Free market economic policies (or neoliberal policies) have not delivered prosperity for the majority as promised. Instead, it has impoverished us while also causing extensive environmental damage. It is responsible for creating economic apartheid, where the needs of a small minority are served to the exclusion of the majority.

We have lived with this poor economic policy for over four decades. It's time we replaced it with a policy which will better serve society and the environment. 

The easiest way to explain how an economic policy works is to think of it as an agreement between the two major players in our economy: Society and Markets.

Markets are represented by shareholders (owners of businesses, the wealthy) and the government, representing Society and the country's natural resources.

 The Agreement

The agreement calls upon both parties to perform certain acts.

The agreed-upon economic policy describes these acts.

The free market agreement (or policy) calls on the government to: -

1. Reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthy.
2. Apply fewer regulations and restrictions on business.

Shareholders agree to the following: -

1. Invest their profits back into the economy, thus increasing the productive economic base of the country.
2. In the absence of government oversight (due to reduced regulations and restrictions), business is to act morally and responsibly in protecting the interests of society and the environment.

Despite this simplification, it clearly illustrates the commitments made by both parties to serve the majority. No matter the policy chosen by the government, the objective should always be to serve majority needs, as that’s the responsibility of a democratic government.

Outcome (Government)

The government has over-delivered on their commitment, proving that we are not a democracy but a plutocracy (where the wealthy dictate economic policy.)

The government has: -

1. Drastically reduced taxes on businesses and the wealthy.
2. Removed unfavourable business regulations.
3. Applied favourable business regulations.
4. Removed unfavourable business protections.
5. Applied favourable business protections.
6. Introduced subsidies and tax breaks.

Points 2 to 6 represent free market hypocrisy. Free markets claim not to like regulations, protectionism, or unfair business practices such as subsidies and tax breaks. However, these dislikes are ignored when they benefit them. This is hypocrisy on a mega scale.

In reality, our plutocratic government should not be allowed to sign a free market economic agreement, as they have a vested interest in supporting it. Under normal circumstances, this would be a fraud in the real world, as they have entered an agreement without declaring their vested interest. This should have precluded them from proceeding. Thus, the government themselves are acting fraudulently in supporting free markets. 

Outcomes (Shareholders)

Shareholders have breached the agreement as they have not delivered on any of their commitments by: -

1. Not reinvesting in our productive economy but instead investing heavily in the unproductive rentier economy, to the direct disadvantage of the majority.
2. Not met their commitment to protect both society and the environment. Instead, they have used poor government oversight to abuse society and the environment in extracting wealth. 

The reality is they had no intention or ability to meet any of their commitments under this agreement.

When you enter an agreement with the full knowledge that you are unwilling or unable to meet its terms, that is fraud. Read my article “Vacuum Up the reality. Trickle Down the lie.” to understand how the wealthy had little intention of investing in the real productive economy from the start. They use free market policies to weaken the majority and the rentier economy to exploit these vulnerabilities, as they vacuum up every morsel from our table.

Regarding the second clause of the agreement, shareholders have no chance of meeting their commitment to looking after society and the environment because their business measures are focused exclusively on shareholder needs. Only when a universally accepted measurement standard, which can measure the inputs and outputs of all stakeholders, is available will business be able to meet its commitments of looking after all stakeholder interests. However, shareholders don’t want this. They want all the rewards for themselves. 

Conclusion

Free market economics is fundamentally flawed because it needs to provide a balanced approach to equally serve society and markets. This is the primary objective of a democratically responsible government. The economy, like everything else in the world, needs balance. Only a plutocratic government will opt for a free market policy as it is fundamentally biased towards markets and their interests. 

Free market policies are exploitative. They have turned us into profiteers. The worst form of profiteers - those who profit from their own stakeholders. Read my article “We are profiteers, not capitalists” for more details.

Free market economics has created economic apartheid. When precisely this occurred is hard to pinpoint. Suffice it to say the process was set in motion the day free market policies were introduced. From that day forward, economic inequality has become progressively worse. Its adverse effects are easily identifiable within five years, yet the government has persevered with this diabolical policy for over four decades. You can’t tell me the government hasn’t twigged to it being the problem? Of course, they have, but as plutocrats, they will keep denying it and kicking the can down the road. 

The Triad of Evil - free market policies, rentier economy and globalisation are the key problems we need to hold governments accountable for. They have allowed them to grow and prosper under their watch, to the majority’s direct disadvantage.

Non-performance remedy

When a party to an agreement deliberately defrauds you, as shareholders have done, you are entitled to seek recompense. Therefore, we are legitimately entitled to request that the trillions stolen from the majority over the past four decades, including all subsidies and bailouts, be paid back as a Reparation Payment. This is fair and reasonable, considering they deliberately defrauded society (including the environment) and must now return wealth illegally gained.

The ideal mechanism to implement this repayment is through death duties applied on a progressive scale of up to 95% on estates over a minimum value (only applied to the rich.) This will still leave them well off but not grotesquely wealthy. 

You may read other articles by Adrian Dore on Medium at

https://medium.com/@adrianmarkdore/