The hypocrisy and the end of fundamentalism

"The financial crisis may have passed, but everything has changed, completely changed. "The anniversary of the financial tsunami," the British times commentary said. What has the financial tsunami changed?　　I thought it was the fundamental change in the human mind brought about by the financial crisis, and the hypocritical market fundamentalism had gone bankrupt, at least fading. In short, market fundamentalism is the belief that markets are omnipotent, and that the less government intervenes in the market, the better. As long as firmly believe that market freedom, market competition, "invisible hand" can handle everything, prosperity, stability, fairness, and justice.　　Although the ideological origins have even been recovered to the French "laissez-faire" ideological tradition and Smith's "Invisible Hand", the rise of market fundamentalism is the product of the 1980 Thatcher-Reagan Free-market revolution. In the 1990 's, market fundamentalism gradually formed. Internally advocated unconditional privatization and liberalization, externally is the "Washington consensus", the core is the free flow of capital, the financial system fully open and exchange rate free float.　　British and American academics, British and American governments, Wall Street and the City of London, and the US-controlled international Financial Organization (the IMF) are the pioneers in promoting market fundamentalism to the world. The subprime crisis and the financial tsunami are in fact the crisis of the Anglo-American financial system, and other countries are victims. Market fundamentalism is the deepest ideological source leading to the financial crisis. As Stiglitz points out, the "Washington Consensus", which advocates the hypocrisy of fundamentalism and the end of financial market liberalisation, will not promote global economic stability, but will only promote the narrow interests of US financial groups, the US Treasury is the most staunch advocate of this interest group. The liberalisation of capital markets means that all measures aimed at controlling the sudden and sudden rise of hot money are uprooted.　　Since the 1970 's, the "Washington Consensus" policy philosophy has stirred up waves of financial turmoil, the financial crisis is only the most dramatic. I refer to the market fundamentalism represented by the Washington Consensus as hypocritical market fundamentalism. Because it advocates the policy is unilateralism policy, even is a kind of hegemonism or the new era "economic and financial colonialism policy". Its priority policy is the free and open financial sector and the free flow of capital, but that means that the financial markets and financial systems of developing countries are open to the capital of developed countries represented by Britain and the United States, and vice versa.　　For example, the British and American financial giants in the world, make a profit, however, the financial institutions in emerging markets to think of the British and American market for a place, but more difficult than heaven. The hypocritical market fundamentalism is in the same vein as the hypocritical free trade theory. The Western powers, such as Britain and the United States, have always boasted of free trade, but the free trade they preach has always been a policy of unilateralism. The powerful industries of Anglo-American powers are bound to expand to other countries, and those that are relatively inferior or not allowed to be touched by outsiders are excluded from the door by various rules and restrictions. In the past hundreds of years, the invasion of the small and weak countries by the Western powers is to occupy the market with the gun of the ship. RecentThe United States is prone to threaten trade sanctions, oppression of the renminbi, forcing China to fully open up the financial markets, the rejection of the PetroChina takeover Unocal, a few days ago to approve the imposition of high punitive tariffs on Chinese export tires; Australia (a Shadow of Britain and America) secretly foiled Chinalco's takeover of Rio Tinto To the developing countries to shoulder the heavy responsibility of global emission reduction ...　　In the final analysis, its ideological roots are Western unilateralism strategic thinking and hypocritical market fundamentalism. The most hypocritical and most unjust of market fundamentalism and free trade doctrine is the denial of global free immigration. For more than hundreds of years, the European colonial violence, like Hurricane Katrina, swept the world with its guns, and white people occupied the world's widest continent and ocean, as well as the strategic resources of forests, minerals, and oil.　　After the dust settles, the prison, tightly control other "Earth citizens" on the white-owned territory, even the Aboriginal people's right to the survival of the uprooting. Today, Anglo-Saxon leaders such as Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Martin, Paulson and Brown have been saying "global imbalances" every day, even pushing the responsibility of "global imbalances" entirely on Chinese "excess savings". In fact, their own minds are clearest: the most fundamental reason for global imbalances is the imbalance between population and resource allocation. The economic development of the West has long proved that if we wholeheartedly abide by the principles of free trade and market competition, we should remove all trade barriers, in addition to goods, services, technology, capital, far more important is the "human resources" barrier. Free immigration is the best way to achieve the greatest benefit of free trade. How logically do market fundamentalists preach the freedom and openness of unilateralism, but not the global freedom of migration? The financial crisis has presented brutal truths to citizens of the earth, forcing us to think about the future with a new mindset.