Maybe that he's as wrong as Greenspan was?

Amen, Dean--as long as those who support corporate bailouts and the grant of monopolistic privileges via intellectual "property" rights are classified as free marketeers, the media conversation about economic policy will be disastrously skewed.

It means that you back whatever particular combinations of regulations, deregulations, subsidies, trade agreements and mythmaking that the business elite press favors.

Similarly, there are no such thing as "free trade" agreements, just different trade agreements.

Get beyond cliches? Whaaaa?

Ah, this is nice to see, but the media is really out of control lately with its inability to examine the claim that we have a "free market" as made by many prominent individuals including Paulson, Krugman, Bush, Greenspan, Brown, Sarkozy, etc.

Regardless of what sort of fix anyone prefers, we're cheating ourselves out of an honest debate by pretending that we have a free market.

"...like almost everyone else, he is not a supporter of Soviet-style central planning?"

...except aren't WaPo & NYT really mouthpieces of the world's elite, propaganda organs like Pravda? Who are WaPo & NYT to judge a "free market"? Maybe if they did their job as they are enfranchised to do in the US constitution I'd listen when they opine in their news pieces. Meantime, my readership of their pages drops in quantity & quality.

It would be useful if reporters could get beyond cliches and try to ensure that their characterizations of individuals actually provide information to readers.

You gotta have a dream.

Beyond mortgage lenders and homebuilders, jobs in commercial real-estate and at real-estate agencies will be the next to go, according to Dean Baker, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

With the worst September for new home sales since 1981, "some of the big [real-estate] chains will do some consolidation," Baker said, "clearly you need fewer offices," Baker said.

The language of the Corporate Media is designed is designed to be vague and opaque so that value judgments can then be ascribed as to the merit of any given individual or issue.

Naturally a "non" free market economist would be in Corporate Media parlance one who is out of step, and not credible and possibly a socialist or marxist ...

The Corporate Media have trained the public to Pavlovian responses in regards to the mantra of the Neoliberal agenda.

Question: What Does It Mean to Support "Free Market" Economics?

Answer: Sadly, for most, it means supporting existing wealth.

As a real free-market advocate and therefore an opponent of all state-granted privileges and guarantees, I say, hear, hear!

Sheldon Richman wrote, As a real free-market advocate and therefore an opponent of all state-granted privileges and guarantees...

Would that include land ownership?

Nice catch, liberal.

Matt wrote, Nice catch, liberal.

Oh, hardly. Anyone anyone espouses a libertarian-ish viewpoint, they should be asked whether they're a "real libertarian or a royal libertarian."

Which is the title of an excellent essay. I linked to it in another comment I made here in another thread, but that got caught in a spam-trap.

BTW, the excellent "A Geolibertarian FAQ" isn't online anymore because the hosting service (some stupid AOL thing) is discontinuing service. Luckily I had a copy, and the Wayback Machine still has it archived.

"Anyone anyone..." ==> "Anytime anyone..."

Liberal, a real free market would include private landownership without state privilege. Of course, individuals would be perfectly free to own land collectively but only consensually. If you are implying that private land holdings require state privilege, I request that you prove that. Homesteading without the state and enforcement of property are quite conceivable and have been accomplished historically. Indeed, private ownership has occurred in situations that would qualify as anarchical. As Proudhon understood, without property, everyone is a tenant and employee of the state. I can't think of anything more dangerous.

Sheldon Richman wrote, If you are implying that private land holdings require state privilege, I request that you prove that.

Because "ownership" is defined by the State.

No state, no legal ownership. All you're left with is possession, which isn't the same thing as ownership. Then it's just a matter of who has the biggest guns.

What do you think the purpose of a state is?

Homesteading without the state and enforcement of property are quite conceivable and have been accomplished historically.

Yep. Working really well in Somalia.

As Proudhon understood, without property, everyone is a tenant and employee of the state. I can't think of anything more dangerous.

Huh? We're already in that situation. Except that right now, the state steals from the productive and gives to proceeds to rich parasites.

gives to proceeds ==> gives the proceeds