Is this a daft idea or isn’t it? It depends like most things on perspective. To the unenlightened, the question might be about what exactly is Boston’s role in any hub of world history. Others may argue that the history itself is shaming and should not be celebrated.
We believe that Britain in the 17th and 18th century laid down the global foundations of what was essentially a liberal bourgeois revolution. It was this revolution more than anything else which established freedom based on the commercial freedoms of Contract, Choice and Consent. These commercial freedoms have legitimately acquired a social character and therefore define our lives in a positive and liberating way. They underpin the politics of identity.
If we care enough to look we can see where these freedoms are absent and if we are clever enough we can see how the absence of these freedoms distorts societies or distinct communities within society, restricting rights for many including women and the poor.
The economic and religious freedoms that the Pilgrim Fathers and celebrated Bostonians took to America (from Plymouth, not Boston just to be accurate)laid the foundation for the Capitalist powerhouse that became the USA. Whilst these freedoms are not sufficient to create a just society you can’t have a just society without them. They are therefore an essential ingredient of any nation that wants to call itself “free”.
So in the age of the internet and the decline of the town centre, Boston like the whole of Britain needs to work on it’s global narrative its Unique Selling Point, and place itself foursquare at the heart of one of the most transformational periods in world history, the revolution in freedom delivered to the world in the 17th and 18th century by Briton’s and Bostonians alike.
Boston’s contribution to the world can be drawn on a flowchart of world history and can be linked to other British towns and foreign nations. We should not let being PC stand in the way of a remarkable and world-transforming story.
There are many reasons to look back on the period between 1997 and 2010 with regret. Blair promised “Cool Britannia” but gave us the laughable claim to end “Boom and Bust”, the death of David Kelly, the war in Iraq, the Bank or rather debt crisis, wasteful Millennium projects, sucking up to US neo-Cons and the nonsense of Post neoclassical endogenous growth theory. All were and some still are calamitous policies that have weakened and indebted Britain and the British worker because we were persuaded Blair knew best. British history is confirming Blair knew how to look after himself best at the expense of Britain as a nation no more and no less.
There is one issue which is only now beginning to emerge as a “crisis” and that is the mental health of the young. Again the “left” are banging on about resourcing when the problem is with the usual time delay for cause and effect squarely down to the period from 1997 onwards. The Tories can’t struggle off the leash entirely but the policies that affect the young are essentially Blair’s.
In 1997 and leading up to the hubris of the millennium young people were seen as the saviours of Britain. Young people were to be “invested” in and schools would deliver bright millennials who would deliver the “cool Britannia” success promoted by Blair. At that point, the “Cool Britannia” brigade were not millennials but Thatcher’s Children or even pre Thatcher, Pop idols and TV people in their 20’s and 30’s. Still, they could be “culturally appropriated” by Blair and of course they were.
The real millennials were fed a diet of New Labour Hubris, had to endure an education system which took away the competition and promoted an unrealistic sense of equality by “coursework assessments”. Grade inflation was the means of persuading parents that children were getting brighter and that a university education would transform working-class lives for young people. There was also a “gifted and talented” programme for anyone who could hold a pencil the right way up. Money was given to students in tertiary education, most of it went on drugs and booze. These were woolly and naive aspirations with “shonky” mechanics underpinning the social engineering.
However what has created the current Mental Health crisis amongst the young isn’t just the woolly New Labour thinking of their early childhoods or its less deranged but not yet wholly abolished form, today. It is the social and economic context within which all this naive social engineering was and still is operating. Add in the breakdown of all too many families, and the stress of single parenthood and you have just about the worst context within which to lack wealth, have debt and possess a second-rate degree.
The outcome of the whole lot; social engineering, educational tinkering and context, from 1997 to the present day has in too many instances resulted in more crime from the unemployed second generation ex-industrial and agricultural workers; and rising levels of mental health problems for the employed working and middle classes. So how do we analyse the problem at Blue Revolution? And what would we do to put it right?
Firstly the workplace was described as a place of opportunity for the new graduates. How many proud parents from derailed working class communities believed that a student loan was money well borrowed. Whilst their proper working class jobs might have been rendered uneconomic by the standards of the global labour market, their kids with degrees would be able to cut it with the worlds best. Or perhaps not. The market for degrees is unlike the state education system, overall fiercely meritocratic. Having borrowed to get their degree the youths returned to their working-class communities to the sort of work they were doing before they left. The additional problem for many was that unskilled migrants had taken up much of the “work offer” limiting opportunities whilst driving the wage level down to the minimum wage. (NB the minimum wage was needed by New Labour because without it mass immigration would have resulted in starvation wages for working people). The minimum wage has become the maximum wage for too many young people.
So that’s the impact of the unplanned for globalisation of labour, student loans and too few good jobs for the thousands of graduates the system churned out, immigration and the minimum wage. If that were not enough, what else has contributed towards the mental health problems of the young?
Well, “economic reality” affects the poorer young more than say someone like Euan Blair. Most of the graduates from the run of the mill Uni’s know they have been ripped off to help keep a supplicant socialist industry funded. Higher education (like most of the education sector) is the “intellectual” wing of the Labour Party and so who cares if a few poorer kids get into debt to fund this important left-wing leaning national industry.
So with all the disadvantages of competing at the bottom end of society, with debt and diminishing opportunities in their own communities, the poorer student has to stand back and watch as the sons and daughters of the elite, more often than not a taxpayer-funded elite, hoover up the few decent jobs that there are in what apart from “the City” remains the lucrative part of the labour market, the top ranks of politics and the public sector.
The students from poorer backgrounds have the same expectations as the Blairs. Blair was great at selling a dream. Unfortunately, it was a dream few could achieve. So the final insult to the poorer young and students is that they are given a sense of personal failure. This isn’t delivered in the usual way by pushy parents. Modern poorer parents are genuinely sad about their children’s limited opportunities with debt and worthless degrees, and sad about their own gullibility at believing the worthless Blair mantra “education, education, education”. So the expectation that creates the sense of personal failure is the hubris of new labour and it’s belief that supporting a client “industry” like education with student debt was a way of killing two birds with one stone and delivering “Cool Britannia” and making most of Britain’s young globally competitive.
Unfortunately, we can see now that with weak economic fundamentals this hubris is causing depression, feelings of hopelessness and catastrophe. This is however only amongst poorer kids with their debt, worthless degrees, no home too “own” and the prospect of losing what little inheritance they might get as the state, supporting another “industry”, cares for their ageing unemployed parents.
On a positive note, at least we can see the state sorting out the problem by piling money into “Mental Health”. Perhaps however if the present “state” were to shrink and let people run the country with some semblance of a constitutional monarchy we wouldn’t need a Mental health “industry” at all. Just a thought.
PC could stand for many things in addition to Political Correctness. It could stand for policy confusion, political censorship, psychological conditioning, or it could stand for proceed cautiously or it could stand for all four.
As economic determinists we believe we understand the urge for political correctness-after all we are more equal and deserving of respect. So it somehow feels right for the “PC brigade” to stand up for minorities. However whilst the historical process of tearing us away from tribe or feudal overlord is in the western world almost over, the process of achieving this was a legacy of capitalism. Capitalism’s need to establish bourgeois values like freedom based on contract, choice and consent meant that speech or thought, or expression should not be subject to illegitimate control as they had been in the centuries preceding the late 17th century. No wonder the hard left hate these values, they are after all bourgeois.
But bourgeois values are not the same as bourgeois institutions which (with the exception of the constitutional monarchy) the hard left want to maintain. They misunderstand the fundamental difference between bourgeois values and bourgeois institutions and they thus misunderstand how corrosive PC is to our bourgeois values and in particular freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
The bourgeois origins of our freedoms should not be used to dismiss their importance to us now. When we try to protect the more vulnerable members of our communities with PC values that strike before even the law can intervene, we are behaving in a pre bourgeois, and thus also a pre socialist and pre freedom way (socialism is capitalism’s first born!). The problem with PC is that it is essentially about protection from being “offended”. To the shiny new Oxbridge undergraduate who is excited about protecting the trans community or the disabled, PC isn’t seen as a justification for control. But it is just that. It is a means by which bourgeois values of freedom, including freedom of speech can be brought under someone’s control. With Political Correctness we are back in the pre capitalist world of illegitimate authority and control over thoughts and expression, control over ideas and behaviour. Control over who can think what and why.
To put this into some kind of perspective imagine if, after we had accepted that the bourgeois notion of “freedom of speech” could be compromised to avoid causing offence we were faced with a growing demand from people who felt “offended” about shaking a woman’s hand and demanded more segregation. Or people “offended” about unmarried parents and demanded controls on behaviour to prevent “illegitimate” children. We would be back in the 16th century.
Once you protect from “offence” where do you stop. In such situations as above the progressive legacy of our 18th century bourgeois revolution would have been squandered and progressive thinking reversed on the altar of trying to be nice and not offend.
To avoid a calamitous waste of three hundred years of bloodshed and social evolution we should all grow up, grow a thicker skin and continue to evolve as a species rather than return to an earlier simpler world where we are told what to think based on factors such as our gender, social position, race or sexuality. We no longer want people to know their place unless we are a hard left neandertal in which case we actually do. So with PC we say proceed with caution or simply abandon the project altogether.
In 2015 Oxford student Ntokozo Qwabe expressed the view that the statue of the patron of his Oxford scholarship should be removed as Cecil Rhodes was an imperialist and “looted Africa”. Ntokozo Qwabe’s view exemplifies the well-intentioned conflation of political correctness, moral relativism and anti-imperialism which has dominated the debate about Empire for a long time.
Of course, Empire was and still is “problematic” but not always in the way imagined.
When the likes of Rhodes and others took charge of parts of Africa they saw the potential to spread Christianity economic “freedom” and make money. Without being aware of it they proletarianised those who could be taken out of the tribe and placed in waged employment. Proletarianisation is the precursor of socialism.
With slavery diminished and urban tribalism in decline, these proletarianised workers were contracted or “freed” labour. They had, in theory, a choice for whom they worked. People will say that this was exploitation on a grand scale. We agree it is exploitation in a Marxian sense but disagree it was worse than tribalism if the end result became freedom from tribal oppression, particularly for women.
What Rhodes and others did was replace the poverty brutality and sexual discrimination of tribal life, it’s uncertainty and ritualistic practices and allowed more modern values and agricultural techniques to generate greater economic value in Africa. Greater value than the indigenous population could hope to have created by repeating ancient rituals and superstitions.
Now Ntokozo Qwabe makes a couple of points which whilst perhaps true, typify the limited and constrained nature of the debate. Firstly the value taken, what he describes as the “resources and labour of my people” were acquired by the Empire builders but they, in exchange, liberated people from what by modern standards would be seen as the horror of tribalism. Where this happened it spared some women the savagery of FGM and assisted people, in general, to create better lives for themselves. Well-intentioned westerners should reflect on tribal ritualism, gender-based and backed up by superstition before monstering Rhodes and his ilk.
In Africa and the Middle East today we have the collapse of feudal societies and their slide into tribalism. In Syria feudalism is sliding into tribalism and in Western inner cities, crime empires have for decades mirrored feudalism, now they resemble tribes. Capitalism has failed its global mission to proletarianised us all so the world can progress to socialism and beyond. Where this process has happened many more people benefit including Ntokozo Qwabe. Whilst not necessarily celebrating Rhodes we should at least have a balanced view of his and other Victorian’s long-term legacy.
Ntokozo Qwabe is benefitting from a western economic system that has liberated him and could go further and liberate his continent from religious separatism, tribalism fear and war if only he and others would stop bashing people like Rhodes.
What happens when the democratic process in the Western world fails to deliver elected administrations that can run the State and preserve the Nation on behalf of her people? In the past the solution to the problem of failing States was revolution of a gory and bloody kind. In Britain and the US and elsewhere, whole Nations of people are struggling to find a party who is capable of reflecting the complex demands of the 21st in the way their Nation is run by their State. Nations of individuals all of whom have different demands and expectations, be they social or economic are thus being let down by their State. Just look at the long term unemployed to see this failure at its most stark.
The problem for the Labour party is that it is a party of the Socialist State, not a party of the individual. Marx stated clearly a socialist’s job was to wrestle power, wealth and privilege off of the capitalist and create a socialist State. This is basically what we have now, a State that since WWII has introduced a system of state ownership, regulation and welfare. However Marx also said the story concludes with the State “withering away”. This withering away is the transfer of power to the people. The Labour Party can’t do it because socialism makes it is a party of the State. It would have to abolish itself in the process of passing “power to the people”. So a State run by a Labour Party under Corbyn will consolidate power not give it away….Scary stuff if you listen to them ranting on.
The Tories are not wedded to the notion of the state running the Nation like an expensive ideological experiment as are Labour. However their pragmatism maintains the status quo in a fast moving world. Thus we are left tottering on the kerb as the rest of the world shoots by. The Tories need to grasp that being less ideological, it is they who are best placed to deliver more power to the Nation’s People. But they are unlikely to do so for similar reasons to Labour. Preservation of the party brand.
To save the British Nation, Labour need to get over themselves as a party and hand power to the people not their party and the Tories need to realise that the future of Britain and the survival of her values is more important than even the Tory Party.
Dramatic things happen over centuries not decades. Since Britain consolidated into a “Nation” it has been run by something called the “State”. From time to time the “State” under performs whether that is a Plantagenet king or a whole system like the Feudal System. When that happens like today there is pressure for change and then a revolution.
Today we have a “State” that is indebting us. Each one of our two main parties wants to take over the “State” and run it badly, on our behalf. One party is well intentioned but committed to managing the “State” with no real understanding of what is wrong with it, the other wants to crank up the debt and control our lives on a scale unknown for hundreds of years. There is a real prospect that being a Tory or a Person of Jewish faith could become illegal the Corbyn “left” hate them so much.
What happens when the “State” has bankrupted the Nation and has consolidated its power. We don’t know yet, it will probably involve anti semitism and misogyny amongst other delights, but we know how it happens and it is happening now. Support a Blue Revolution and halt the decline.
The Labour Party conference was typical of a reunion of old left wing windbags. Living the dream of “smashing the hated Tories” decades after the Tories stopped being a threat to anyone but themselves. Corbyn really believes he has set the country on fire with his skilled orations. In reality though his supporters have no idea what is really going on, who is shafting who and what they should do about it. So they buy into the simplicities of 1970’s “socialism” because it is a familiar blast from the past for many, and beats returning to pot smoking or thinking for yourself. Get the megaphone out and chant “what do we want…..the Tories out…..when do we want it……NOW!” It’s a great way to stay fit and get some fresh air in middle age. For the Facebook generation it’s simply about shifting their debt onto the States books.
One thing Comrade Corbyn did get right however was that politics has drifted the “centre ground” to the left….He isn’t totally stupid. However the Tories having moved left don’t really have the intellectual heft to understand why they have had to do that. They think it is because Corbyn’s ideas are so compelling, to stand any chance of power in the future the gravity of politics has to move towards Corbyn. Of course this is nonsense.
Politics moved the centre ground to the right under the hated Blair and stayed right through Brown and Cameron emerging still right wing but failing under Mrs May. Up until the managerial Mrs May, there was a beautiful planetary alignment which saw a rather silly ideology consolidate around a handful of right wing simplicities. Most notable of these simplicities was a belief in the power of the liberated free market to deliver economic and social justice through personal and government debt.
Of course not only could an unregulated free market not deliver social justice, the economics of this system were brutal too, as the bottom 50% of the population saw their jobs disappear abroad, their wage levels pushed to the minimum wage by waves of unskilled migration, and their personal debt rocket to pay for an empty meaningless lifestyle which subsidised the top 50% with income from the poorer peoples personal debt.
This people is the most immoral system ever created by man. A system where the poor are forcibly indebted by their government to pay for a wealthy elite. It is slavery in all but name.
However the miserable saga doesn’t end there. Blair and Cameron and Osborne were convinced that this post industrial economic system would work. But of course it has to feed some kind of value in to support the debt and that value was the fluctuating value of stock and property which even when cleverly packaged as a “collateralised debt obligation” still failed the sniff test. Hence the aftermath in 2007/08
So with the western economic model still failing under the assumed auspicious conditions of the right….the only possible option for the average person is that there maybe something on the left that can sort out the obvious fact that Anglo Saxon economics is finished. And so we have Jeremy and his happy band of conned and deluded students and overweight 1970’s and 1980’s student activists complete with megaphones tempted back to perform angry protest. A sort of new Angry Brigade, all primed and ready to do business sorting out the system. But this will be by getting the poor old taxpayer into more debt whilst looking after the interests of the Labour party, its supporters and interest groups.
So what does Blue Revolution make of all this. Well we believe the western model is to coin a phrase a house built on sand. There is no way of avoiding the stark truth of that and so we need to stop talking politics based on parties and have a democracy based on realism, not short term party self interest.
We can’t afford the modern British state. The political Parties all want to run the State but they can’t, it’s unaffordable, unfit for purpose and needs massive reform. They can’t do that reform. The Left wing and the right wing have no suggestions as to how we can save our country and our culture so our country and culture are seriously at risk from them.
Oh and people wonder why there is an increase in Anti Semitism in the Labour Party. Apart from the religious composition of Northern Constituencies the reason is that they know that their policy of debt and more debt won’t solve the West’s or Britains problems and will only make matters significantly worse. Who do you blame when you have actually made matters worse, perhaps existentially worse. Well you don’t blame yourself or the people who vote for you…you blame mankind’s Shylock, Fagin or money lender….you blame the Jews. It was never your borrowing that is to blame….it was their lending! That is even if Jewish business still run the banks. Our guess is they got out of banking years ago!
So what of the party conferences. Well they have both reflected the shift left from Blairs shift right. But neither party has an answer as the answer is less of them and more of a State run democratically by people with the values morals and skills to do it properly in everyone’s interest. Not simply the short term party interest!
There was a time when to use a Marxist phrase politics was a petit-bourgeois activity. The players were like bankers and lawyers mere flunkies of the capitalist. At that time the political system was set up to efficiently manage the capitalist economy and ensure the competing needs of the big players, the landowners and men of capital, could have their differences reconciled without taking up arms. The whole process worked so well that by the 1750’s the British Empire spanned the globe bringing trade that would eventually liberate people from poverty and disease.
The 17th and 18th centuries were the period when a free people and a free capitalist class drove up economic value in such vast amounts that London was so wealthy it became a city of expensive architectural marvels. The Law Courts in London, the Naval HQ at Greenwich from where the Empire was policed and the end of slavery enforced, and of course Parliament itself. The Capitalist political model was adopted elsewhere in the world, notably the UAS signifying the success of the Bourgeois revolution…..or as it is known in Britain the “Glorious Revolution”.
Politicians were there to promote and protect this capitalist model and secure its future. The Monarch has by this time acquired a purely symbolic function and has discharged this role competently right up to the present day. And long may that part of the State continue. It is the least problematic part of the British State by a country mile.
The problem is that the capitalist model is now defunct! Lets stop there and think about that. How is the capitalist system defunct? Well to be capitalist, capitalism has to produce economic value by combining things like land and labour thus creating Goods and resources that can be traded for money. This money builds up as wealth. This wealth enables the rich to pay taxes and the state to function in the interests of the economic players the Capitalist and Landowners, and by the 20th century the workers too. If we accept this definition of capitalism, capitalism has had its heyday and has been replaced by the debt dependent “free market”.
The free market was an important element of the Capitalist system. Based on Contract, Choice and Consent it allowed “trade” to flourish. However without the economic underbelly of “capitalism” it has spawned a virulent form of immoral consumerism driven by debt. This consumerism is unsustainable, planet destroying and will eventually, like capitalism itself fail spectacularly. When this happens, and unless we prepare for a properly democratic “managed decline” involving ordinary people making decisions about their future, we are likely to lose the elements of Contract, Choice and Consent that were the kingpin of the last three hundred years of trade, freedom and democracy and find ourselves governed by an indifferent elite. Worse than now trust us!
So how do our modern western politicians fit into this doomsday scenario? Well as we said at the beginning they were originally there to promote the interests of the bourgeois economy and that bourgeois economy paid for the state and therefore paid them and those who administered the State.
Now of course the State pays for them with no bourgeois economy paying for the state. The State pays for almost everything else too. To meet its obligations the State relies on debt.
With the State indebting us up to our ears and ordinary taxpayers indebted up to their ears too, paying taxes on a salary that relatively speaking would have been too low to tax by 18th century standards, we are all paying hand over fist to keep a political, public sector and “free market elite” in well remunerated work but for no discernible reason. Frankly the old the young the taxpayer the planet and the indebted can no longer afford to support this outdated system.
Blue Revolution says “move over State elite and let the people take over, it’s our country and it’s our planet”.
The Autumn of discontent is a worthy enterprise for well intentioned students who having a youthful belief in the benign intentions of the State want to “take the fight to the politicians” in the hope that politicians are part of the solution.
In reality of course machine politicians are the problem. Serried ranks of party hacks all having one eye on their careers and the other eye on the opposition party’s activities, whilst the rest of us are ignored or “managed” to ensure the various right and left vested interests are protected and promoted. It is easy to see why people can be beguiled by politicians, and their parties, because the only way onto politics is via one. But being part of a party requires a certain amount of abandoning of principles and promoting “groups” who are sympathetic with the party in question.
Students are a case in point. Student debt keeps the left wing educational establishment in work whilst transferring wealth from poor families to universities either as government debt (paid for out of taxation) or student loans. Other examples are the future pauperisation of the future young via payments for elderly care out of the elderly’s current wealth. How long before the State decides that in addition to covering elderly care out of inheritable wealth student loans can be paid out of actual inherited wealth. The State and its new industries like elderly care, education, child welfare, domestic abuse and crime all need paying for and tax can and will only go so far.
Young people should realise that socialists just want to turn the state into the Nation’s employer of choice for well…. left wing intellectual people who have no connection with the real working class. The bill of course is picked up by the poor old workers. The Conservatives want to do the right thing but in a system that can’t and has rarely ever delivered the “right thing”. They will and currently are doomed to fail. Corbyn is right about that.
We offer this warning to the young and old alike; just remember that your interests and the interests of the planet are not aligned with the interests of the State. The State is an 18th century institution designed to prevent civil war and to manage opposition using a crude binary model of government and opposition. In the two or three hundred years it has existed in its modern form it has done well to promote vested interests on left and right. Those interests are no more about ordinary people’s interests now than they have ever have been before.
Socialism and Corbyn’s “left” are as much part of the State as they are unashamedly about “the Labour Party”and its 1840’s values. They are “socialists”. Socialism is not about liberating the people it is about the party, and delivering the Party’s programme.
Only Blue revolution wants to bring together ordinary people in a new politics for the 21st century and re build Britain from the neighbourhood up! Not Parliament down.
Well it’s not feudalism? What do you call it when the ordinary tax-payer subsidizes labour? well it isn’t socialism? So what is it called when the ordinary taxpayer subsidizes capital? Well its not capitalism and it is probably the biggest rip off in world history. The land, the poor and the planet, are having to pay the price!! We need a planet saving, freedom promoting and capital preserving Blue Revolution!
This issue of the relationship between society and its means of production is elemental to our understanding how and why the world is as it is today and the likely success of the competing ideologies that are starting to wrestle for influence or supremacy in a world made fluid by the end, through bankruptcy, of the anglo/US two hundred year old trading hegemony.
How does it work? Well Feudalism is the theft of land value by an elite. The system has some legitimacy because only the elite are capable of maintaining order and thus making this economic model work. However once the land is subsidised by government it marks the end of land related authority. Should the land be subsidized? probably not! But neither should it simply be monetised by house building. This turns land value into cash for the few and not for the pleasure of the many.
Beyond land based economic models we move to Capitalism and its massive productive output. Workers paid wages to enable them to create economic value for the capitalists. The Capitalists have supremacy. The State and the wage bill is paid by them but they still get a good return and political power. Socialism by contrast takes much of the Capitalists value and turns it into state expenditure. Subsidizing labour to the tune of health, welfare and pensions expenditure. Note it is the Capitalist who is paying the bill for welfare on the whole, either directly or via the taxation levied on their workers.
Finally the end of this civilised model comes when capitalism can’t support the state or the States “socialist” aspirations and also can’t support itself as an economic system (i930’s then 1980’s and 2007/8 and finally 20??). At that point the Capitalist system is essentially dead and needs putting down but that could lead to social chaos. So the elite seizing an opportunity to make money put it on life support. That life support is a regime of taxpayer funded government and personal debt. The capitalist system is now no more than a valueless free market lantern show of of some of capitalism’s past glories such as “profit”. “Profit” is used to justify wealth for those who consider their wealth to be “legitimately” earned. There is no “legitimate” wealth in this system as the system produces no real value based wealth just debt.
The problem as we at Blue Revolution continually argue, is that the values (contract, choice and consent) that two hundred years ago transformed feudalism into capitalism and the values that transformed capitalism into socialism in Britain (health, and welfare), will likely disappear when the final embers of the unsustainable free market go cold. Then what?