Thanks 2sense! And thanks jshore for the Frank refresher.
erislover: I had said: “…but the “free market” adds a dimension of unreality.”
eris replied: "hah! Adds unreality to a myth? 
No, not at all. Please re-read my post. Market forces are very real. Indeed, I take them to be more real than you do, apparently. What is “mythical” is the freedom attributed to markets.
[deregulated broadcasting industry has resulted in less freedom of choice not more]
eris: “I agree that the very presence of government makes a free markets impossible, and the converse would be true as well: a completely free market renders governments impossible.”
Excellent. Here we are at last on the same page. Markets and governments are mutually intertwined. The only question worth debating is how much government interference is required. Hence, the term “free” market is totally misleading. However, one might reasonably use the term “freer” markets.
“But monopolies don’t render free markets impossible.”
Ah, now you’re onto a very interesting point indeed. For the purpose of shorter arguments, let us call a market “deregulated” when government interference has been reduced to the bare minimum. Now, yes, indeed, monopolies aren’t at all inconsistent with deregulated markets. Quite the contrary: deregulated markets tend to produce monopolies. We see this trend just about everywhere that deregulation has taken place.
“I don’t understand what you mean by “excessive” corporate power; how much more excessive can they be than our government is now?”
As far as the market goes, much, much more. Let us take the broadcasting industry, first deregulated in the 1980s and then deregulated again in the 1996. What this did was increase the number of radio stations that any one corporate entity could own. The situation it has led to is that a very small number of companies now own the vast majority of radio stations in the US. To make them as profitable as possible they play computer-generated playlists, adhere to boring formats, and target certain advertising demographics. This basically means that radio has lost all of its local flavor, that DJs have been reduced to computer accessories (whose main use is to “shock” a few people on morning or talk radio), and that the likelihood of your hearing anything unusual on the radio (unless you live way out in the sticks) has become almost nil.
A few years ago William Kennard, head of the FCC under Clinton responded to the public’s growing malaise with this situation by issuing a call for low power radio stations–b/c of new technology they would broadcast between the existing FM dial. There was huge support for this amongst citizens including community organizations, schools, church groups. To make a long story short, the measure was rescinded when the industry lobby falsely insisted lower power radio would interfere with their signal. Everyone new this was technologically bogus; the real reason was that the industry, an oligopoloy, feared COMPETITION. In the wake of this Congress not only rescinded the measure, they also reduced the power of the FCC chairman to issue such directives.
Now you tell me, erislover. Who’s more powerful: the National Association of Broadcasters, which spends millions of dollars buying up members of Congress, or William Kennard, chair of the FCC? In other words, what is more powerful, an oligopolistic industry or the government’s ability to curtail the will of that industry?. And where do you and I stand in all of this. We get the mantra of “If you don’t like it change the channel.” What William Kennard tried to give us was the opportunity to make that choice slightly more meaningful to us; and look what happened.
“You were quick to state that the free market was a myth. I agreed, and say that all markets are a myth, just like governments.”
Well I don’t see how you can call “all markets” or all “governments” a myth when they have such strong empirical existence and tangible influence over our lives. There’s a difference between an abstraction–a term such as market forces used to describe the sum total of complex interactions–and a “myth”–an illusion of something that exists when it does not. Markets exist. Governments exist.
If you doubt that, go shopping and register your car ;).
“Oh, i think market forces are real, too. They just come from people or their unconscious decisions which affect the environment (meaning “there is no more oil” or “shoe prices have skyrocketed”— so both in a ‘nature’ sense and a societal one).”
Here you reduce “market forces” to the choices of consumers. What you leave it is all of the things that happen prior to consumers having choices to make. Before consumers choose there has to be production, then there is marketing and advertising, then finally there is consumer choice. Think for example of all the scripts circulating around Hollywood, or the ideas for new TV shows that never make it past the boardroom. You can’t “choose” to see them (or not), because they will never get to the market in the first place. In this respects markets work very badly indeed. What tends to happen in the culture industry (but also in other sectors) is that consumers really value an original product. So an original product, often costing very little money, will make it onto the silver screen, generate huge profits, and the studios, who are loath to take risks respond irrationally by imitating the original idea. But this is exactly what consumers didn’t want. They wanted originality; not the endless repetition of a once-novel theme.
“Market aren’t value-neutral, they simply don’t exist to serve values. They just are.”
This makes no sense erislover. You need to think this through more carefully. Markets exist to serve human needs and fulfill human desires. (They also function to create human desires, but let’s leave that out for the moment). Consumers are asked to make choices from what is available on the market. These choices reflect their values. Therefore markets exist (partly) to serve consumers’ values. A good example of this is the large number of organic and vegetarian products now available in mainstream supermarkets. This reflects Americans’ increasing “value” for healthy foods and/or animal-cruetly-free foods. Here markets have functioned relatively well. Indeed, not long ago the major food producers attempted to change the government’s definition of “organic.” Citizens rebelled with a massive protest. In this case corporations and their political buddies had to defer to consumer will.
“We may say something like “the market is currently set up to promote the destruction of the environment” because we see a trend of the environment being damaged. does that mean people who interact in the market value the destruction of the enviroment?”
No it doesn’t. You’ve hit the nail on the head! You can now see how markets often pervert people’s desires and reduce their freedom to express their values. If SUVs were marketed truthfully–as detrimental to the environment–few people would buy them. Instead they are marketed as image and power enhancing lifestyle accessories. People want to feel powerful and unique; but people also want a healthy environment. Markets here are playing to one side of consumers’ values, while carefully masking another.
I had written: "I want the same kind of market that Hazel wants: one that empowers individual consumers, respects their citizenship, values the environment, cultivates human (and economic) diversity. For the market to do that the state (or perhaps local government) has to play a regulatory role of some kind.
eris: “Why should the common man have such a powerful say in what how the market forces operate? I wouldn’t hire a person whose only experience and knowledge was in janitorial services to perform a kidney transplant on me.”
I’m not sure where you read into what I’ve written that I want the government to force you (an empowered individual consumer) to choose a janitor to perform your kidney surgery.
“One becomes a holder of significant economic power by working within the market constructs efficiently. This person has demonstrated they have what it takes to manipulate the market, something you want to do, but obviously can’t. Now, what would be a better method of serving your interests: trying to coax all the citizens of the US to agree with your idea of how a market should operate or the few men who have demonstrated their ability to interact in the market with stunning success?”
Actually, I think most people already want better television than Rupert Murdoch wants to offer them. I think most people already want more software choice and better software choice that Bill Gates wants them to have (see the OP). Consumers often know when they are getting the shaft: I don’t need to persuade them of that. They just have forgotten how to act like citizens (at least some of the time) in order to empower themselves as consuemrs.
What you are leaning towards above is a fascist society wherein those who dominate the economy also dominate political and social life. IMO, that is not only not a very enjoyable prospect for you and me, it is only very unstable. The greatest peace and prosperity has come from societies in which power and wealth are distributed as equally as is possible. This requires a balance between government and markets: that balance can range between the US model and, as jshore pointed out, the Scandanavian model.
Like many an “Ayn Rand Lover” you seem to have an implicitly Nietzschean love of supermen; you seem to want both to be one and, failing that, to identify their achievements with your own personal desires. Consider: the last leader significantly influenced by Nietzsche’s philosophy was Adolf Hitler. That is not the way I want to go; and I think most Americans share my views. Insofar as economic inequalities begin to great vast differences in political power, a democracy ceases to be functional. I think most Americans want a functional democracy; not rule by an uber-elite of politician-buying corporate supermen.
Me, the one who seeks to remove the realm of politics from the market as much as possible? It seems to me that we both want a fascist state, then. I want a state where people make their economic decisions based on attempting to influence the market from within the market. I want a government where people attempt to govern themselves. I am not sure this is fascism.
Why one is somehow better than the other is, truly, beyond me.
It is a simple matter of people continuing to utilize a non-necessary commodity with which they are displeased. I still have no pity. Radio and television are payed for by advertisers; should no one watch, advertisers would leave quick. I would miss The Simpsons and Dark Angel, but I lived many years of my life without them and I can certainly do so again.