Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 1, 2019

April 15

To Alexander Zubatov and his blogpost on the inadequacies of both our society and its leaders. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Apartheid groups are competing in a king-of-the-hill battle to rule over America. They are apartheid because each group believes that, using the words of Martin Luther King Jr., they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. These groups are apartheid because by each of them, while claiming to be the true reflection of America, have turned American Exceptionalism inwards. And on the spiritual front, each group has embraced the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.

We could also blame our cherished economic system. For there are two institutional sources of secular values in society: Democracy and the Market. And which one has the greater influence over society is indicated by which institution has the greater influence over the other. While Democracy promotes a certain egalitarianism, the Market promotes competition to the point of both conquering and then ruling over others. Furthermore, our economic system promotes a materialism that teaches our society to value things over people.

While both rulers and revolutionaries follow the Market's base impulses, people are told that loyalty to their tribes is the highest virtue. That lesson was first learned in patriotism.

Finally, promoters of orthodoxies are puzzled as to why they no longer have the sway over others that they use to have. They lost their power is because, unrecognized by those promoters, the skeletons of our orthodoxies have come out of their closets.

All in all, what is complained about above in America is nothing more than the chickens coming home to roost. We should have recognized that but we are blinded by the image we see in our magic mirrors. We can't see that because of our early religious heritage, we have always been too authoritarian to have given Democracy a chance. For the central word of Democracy is the antithesis to what America has been about since its beginning: SHARING.. And that sharing does not apply that much to the to sharing wealth and possessions, we can tolerate some of that. What we Americans are most afraid of sharing is power. Again, that comes from our American Exceptionalism being turned inward.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Michael Matheson Miller and his blogpost that asks if Capitalism always leads to crony Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Articles, like the one above, always neglect some basic parts and information. For example, workers are ignored. Another missing link is lack of well-defined, important terms. What else is missing is the everlasting conflict between democracy and the Free Market. Democracy is where the people rule. And governments that qualify as working democracies write regulations for businesses with the concerns of all who are in society in mind. That means that the more we have free markets, the less we have democratic control those markets. In addition, the writer's definition for economic liberty is not economic liberty. He provides no real, working definition for the term. Though what will be quoted is not the definition, it does shows the bias used to define the term:

Economic liberty is important because it creates space for people to live out their freedom, take care of their families, and fulfill their responsibilities. Economic freedom is necessary because it allows people to take risks and create material prosperity for a flourishing life. Economic liberty is needed because without it there can be no political liberty

What is clear from the quote is that the writer of the article believes that economic liberty is the source of all that is good. However, that isn't economic liberty. Economic liberty is the allowance to engage in economic activity. Economic liberty is a morally neutral term that doesn't express any notion as to what people should do. In addition, suffice it to say that since some can undertake more economic activity than others, we are not really talking about economic liberty as much as we are talking about economic privilege. And if we are really talking about economic privilege rather than liberty, then don't economies that are based on privilege embrace an economic or social Darwinism where we have the survival of the fittest. And with part of that survival of the fittest comes Capitalism's cannibalizing ethic: the maximization of one's profits.

Are there any real differences in outcomes between crony capitalism and economies where we have small, impotent governments? With small, impotent governments, government cooperation by business is not needed by business to do what it wants. The real problem with the perspective above is that the only players it recognizes as participating interaction between business and government business experts and government officials where government representatives pursues self-interest in the same way that many businesses do. The rest of society, including workers, is left out of the decision making process and must hope that those who make decisions are kind and merciful. I wonder if it has occurred to commentators like the author of the above article that the means of Capitalism are at odds with the idealistic results they hope for.

Morals are necessary for any economic system to benefit all of the people. But, again, Capitalism's basic ethic is a cannibalizing one. If the maximization of one's profits is the bottom line, then all other ethical concerns only exist when they serve that ethic. The maximization of one's profits directs participants to only pursue self-interest. And with the free market, these participants are told that they are protected from exploiting others by the rules of the Free Market. Thus, these participants are taught that their only moral obligation is to pursue self-interest. If they want to care about others, that commendable; but it isn't necessary. So how can morals prevent abuse in such a system?


What is needed are political and economic structures that force all stakeholders with different concerns and interests to have to collaborate. The hopeful result is that decisions both in government and in the business world serve the interests of as a wide variety of stakeholders as possible rather than the interests of just a few. And that is where a democratic-based socialism can help. Because it is only such a socialism that can provide the necessary structures that listens to more than just a few voices.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 14, 2016

Dec 6

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote from Todd Pruitt who dismissed concerns over the tone used when Christians argue over the Trinity. This appeared in Heidelblog.

But the concern over tone succeeds in one area: concern over Christians bearing the fruit of the Spirit. We should note that the alternative to bearing the fruit of the Spirit is to produce the works of the flesh. And a question about our past is whether we will be passive authoritarians when reviewing how the first reformers fought over doctrine or will we be willing to objectively look and criticize not that they fought, but how they fought?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that contained a short video clip of an Admiral comparing the troops they were honoring on Pearl Harbor Day with Colin Kaepernick’s taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I am sure that what the Admiral said struck a deep emotional chord in conservative authoritarian types. What the Admiral failed to add is that none of the service men and women they were honoring publicly criticized the President either. Does that mean that we civilians should not publicly criticize our President?

What I believe many conservatives are really afraid of doing is to admit that the country and flag they love so dearly has not meant the same to all people of color as it has to them. Our country and flag has certainly not meant the same to many Native Americans as has to those conservatives. Neither has our nation and flag meant the same to all Blacks as it has to those conservatives. But since the Admiral is noting the difference between the service men and women he was honoring and Colin Kaepernick, we should note a similarity between the two. Just as it took courage to stand and fight against the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 75 years ago, it took courage for Kaepernick to take a stand by taking a knee for the sake of those Blacks who still suffer significantly from the racism that continues to plague our nation. It would be much easier, and thus not require any courage, for Kaepernick to hide his convictions by conforming and standing for the national anthem. But he didn't and just like staying and fighting left our troops at Pearl Harbor vulnerable to the Japanese attack, so did Kaepernick's taking a knee left himself vulnerable to public scorn. And he continues to do that.

And we should note that when we are required to stand and salute the flag in some way, shape, or form at the playing of the national anthem or face scorn, then we are participating in a religious ceremony. The religion is patriotism and the god is our collective selves. And we should remember that authoritarian types are sensitive and become aggressive toward those who do not worship the same gods they do. Rather than pray in a closet, they prefer to wear their religion on their sleeves. But, and Christians should know this best, patriotism is a false religion. And we have often practiced or condoned some of the greatest injustices in history in the name of patriotism. We should also note that patriotism makes polytheists out of Christians--that is if consumerism hasn't done that already.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 10

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting of Carl Trueman who stated that those who are followers of the Reformation should imitate the polemic style of the Reformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

We should note something else about the Reformers if we wish to be their real followers. They were anti-Semites some of who worked so that the Jews would be punished by society for their unbelief. In addition, some sought to persecute and sometimes even kill Anabaptists. Witches and heretics were persecuted, prosecuted and executed as were adulterers. Should we pass laws that punish people for failing to attend church on Sundays?

When we strive to employ 'powerfully worded polemics,' as the Reformers did, are we bearing the fruit of the Spirit or are we seeking to embrace the same kind of authoritarian personality types that some of the Reformers had/suffered from? Is this seeking to emulate the Reformers in how they conducted polemics merely an attempt to rationalize the undoing of the shackles of self-restraint and conscience? And if so, are we asking if we should thus become Christianized versions of Donald Trump when he throws caution to the wind when answering his opponents?

So if we wish to be followers of the Reformation, should we seek to emulate how the Reformers treated people including what was listed above, or should we examine their actions, including the way they engaged in polemics, and use the Scriptures to judge them? Do all of the actions of the Reformers become canon law for us and thus equate what they did with what is taught in the Scriptures or are the Scriptures the only canon we use so that we would just both the Reformers and ourselves?

Remember that how we treat fellow believers is how we treat those for whom Christ died. We should also note how the Pharisees treated people in Jesus' day and compare that with how the Reformers treated people lest we replicate the sins of the Reformers--that is if they committed sins. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mark Tooley and his blogpost that calls Evangelicals to develop a ‘public theology’ in the face of 2016 Presidential campaign. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are many good observations here regarding what appealed to the different groups. And the warning against political hubris is always important. But why must we Christians be forever aligned with the Republican Party? Yes, we need a public theology. But why assume that the Republican Party is seeking the common good when it surpasses the Democratic Party in serving the avarice and ambitions of those with wealth and power?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 11

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on what the Trump election ushers in. He particularly focuses on the rejection of what science says about climate change and a new embracing of national identity the revolves around preserving wealth and demographics. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

The most telling part of Buchanan's article here says:

Their worry is not that the rising waters of the Med will swamp the Riviera, but that tens of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Africans may be coming across to swamp Europe, and that millions of Mexicans may cross the Rio Grande to swamp the USA.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people—and to themselves. Across the West, establishments have lost credibility. The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples. The Supreme Court may say all religions are equal and all must be treated equally. But do Americans believe Christianity and Islam are equal? How could they, when Christians claim their faith has as its founder the Son of God and God himself?

We should list the areas of concern and disinterest. The areas of concern include a mass influx of people of color and the loss of wealth by those who live in the richest nations in the world. What is of disinterest is the scientific view of climate change, the evidence of which is more than adequate for over 95% of the world's scientists and its effects can be seen by untrained observers. So Buchanan complains that the conservatives who don't want to lose their wealth or see a significant change in the racial demographics of the nation but will ignore the warnings of science on climate change are not counted as intellectuals? In addition, what follows these concerns and loss of interest is a rejection of the equality of the races as well as creeds, nations, and cultures.

Before commenting, let's make one correction here. Americans never believed in the equality of nations. Whether they be liberals or conservatives, American political leaders, as well as vast majority of the people, believe in American Exceptionalism. Manifest destiny was built on American Exceptionalism and American Exceptionalism back then was an exercise in violent racism. And our politicians, whether liberal or conservative, have always put America first. They have just done so from different perspectives.
What causes despair here is that what follows the kind of concern for controlling wealth and who lives in our neighborhood as well as the rejection of what science says on climate change are not expressed as lamentations and with the blues. If we time warp Buchanan some 50 to 100 years in the future, would we see him showing no dismay at European immigration into the US while grieving over the immigration of people of color of other nations while he shows no concern for America's indigenous people? At this point, has Buchanan lost what the Scriptures teach about the love of wealth and how in Christ there is no Greek or Jew and that all people are made in the image of God? Doesn't Buchanan see that comes with this growing tribalism is an ever growing passionate embrace of moral relativity? And all of this is to be accepted in order for him to cling ever more tightly to what is needed to preserve his idea of America. And if Pat was to make a movie on the above narrative, he would call it Liberalism Must Die.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 12

To K.A. Ellis and her blogpost about the need for Christians to transcend the loyalty they have to the groups they belong to in order to be fair in judging others and consistent in promoting causes and values. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

It would be beneficial to understand what we are being called to transcend here. It is called tribalism. It occurs on a continuum as our loyalty to any group increases. The more that loyalty increases, the more it takes precedence over our commitment to absolute moral values and principles. The end result is that we gradually embrace a moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.

We should also consider whether we are being asked to transcend authoritarianism because tribalism employs a kind of authoritarianism. Tribalism involves group authoritarianism where disagreeing with or even criticizing a group bring the same results as disagreeing with or criticizing a hero or authority figure. Here black-white thinking is involved because any disagreement or criticism is seen as total rejection or an aggressive attack on that person and all of that person's ideas. Thus, a call to transcendence includes a call to use nuance.

If we can see how we must transcend tribalism and authoritarianism, then some of the brilliant lines written by Ellis will make more sense. My favorite line is:

In other words, the seemingly opposed parties of “family values” and “social justice” tend to apply concern only to their defining issues. One would expect the same conservative Christians concerned over the global rise of Marxist views and methods to also speak up against the global rise of Alt-Right extremism, considering the similar historical record of both ideologies. One would expect progressive Christian voices to do the same in reverse.

And though that is my favorite part of the article, I should note that it is a bit unfair to Marxist views since Marxism is far from being a monolith. I say that as someone who has is a Marxist but disagrees with some of what both Marx and some of his followers say. And that makes me wonder if there are any who feel an affinity to the Alt-Right who could say something similar about their group and themselves. For here we should note that the use of labels encourages the use of Black-White thinking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 13

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that criticizes the tax breaks that Carrier is receiving to keep jobs in America as cronyism. This appeared in the Acton blog.


There are bigger problem with the Carrier deal than it fitting someone's definition of crony capitalism. Those problems have to do with business's social responsibilities and, in particular, the tax burden. The less businesses pay in taxes, the more the tax burden is shifted to private citizens especially the workers. And the problem here is that those who benefit most from tax funded services are the owners because they are the ones who profit the most from their business. But in reducing what they must taxes, we are either increasing deficits and/or making those who have less in financial resources pay for goods and services that help owners profit from their business.
What is missed in automatically calling subsidies and tax breaks 'cronyism' is determining whether there is favoritism. The above use of the term 'cronyism' is from a "free" enterprise perspective just as much as from Sanders' position, the deal with Carrier is not saving enough jobs or from Ryan's position that it is good to save those jobs. Free Enterprise means freedom from government control and some include with freedom from taxes. But that free enterprise, when compelled under the threat that companies will move their business operations, is free for the enterprise but forced on the public. Such is a form of extortion. And this is the problem with the analysis above. Just as the shifting burden is not included in analyzing the Carrier deal, looking at the effects on the general public of reducing or eliminating business's social responsibilities and public accountability that come through government controls including taxes is not included when talking about free enterprise.

Are there times when subsidies and tax breaks are not instances of cronyism? If such measures primarily serve the general public rather than the private good of selected individuals, yes. What is missed above is the necessity of favoritism in any subsidies or tax breaks that are implemented. In fact, without sufficient government controls over wages, the free enterprise aspect of inadequate minimum wage requirements necessitates the use of tax funded payroll subsidies through government assistance programs. And when this is employed primarily for the private good of owners, we have free enterprise and cronyism working hand-in-hand.

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 9 Of 12

In this week's episode of this blog's review of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism, we actually hit an agreement. But one has to wade through some stuff before getting there. So following the work before pleasure ethic, we will hit the disagreements first.

Witt starts this episode with an error by saying:

Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, details how the growth of government-corporate cronyism during the past 120 or so years has been largely a phenomenon of the socialist left.

The error is the association being made between corporations aided by government and socialism. Of course he is citing Goldberg here, but repeating an error is still an error. The error here is the conservative insistence that big government = socialism. Thus, regardless of the driving force behind any form of big government, conservatives, such as Goldberg and Witt, conflate all big government under the label of socialism. 

Such a mix is often used to link Nazism and Fascism with the Socialism of the Soviet Union. But just as we should note that many Socialists never saw the old Soviet Union as being socialist because its workers lost control to Lenin's vanguard, we should realize that there was another key distinction between Nazism and Fascism on one hand, and Socialism and Communism on the other. The former has business and industrial leaders as a driving force if not its primary support while the latter did not. Like Nazism and Fascism, the Socialism and Communism of the Soviet Union had elite centered rule. The difference was that, despite not representing the workers, it was not supported by business. And if you go to Marx, you will see that he emphasized what he called the proletariate dictatorship. Such a dictatorship, which is actually a partial democracy, was not in control over the Soviet Union. These details are omitted by many conservatives in order to associate both Nazism and Fascism with Socialism and Communism.

So if we brush aside the misnomer,  we get an idea of what Witt has been saying for the past few episodes: using government to gain a competitive advantage is bad while, from his praise for the American Tobacco Company and his neglecting to mention its violation of antitrust laws and the its use of a secret deal with another business to dominate the market (click here to see the previous review), businesses using other businesses to gain a competitive advantage is kosher.

Certainly, the use of government by a business to gain a competitive advantage over other businesses that are under the jurisdiction of the same government is unfair. But governments enabling domestic businesses to grow through protectionism is a long established practice that has served well the economies of many countries. Its abuses in Mercantilism were objected to by Adam Smith. But government does have the right to protect the businesses of its citizens from outside threats. Such protection allows varied domestic economic sectors to grow enabling economic diversification and eventual self-sufficiency. And this is being mentioned because this is what Witt proceeds to criticize part of big government socialism. We might also add that the legitimate use of protectionism is counted as heresy by those advocating the new "comparative advantage" in which what a country can produce is determined solely by how its products best serve the outside world, that is the Global Free Market. Such makes the smaller economies more dependent on the larger economies and it primarily benefits the elite investor class.

Witt goes on to say how our government has, through "regulations and market manipulations," helped corporate agriculture at the expense of family farms. He rightly calls this relationship between government and corporate agriculture, "Crony Capitalism," and rightly protests it--thus our agreement. But we should note the following:

1. With the competitive nature of an unadulterated Free Market, the survival of any family farm was never guaranteed
2. That his blaming of the government and its actions for the failure of the family farm oversimplifies the situation
3. He never considers that crony Crony Capitalism could be a natural outgrowth of the Free Market.

We should note regarding the last point, that what's important to the Free Market as an institution may not be what's important to the Free Market's participants. For example, competition is important to a functioning Free Market so that it can serve the needs and wants of both businesses and consumers. Thus, when any business becomes too big so that competition is significantly reduced, regardless of whether the business relied on government help in growing, that business is a threat to the Free Market as an institution. 

But note what is important to the participants of the Free Market. Surely competition is their source of energy, but the sole concern of any business in the Free Market is self-interest and its sole ethic is maximizing profits. So how does the combination of self-interest and maximizing profit not try to eliminate competition? And as we mentioned before, this doing away with competition can be accomplished with or without the help of government. So while Jonathan Witt somewhat indicates that the family farm, domestic and foreign, is a rival of corporate agriculture, he fails to see that businesses can eradicate their competition even without without the help of government as seen in the history of the American Tobacco Company (again, click here to see the review of part 8 of this series).

Rather than saying that Jonathan Witt's Free Market is not being shot by a gun it didn't see, we should say that the Free Market is shooting itself with its own gun as Witt fails to see that the gun has no safety. Witt's scapegoating of big government's intrusion into the Free Market is not only stated so that we will object to all government interventions into the economy, it is described in a way so that we become unaware of the dangers posed by the Free Market itself. So while Witt claims that government's interference with private property was the problem, the real culprit was a natural part of the Free Market: self-interest and the maximization of profits.

In the end, Witt unconsciously supports that which creates what he fears and abhors: Crony Capitalism. By declaring that big government is the problem, he conflates functioning democracies with elite centered rule. Here, he implies that both should have the same limitations because it is only the size of government that matters. But by fleeing democracy, he runs into the waiting arms of elite centered rule private sector style. And it is this rule that looks to eliminate competition in the Free Market regardless of what government does. 

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 8 Of 12

In this week's episode of Jonathan Witt's A Cultural Case For Capitalism, Witt wants to draw a sharp distinction between the Free Market and Crony Capitalism. In addition, he wants to tout the achievements of the global market that, is in large part, a result of Crony Capitalism. It's as if he wants it both ways.

Again, Witt's target is Wendell Berry because of Berry's criticisms of Capitalism. We should note that Witt does appreciate some of what Berry says. However, Witt believes that Berry's writings approaches "land idolatry," something we should keep in mind for later, and it is, as written above, that Witt believes Berry can no longer distinguish between "free economies" and Crony Capitalism. Crony Capitalism is where competitive advantages in business comes from a collusion between those in the private and public sectors. This is why Witt presents as an alternative "the American Experiment of broad economic freedoms and limited government." 

One problem with Witt's solution is that this American Experiment contained neither. We should note that many American based corporations were able to establish themselves because of government provided protectionism and maintain themselves or grow because of State Capitalism--which is where a significant part of the business comes from the state. Another problem with Witt's solution is that his support for "limited government" practically conflates democratic governments with elite centered governments by aiming to limit all of them without distinction. This not only limits the power democracy can have in society, it fails to eliminate elite centered rule because such rule stems from power and power is not limited to those who have authority. Power is equated with having the ability to make changes whether one has the governmental authority or not.

And in fact, Witt seems to be targeting democracy when speaking about limiting government. For when Witt rightly criticizes Crony Capitalism, he neglects to tell us that unfair advantages in the Free Market can be gained through secret deals between businesses and elites in the private sector. His example of the American Tobacco Company, having morphed into the Tobacco Trust, provides such a example of that happening. In Part 7 of A Cultural Case For Capitalism, Witt tells the story of the founder of the American Tobacco Company, James Buchanan Duke, and how he "aggressively expanded" the new technology of a cigarette rolling machine invented by James Bonsack. Hidden behind the phrase "aggressively expanded" is the fact that a secret deal between the two, which included diminishing royalties, gave Duke a price advantage over other companies which made it necessary for other companies to eventually join Duke's group to survive.  ¹ Eventually, his Tobacco Trust was found to be in violation of antitrust laws and was ordered to break up. ²

If anyone wants to claim that the government's use of antitrust laws in principle is an example of government overreach, he/she will have to argue with one of the economic heros of the modern Free Market and of those, like Witt, who write at the Acton blog, Milton Friedman. For it was Friedman who said that there are two threats to the Free Market: government and businesses. And he added that it is government's responsibility to the Free Market to prevent any business from gaining unfair advantages that would reduce competition.

So what we have here with Witt's parts 7 and 8 of A Cultural Case For Capitalism is a double standard where if businesses gain a competition destroying advantage through government favors, it is called Crony Capitalism. But if there is collusion between businesses to gain the same kind of advantage, it is used as a positive example of building a company. Again with the emphasis on limited government regardless of whether it is democratic, this points to Witt favoring elite centered rule with the real power resting with non-elected elites from the private sector. 

Now we must deal with Witt's endorsement of the global economy and large corporations. Here, Witt points to a one factor analysis--that the current economy has reduced abject poverty in the world. Witt does acknowledge corporate abuses in this but praises the result in a way that suggests that the ends justify the means. His one factor analysis also suggests that, like what he accuses Berry of, he has submitted to an idolatry--it is the love of money.

So here, we really need to ask critical questions about this victory which Witt so praises. We need to ask how much misery has actually been reduced by this global economy when some countries are seeing a reduction in the number of people in the middle class because more are approaching poverty and how much misery is being alleviated by the reduction Witt brags about. We might also ask about other costs such as damage to the environment, exploitive working conditions, and a loss of freedom along with a reduction in reliance on democratic procedures.

We might also want to look at the specifics of the numbers themselves. When I have seen these kind of claims, most of the reduction of those living in such poverty are from Asia. And while a substantial number of them come from India where free trade measures have moved tens of thousands of Indian farmers to commit suicide due to debt, another significant number of people being raised out of "extreme poverty" come from China. And the problems with using numbers from China are multiple. 

The first problem with using China is that, because of the global economy, China has suffered severe environment damage such as dramatic increases in air pollution. Second, because of this global economy, some workers are pressured into accepting sweatshop labor conditions for the privilege of working and being raised out of extreme poverty while others lose their jobs. And finally, one cannot attribute China's improved numbers to the Free Market since their market is significantly controlled by the State. So to include China's numbers in with the statistics being used to make claims about the Free Market reducing world poverty is deceptive at best.

What we see with Witt's new global, free economy are inconsistencies along with partial information used to obscure its complete impact on the world. But most of all, this economy is reducing the control people have over their lives by shrinking democracy and shifting that control to elites in the private sector. And I write this as someone who views Wendell Berry's alternatives to Capitalism as being impractical. 

References
1.  Brandt, Alan M.: The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America, p. 29. Basic Books, 2007 cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tobacco_Company

and 

https://www.tracy.k12.ca.us/sites/rlee/Shared Documents/History of the Americas II/Industrial America Unit/Industrialist Biographies/Duke Bio 2007.pdf

 

2.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tobacco_Company