Humpty Dumpty and Free Markets

The Coffee Party on Facebook had a link to a CNN interview of Christine O'Donnell by Soledad O'Brien.  O'Donnell claims the Obama has made Marxist remarks.  O'Brien did call her on using the term Marxist but didn't really follow through.  Many respondents to the Coffee Party page were disappointed that O'Brien didn't press for specifics.

One commenter mentioned that the Wealth of Nations wasn't published when the Declaration of Indendence was written, and so the signers couldn't include Adam Smith's thoughts.

I added the following to the comments:

Words! Words!  As Humpty Dumpty said in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass": 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Worse than the misuse of the words "Marxism" and "Socialism" is the misuse of the word "Free Market".

The classical definition of a free market is:

1. Many buyers and sellers
2. Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market at any time.
3. Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a satisfactory transaction.
4. All the costs are covered in the transaction, that is, no externalities.

Interestingly, it is "free marketers" who don't want true free markets.

We have more and more consolidations into larger and larger corporations.

Are you free to leave the health care market when your child is sick?

GMO producers and others don't want buyers to know what's in their products.

Who is covering the costs of pollution and nuclear waste?

Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was first published in 1776.  Maybe the signers of the Declaration of Independence hadn't received copies yet, but I'm sure that many of the signers of the Constitution had read it by 1787.

Those who love to quote the "invisible hand" should read the other 500+ pages, including "When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes
otherwise when in favour of the masters."

The beginning of the end of the open primary?

With the election of Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senator for Delaware, some of the Republican establishment see less hope in taking control of the Senate.  Conversely, some Democrats have reinvigorated their campaigns with attacks on Tea Party-backed Republican candidates.

O'Donnell claims she doesn't need "the support of Washington Republicans" and will "harness the power of 'the people' to defeat her Democratic opponent in November."
- "The Morning After: Whose Party Is it?" Michael D. Shear, New York Times, 2010-09-15.

But who are the "people" that supported her in the primary?  Are they members of the Republican Party who give of their time and money to the Party?  Are they people who only say they are Republicans and only show up at election time?  Are they "independents" who voted for her on a lark?  Are they Democratic sympathizers who think O'Donnell will be easy to defeat in November?

Come November we will see how many "moderates" and "independents" reject Tea Party-backed candidates.  If many of these candidates lose, there may be a push for closed primaries.  On the other hand, "moderates" and "independents" may not even vote because they dislike both candidates.  If so, we could be looking at two more years of Congressional gridlock.