0 Bad economic policies are an enemy of the state.

  • Society
  • by Adrian Mark Dore
  • 06-12-2023
Your vote is:
0.00 of 0 votes

An enemy of the state is a person who commits a political crime against the state, but it can also be a philosophy which directly or indirectly advocates the committing of a political crime. It would also encompass those who execute or adhere to the philosophy. 

Such a philosophy could include economic policies like free market policies. 

For free market policies to be found guilty of committing a political crime, and thus being an enemy of the state, it has to be proved that it deliberately attempts to pervert the course of democracy. 

In a democracy, the economy is supposed to serve majority needs. So, if the policy does not do this, serving other needs instead, it has perverted the course of democracy. It has committed a political crime. 

Some may argue that although it may appear to serve other interests, its results prove the opposite, that it does serve majority needs, and thus, it has not perverted the course of democracy. 

Therefore, we need to look at the policy's intent and outcomes to see if this is true or if it is really an enemy of the state by working against majority interests. 

This article will prove how free market policies have failed in both intent and outcomes to serve majority needs. 

  1. No intent to serve majority needs.

Milton Friedman is the father of free market policies. He is also the person who proposed Shareholder Theory, which suggests that in business, the interests of shareholders be placed above all others. So, as far as Milton Friedman was concerned, only financial capital is important. The other three primary capitals, namely, human, natural and common capital, are of no concern or interest to him. 

Now, if you consider that businesses form the basic building blocks of our economy and that every business follows Shareholder Theory, then businesses and Milton Friedman’s ideologies never had any intention of serving anybody other than financial capital -  the rich. 

We know that every business follows Shareholder Theory because every business uses the same measurement standard, which only measures and manages financial capital. 

At a business (or micro level), Milton Friedman cared only for the interests of financial capital and continued to apply these beliefs at a macro or economic level. These beliefs are reflected in his free market economic policies. 

They involve reducing taxes (particularly) on the rich and corporations, reducing business regulations and the size of government.  

How can a reduction in taxes, regulations and the size of government serve the majority's needs? They don’t, they harm them. 

Taxes fund common capital, which leads to a higher quality of life for all, including businesses, as it funds infrastructure and services everybody uses and depends upon. It is the foundation stone for a strong and resilient economy. Weaken it, and you weaken your economy over the long term. 

Regulations protect the weak from the powerful, leading to a strong economy built on strong foundations and not a weak economy based on exploitation and neglect. 

Large governments allow the government to be more proactive in establishing and enforcing appropriate regulations, leading to a balanced, thriving economy where all interests are treated fairly. Without this oversight, exploitation soon creeps in.   

The logic screams at you. The reduction of taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations, those who benefit the most and can pay the most), together with the reduction of regulations and a small government, are counterintuitive in serving the majority. It can’t be done. 

All these actions favour financial capital (the rich) at the expense of the majority. None of these ideas serve the other three primary capitals; they cause them serious harm. 

Human capital: Real decline in incomes, work conditions, job security.

Natural capital: Massive environmental degradation, pollution, global warming.

Common capital:  Huge reduction in common capital investment resulting in a steep decline in the quality of life for the average person and making trading conditions less favourable for businesses. 

Clearly, there was never any intention to serve the majority. The promise they made about favourable outcomes was to hoodwink the majority into believing that it was possible to deliver for all when, in reality, the odds were unfavourably stacked against them. 

 If a different outcome was difficult to predict at the time (which it was not), it’s certainly not difficult to identify now, after forty years of atrocious economic results. 

  1. Outcomes prove free market policies to be a fraud.

So, let’s be clear: the genesis of Friedman’s suggestion was that all other capitals forgo any benefits to allow financial capital to grow the economy, from which all will be repaid with interest. Really – how remarkable. If this were the case, I would not be writing this article; we would all be far better off, but the reality is entirely different. 

The rich used the benefits of free market policies to make themselves richer and have repeated the process yearly for over forty years. 

Look at the state of our three other primary capitals – all, without exception, considerably worse off over the past four decades. This cannot be denied unless you live under a rock in some remote desert. 

So, neither in intent nor action has free markets proved that it is remotely capable of performing in the interest of the majority. It is fundamentally inept for the job. Therefore, those who follow and promote this economic policy can be classified as ENEMIES OF THE STATE committing a political crime against the state.  That includes most of our politicians. When they claim cutting taxes (particularly on the rich and corporations) and reducing government spending is in your interests, they are either delusional or an enemy of the state by serving their rich masters instead of the majority.  

I appreciate that this simplifies a complex issue, but unless the fundamentals of an economic policy can prove that it serves the majority, what are we doing in following it?


You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at