![watching free gay movies watching free gay movies](https://www.pride.com/sites/default/files/2016/06/17/here-tv-freebies.jpg)
"Free speech" is another freedom that turns on wealth. (You can also get the government to subsidize you - Musk has received a reported $4.9 billion so far.) That’s what the super-rich do. There’s no “free market” in nature. The “free market” depends on laws and rules. If you have enough money, you can lobby (bribe) legislators to make changes in those laws and rules that make you even more money. The raiders altered the “free market” to allow them to do this. They pushed America from stakeholder capitalism (where workers and communities had a say in what corporations did) to shareholder capitalism (where the sole corporate goal is to maximize shareholder value). Inequality skyrocketed, insecurity soared, vast swaths of America were abandoned, and millions of good jobs vanished. But the raiders’ antics often imposed huge social costs. Their MO was to find corporations whose assets were worth more than their stock value, borrow against them, acquire enough shares to force them to cut costs (such as laying off workers, abandoning their communities, busting unions, and taking on crushing debt), and cash in.
![watching free gay movies watching free gay movies](https://img.yesmovies.mn/xxrz/250x400/333/56/05/56054a2a554a5be511da378209b90530/56054a2a554a5be511da378209b90530.jpg)
Then came corporate raiders like Carl Icahn and Michael Milken. Before then, laws and regulations constrained them. Unfriendly takeovers, such as Musk threatens to mount at Twitter, weren’t part of the “free market” until the late 1970s and early 1980s. The “free market” increasingly reflects the demands of big money. They want to use their vast fortunes to do whatever they please - unconstrained by laws or regulations, shareholders, even consumers. They actually seek freedom from accountability. When billionaires like Elon Musk justify their motives by using “freedom,” beware. Musk says no one should object to what he wants to do with Twitter because he’s a “free speech absolutist,” and who can be against free speech? Besides (he and his apologists say) if consumers don’t like what he does with Twitter, they can go elsewhere.