The NYT had yet another piece giving the conseravtive line in which policies that redistribute income upward are defined as being the "free-market," while policies that prmote equality are seen as government intervention. For example, the article touts the usual nonsense about "free trade" agreements implying that a system that subjects less educated workers to competition with people in the developing world, while largely protecting highly paid professionals, has anything to do with free trade. The article also implies that negotiating drug prices with manufacturers is interferring with the market, while allowing them unfettered patent monpolies is a free market policy. And of course, having special low tax rates for private equity and pension fund managers appears also as free market policy. It will be nice when the media will just tell us about the policies that politicians support and their implications and stop giving us their ideological spin.
--Dean Baker
