To: Elliot, Horse, Gav, Squonk, Andre and Platt
From: Rog
HORSE:
Capitalism is a static pattern of Value. The "Free Market" is dynamic and is
the tool that capitalism has latched onto.
What is referred to as a "Free" market is not free at all but constrained
and interfered with by mainly capitalistic systems - i.e. USA, UK and Europe
in general
(think Trade tariffs) and all the major corporate world players. I would be
absolutely
delighted if someone would introduce me to a real "Free" market and not the
castrated
joke that currently passes for it.
ROG:
For once we agree on economics! History can be oversimplified as an almost
endless pattern of exploitation. Those with power use violence or the threat
of violence to mitigate other's freedom for their own benefit.
On the other hand, the ideal of a free market implies people doing what they
choose -- freely exchanging the output of their labor for that produced
freely by others.
Free markets can spontaneously emerge where people get together and agree to
the cooperative exchange of goods and services. However, those with power
have routinely used it to suppress free cooperation and replace it with
situations stacked in their favor. Every once in a while though, conditions
were right to sufficiently suppress exploitation to allow a relatively free
market to emerge.
England -- circa the late 18th century -- was one such obvious anomaly. The
pattern of property rights, the rule of law, individualism and honest
exchange gathered just enough momentum during this era that Adam Smith was
able to spot some emerging economic patterns. He noted that in an economy
where people were free to pursue their own interest and where they could
freely exchange their goods and services, that society as a whole benefited.
Like some kind of "invisible hand," broader social progress was possible
through the interactions of countless people focusing on their own welfare.
The system that emerged was incredibly dynamic at generating wealth and at
transmitting knowledge through the economy (on such things as supply and
demand) via the change of prices.
Of course, the system then was FAR from ideal, and it still isn't close to
perfect today either. Over time, we have learned that successful free
markets require certain underlying conditions and that they can only be
sustained with active governmental support. In addition, free markets are
notoriously ineffective at addressing many social needs. For example, they
are bad at managing the efficient use of common resources or at protecting
the environment. Many of the criticisms of free enterprise are related NOT
to the actual workings of the system, but rather:
1) to remaining distortions in the system (tarrifs, monopolies, cronyism,
corruption, gross power imbalances, etc), and
2) to errors in assuming that it can solve problems beyond its scope (tragedy
of the commons, environmental destruction, social safety nets, etc).
HORSE:
In fact capitalism is not even too happy about a "Free" market as this would
allow a level playing field - something many nations have been trying to
attain for many
years - but unfortunately this is unlikely to happen as the
corporate/national interests
will hamper any attempt at a truly free market.
Does anyone here actually believe that the likes of Microsoft et.al. want
the sort of competition that is a feature of a "Free" market?
ROG:
What is best for broader society is of course not the same as what is best
for the selfish needs of the powerful. The wealthy and powerful routinely
attempt to take advantage of their status. They actively undermine the
freedom of the market for their own gain at the expense of others. Wealthy
nations protect their pet industry at the expense of other people and other
industries. Large businesses strive for the easy route of monopoly or
government favor. Unions strive for special treatment and protection.
Attorneys vie for the redistribution of income toward their favor. Farmers
want subsidies. Government employees pursue mandates for personal reward.
And so on...
In summary, we seem to be agreeing. The problem with free enterprise isn't
with free enterprise, it is that markets aren't actually free enough
(combined with the mistake of expecting free markets to solve the various
problems that they are incapable of addressing alone).
HORSE:
A market is free or it is not free. This means that it is unconstrained and
access is
unrestricted - i.e.it is dynamic . This is obviously not the case and has not
been the case
in my lifetime or yours. The supposed "free market" therefore does not exist.
It's an
empty phrase rolled out at (in)appropriate moments for a gullible audience.
> So are the economies of the USA,
> Europe and the Far East (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) dynamic or not?
No. The above economies are regulated and manipulated to the point where the
idea of
a dynamic and unrestrained economy/market is a joke.
ROG:
I have already stated that we are far from any ideal free marketplace.
However, the perfect isn't the enemy of the good. The point is that some
markets are freer than others, some societies control power abuses better,
some are substantially more dynamic, and some have a much better track record
of generating prosperity. Taiwan has been substantially more free, more
creative, more dynamic and more successful than Afghanistan, for example.
Furthermore, it is easy to track the improvement in societies that transition
from less-free markets to more-free markets (Tanzania, India, China, etc),
and the relative deterioration when they go the other way (Great Britain
briefly after WWII, Sweden, etc)
GAV:
...entrusting the running of the world to an abstraction called 'the
market' (which is a central feature of unrestrained free market capitalism)
is doing us all great damage. we need a dynamic intellectual approach to
life. we need democracy.
ROG:
I agree with Gav here too. Unrestrained capitalism will indeed do great
damage. A healthy free market system needs to be carefully nourished and
contained to problems that it is is capable of addressing. Many social
issues will require solutions other than free markets. On the other hand,
"government solutions" are notorious for their tendencies to themselves
distort free markets, and must therefore be used judiciously. Government
factions are as prone as any other center-of-influence to abuse power to
limit others' freedom.
SQUONK:
An intellectually directed society is by definition socialist in that an
intellectually directed society will repress biological patterns and support
intellectual patterns. Capitalism is dynamic full stop and that means there
are no guarantees intellectual values will direct anything, and a good deal
of evidence to suggest that capitalism supports biological greed, fear,
insecurity and ignorance...
ROG:
I am not sure what definition of "socialism" you are working off of. If you
mean that capitalism is insufficient and that democratic solutions to social
problems need to supplement capitalism, then I agree. If you are advocating
the type of socialism that screwed up the USSR, China, N Korea and Cuba, then
I disagree and suggest that the evidence is overwhelmingly unsupportive of
such a position.
ANDRE:
capitalism is a static pattern of little (or no) value to millions of
starving, thirsty people
capitalism is a static pattern of great value to those who know how to milk
populations
ROG:
I disagree. Free markets have been the most successful recipe ever for the
fulfillment of material needs (ie food, shelter, transportation, etc).
"Milking populations" is not a characteristic of successful free enterprise,
it is a characteristic of exploitation and the abuse of power.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST