn Rand wrote from her own personal perspective, much like today's 3rd Wave feminists, with little regard for feedback from the outside world. She primarily wrote novels (fiction.)
2. John Kenneth Galbraith constantly studied economics, and was subjected to serious academic rigor, the public spot light, and numerous public debates. He primarily wrote non-fiction. 

Neoliberals are into nostalgic platitudes that make themselves feel good about the obvious inequalities that surround us, while Keynesians are in the serious business of figuring out how economics really works, and how economic theory can make the world a better place. Neoliberal's New-Age style of blind-faith in the "Free Market" insists that the reason why the market doesn't stabilize on its own is because government intervention interferes with the natural consequences inside of the market. The problem with this theory is there can be no "Free Market" without extensive government support and intervention:

1. The national system of politics that allows the Free Market to exist must be protected from other types of national systems with an extensive military.
2. Free Markets depend on government issued, protected and regulated currency. 
3. Free Markets depend on other extensive infrastructure on which goods and services can be neutrally traded (roads, law enforcement, etc.)

Neoliberals apologize for this irreconcilable contradiction by insisting the government should only provide certain types and levels of goods and services, and that their short list is somehow self-evident. Because how much you pay firefighters, policeman and city counsel members does not influence the market? Because no corruption ever happens through government contracts? Because it is possible to take care of the needs of government employees without exposing them to any existing free market? Their assertion is rife with naive and oversimplified assumption.

 No matter how often some lame trickle-down voodoo-economics scheme fails, they can always point to some government regulation that was not cut back far enough, some consumer protection that went too far, or some lobbyist who managed to bribe some politician, and say "see, it was too regulated." They can do this until there isn't any military, currency or infrastructure left to blame, and by then there would be no Free Market to be discussing. They have solved the balancing problem of "how much government intervention should there be in our economy" through the most intellectually lazy possible (and least possible) answer: "there just shouldn't be any." 

While Keynesian economic theory is based on observation, Neoliberal economic theory is based on mythology. This mythology is that chaotic systems are self-regulating and self-balancing. This is based on ecology where it was once believed that ecosystems by some miracle can be self-balancing. The problem is that scientifically speaking, this has been proven to be untrue: ecosystems are not able to re-balance themselves. After forest fires new ecosystems emerge, not clones of the old ones. If you want Yellowstone to be like it used to be, humans have to reintroduce wolves themselves, coyotes won't just naturally move in themselves and naturally evolve into the missing wolf niche.

Don't trust chaos. In so far as chaos can be anthropomorphised, it hates humanity desperately. Humanity IS nature's way of balancing ecosystems; without human intervention natural ecosystems cannot balance! And this is were economics gets married to ideology. Notice that people who believe that the Free Market can stabilize itself also tend to believe the following self-soothing myths:

1. Global warming isn't man-made. We should let nature take its path. If we could do something about it, we shouldn't. (As if mankind being killed off by the billions was a lesser sin than geoengineering.)
2. Every pregnancy should come to fruition. Nature should take its course. (As if every woman impregnated against her will should be forced to go through pregnancy and delivery, and that this could result in a better behaved humanity in the future.)
3. People are of value primarily by what career title they have. We live to serve the Free Market, the Free Market does not live to serve us. (As if the justification for someone being born is how some day they will make someone much more wealthy than themselves a little more wealthy than before.)
4. God will step in and save us, regardless of our mistakes. (As if God was into protecting us from the consequences of our own actions.)

I vote based on economic policy, and the second I hear someone say "Free Market Principles," I know they are someone who is either foolishly wrong about economic policy, probably blinded by their own political ideology, or someone who is being deceptive, probably with ulterior motives. This debate perfectly captures this Free Market Fantasy problem as it applies political ideology and voting: