Or, equally simplistic, the system exists and it uses us. And I can certainly point to instances where the free market system has placed people in thrall to it. Just one of many: coal miners of the last era, rented their tools from the company, paid in company scrip, used up and discarded like chattel. Like property. People are not property, they are not to be treated like property. That is a fundamental for me, not negotiable, not subject to revision. YMMV.
But we argue naught. The “free market” system is long dead. All we argue these days is the nature of the restrictions and regulations, and who they favor, and who they should properly favor. We owe this largely to the bravery and determination of the labor movement. The free market did not bestow an 8 hour day, nor child labor laws, nor pensions. It did not drop from the kindly and benificent hands of the wealthy. It was struggled for, fought for, and bitterly paid for. You can find the story in your children’s history books, right there on page 148 “There was a labor movment. Lots of people were in it. But we don’t need it anymore, 'cause everything is so peachy.”
That’s different than the way I read your earlier post. Maybe it was my mistake, but it sounded like you were say the free market necessarily and always puts property above people. But the conditions you describe above could just as easily be said to be attributed to governments, which have routinely enlsaved millions (real slavery, not “wage slavery”) throughout the ages. That neither argues for nor against “government”, per se.
But the mistake you are making is arguing that the labor movement, or labor itself, is a force OUTSIDE the free market. It isn’t-- it’s just as much a part of market forces as are businesses and business owners. The question is whether the government should favor one “class” over the other. Clearlly, governments have often favored business owners over workers, and that’s bad. Fixing that by having the government favor workers over business owners is no solution. The government should secure freedom for its citizens and allow the free exchange of ideas, goods and services between free people without prejudice.
Come on, Rick. You know very well that violence is not confined to striking workers. As a staunchly free market guy, I have nothing against labor unions. In fact, I think they’re great. As I said above, that side of the equation is just as much a “market force” as is a business owner wanting to pay his workers as little as possible. The problem arises when anyone, either owners or workers, gets the government to favor his position over someone else’s.
Men are not dogs. And one man has the right to work, just as another has the right to refuse, and several have the right to collectively organize.
I have nothing against labor unions THAT WORK WITHIN THE LAW. A strike, a walkout, I can deal with. Everyone has the right to say to their employer, individually or collectibely, “I won’t work here unless you pay me X.”
What I condemn is the labor union that reacts to an employer’s response of, “Fine - I’ll hire someone else,” by saying “No, you won’t, because if anyone else tries to work for you, I’ll break their heads, slash their tires, threaten their families.”
And you’re right – violence isn’t confined to labor. I condemn a company that seeks to prevent unions forming or striking by violence, too.
But to pretend that labor unions are lily white, noble defenders of the good is a bit over the top.
Fine. But you should realize that your earlier post implied that labor unions achieved their goals ONLY thru violence. Why foment a pissing contest unecessarily? ‘**luc **was correct in stating that union organizers were often courageous pioneers, especially in the early years when governments were so heavily slanted towards property owners. I’d also point out that business owners were often courageous pioneers, too. I don’t see the need for either side to "score points’ in order to support the value of the free market-- it can and should be used by everyone regardless of his role in that market.
Well, yeah. But theres problems and then there’s Problems! It has to do with famous and time honored principle of the accumulation of rights. The more people who have the problem, the bigger the problem is.
Now, lets say we have Group A, owns all the stuff, lets call them, oh, just pick something at random,…“ruling class”. I think its safe to say, with an historical perspective, that this group of people is smaller, numericly. Not as many individual rights to aggregate.
Group B…lets call them “working class”, what the heck, right?.. constitute a great majority of the population, comparatively speaking. A big honking majority, way more even than a crushing landslide of a mandate.
Thus, we see by the time honored principle above, that a government that favors the ruling class is more of a problem than a government that favors the rest of us. The difference becomes between a governance that is somewhat unjust and one that is intolerably unjust. There are many instances of this latter, malefic form of government. I’d cite them all for you, but the doctor says I only have about 40 more years to live…
In my book, rights is rights, and everyone has the same ones-- no more no less.
If you’re talking about legislation, and who has more VOTES, then there’s clearly no argument. And the “downtrodden” class is surely free within the bounds of democracy to vote themselves a $100/hr minimum wage. That would be just and democratic and fine, but it would still be a foolish thing to do.
If you want the government to aleviate the problem of poverty, then give poor people direct assistance from general revenues (taxes). No need to farck up the market with things like min wage laws which are a blunt, indirect form of welfare.
And that’s a perfect example of two different policy approaches with the same goal. Both parties could benefit from looking at policies that solve real problems with minimal infterference in the market. Arguing about whether the min wage should be $5 or $8 is nonsensical, to me. Unfortunately, in the real world of Republicans and Democrats, that’s all there is. So, given only those two choices, I’ll argue for $5.
Organise into a democracy which chooses to prevent the suffering and oppression of unfettered capitalism, which can be tyrannical as any authoritarian government, and only enforce property privilege insofar as it does not make a man a slave to another who “owns” everything necessary for the very survival of the first.
However, the amorality of the market depends on how one defines what a market is. In abstract (or from a macro-economic or uber-systematic), the market as it functions is indeed amoral. However, the very foundation of a market rests atop very moral considerations. I’m sure you are familiar with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. But that text grew out of Smith’s earlier work as a moral philosopher (example: Theory of Moral Sentiments). He may have argued that a free market system as it functions is an amoral system; however, the foundation for such an amoral system is based on moral considerations - especially a sense of justice. Lacking that, no free market economy could function (respect for law, property rights, enfocement of contracts, etc.)
Economics can posit homo economicus in order to understand how a given economy functions (or should function given certain assumptions/constraints).
But homo economicus is a theoretical abstraction. The majority of people who take part in a market are not completely amoral; to assume this is to assume that the majority of people are sociopaths. If this were true, then a market economy (as we know it) wouldn’t function in the manner that it does. After all, if I’m a sociopath (and others are sociopaths), why should we care whether we abide by the rules (based on some sense of morality or justice) that allow the market to function?
Besides - the law of gravity example doesn’t apply to markets. The law of Gravity exists whether we exist or not. However, a market is a purely human phenomenon; no humans, no market. And humans can change systems/institutions that they create.
Sorry, Shodan - I’m not trying to pick a fight. I tend to agree with you that a free market as it functions is amoral. It’s like a machine. However, the manner in which it is created (the rules, so to speak, on how that machine functions) rests on moral considerations.
Certainly the ends that we choose to pursue can be moral (or immoral). But this does not affect the part of economics that I was talking about. What I meant was the laws of economics, which operate regardless of whether the ends are moral or not. Thus it is like gravity, or the laws of physics.
Stone is hard. This is an amoral proposition. I can use the stone to build a house for my family, which is moral, or I can use it to crush the head of someone so I can rob him, which is not. The law that “stones are hard” does not change.
Similarly, I can use the laws of economics to pursue the common good, or I can rob banks. The law of supply and demand, however, does not change. It will affect my behavior no matter what that behavior is.
As for your point that moral considerations like property rights and contracts being a necessary presupposition for economic law to operate, I also don’t really agree.
Consider how evolutionary biology can be seen in economic terms. The end “chosen” by evolving organisms is to produce viable offspring, which is more or less amoral. But it is instructive to think of the process of evolution in economic terms, as a struggle for market share and the exploitation of market/evolutionary niches. Plants don’t choose morality, but they are subject to the same issues of marketing (flowers and nectar), market share (cooperation vs. competition), and opportunity costs that any business owner has to resolve.
You see what I mean? The same laws operate regardless of whether the ones involved are moral agents or not. This is true even without any common consensus beyond self-interest.
Not really. Market economies, even token economies, can and do arise in environments like prisons, where sociopaths are heavily overrepresented.
What I am saying is that I don’t think anyone really chooses whether or not to be subject to the laws of economics. Those laws operate regardless. Certainly we can choose to act morally, or try to bring about moral ends, thru economic decisions. But the laws are going to operate on those decisions just as they do on people choosing to commit crimes. One of the most fascinating stories of the 20[sup]th[/sup] was that of the USSR - a major country attempting to declare itself outside the realm of the marketplace. With what results, I am sure we do not need to document.
Part of what I am saying is that I don’t believe we can change the laws of economics. And those laws, in some sense, apply to non-human species as well as humans. And I tend to believe that this is more than a function of human psychology. I would bet that if and when we encounter alien species, in some sense we will be able to do business with them. That is, if we have any interests in common with them at all.
Not at all. This is the sort of thing I come to the SDMB for.
The rest of that post still stands, then: the benefits to workers of a relatively small increase in the minimum wage, at current levels, far outweigh the costs in terms of increased unemployment.
That’s a terrific example! Yes, the minimum wage was increased under Reich. And the effects on employment were…well, employment was increasing so fast in the late 1990s that any countervailing effect caused by the min-wage hike was hardly noticed.
My simple rule is: when there’s a lot of money sloshing around at the top, and workers don’t have much leverage relative to employers (kinda the normal state of affairs these days), (a) employers tend to pay workers less than they’re worth to the employer simply because they can, and (b) if the minimum wage goes up, most employers can afford it. IANAE, but the logic’s pretty obvious.
Right now I’m sitting ten feet above the ground, typing away effortlessly. This is because, more immediately underneath me, is a thing called a ‘floor’.
There are things like that in economics, too. Gravitational and market forces aren’t all that different.
No, it’s not. Gravity happens whether I do anything about it or not. So does chemistry. But economics doesn’t happen until two people make a deal. It’s a purely social phenomenon. The people who make the deals can change the terms of the deals. Let me know the next time you make a deal with light to get it travel slower in exchange for tachyons going faster.
The notion that economics is an implacable force of nature is very much something that free market types would like us to believe, because then economists don’t have to deal with the fact that when “the economy” leaves families destitute and leads to slavelike conditions (as in China) they don’t have to deal with the fact that it’s one group of people screwing the hell out of another group of people, for money.
Economics is a social phenom, and COMPLETELY subject to moral considerations.
[/QUOTE]
Well, first of all, you DON’T do things like that dumb-ass tax cut for the rich that Dubya got passed. It’s not gonna do ANYTHING for anybody but make the jobs of a few tax accountants for the rich easier. And you oppose outsourcing because that’s shipping high-paying middle-class jobs overseas, in the case of programmers, and it’s causing problems for lower middle class folks in the case of call centers. Maybe you penalize companies that do it, maybe you find a more subtle method.
You also do some things that free markets like, such as make it as easy as possible for small businesses to start up and to compete against big businesses. You make it as easy as possible for people to get training and certification for in-demand jobs (if any).
And when you find yourself in a position where companies are doing very well, making huge profits, yet jobs remain scarce and what jobs there are tend to be low-paying service-sector jobs, you figure something is wrong and start programs to deal with the situation, instead of just hailing the glorious victory of the free market over … your citizens.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the laws of economics”. As I understand it, the discipline of economics can be defined as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. In simpler terms, economics is about choices.
Humans are forced to make choices - an existential fact. This is also an amoral proposition. But what choice I decide is made in the context of foregoing other choices I could have made.
Not quite sure what you mean the law of supply and demand. There is a law of supply and a law of demand. Together, these form the foundational basis for understanding how a market economy functions. But they aren’t iron-clad laws, only assumptions (granted, fairly logical ones based in part on empirical evidence). However, the assumptions underlying the law of supply and the law of demand can change depending on the context.
For example, there are goods which do not adhere to the law of demand. That is, under normal assumptions, if the price/value of a good increases, then demand will decrease. However, with some goods (say fine artwork) if the price/value of the good increases, the demand may also increases as well (or, more likely, remain constant).
Another example - the law of supply stipulates that with an increase in the price/value of something, the supply will correspondingly increase as well (under the assumption the suppliers are willing to provide more of the item to the market). However, if your market economy allows monopolies, than the increase in value/price of something could result in a reduction of its supply (or more likely, remain constant).
Plants and animals have similar existential constraints placed upon them as humans do - the fact that animals, plants, and humans are are forced to make choices. The difference is the range of choices that plants and animals can make versus the range of choices humans can make. Plants and animals are restricted in their choices largely by 1) instinct and 2) their environment.
Humans, on the other hand, have a much wider range of choices from which to choose. We aren’t as bound by instinct as plants and animals are; nor are we as totally restricted by the environment in which we find ourselves.
In addition, we have the mental capacity/conscious ability to weigh the pros and cons of a choice before we make our final decision (Should I choose X over Y? And if I do, what do I gain/lose by choosing X over Y? And vice versa?) Likewise, humans have the mental capacity/conscious ability to evaluate our decisions after the fact (Did I make the right decision? Was I choice I made a good one?).
The biology analogy would be a good if it could be demostrated that the choices that plants and animals make are the volitional equivalent of those made by agents in a market economy. In other words, the choices that humans make is no different from those made by plants and animals (no qualitative difference). In this sense, then I would agree that there would be an equivalent amorally - biological evolution and a market economy).
However, I can’t accept this for the fact that the choices faced by plants and animals is not volitionally equivalent (no qualitative difference) to the choices faced by human beings. It smacks too much of biological or environmental determinism. Yes, humans are biological entities that share some of the same biological/environmental constraints as plants and animals. But we also have a much greater capacity to confront/overcome those constraints than plants and animals due to our mental capacity/conscious ability. And with that ability comes a greater range of choices - especially volitional choices. And volitional choice, would in many people’s minds, imply values. And with values, morality.
Sociopath is a poor word choice on my part. I was using in the context of homo economicus - viewing human as amoral agents in the market. You are correct the token market economies can (and do) exist in prisons.
If you mean that humans are forced to make choices, then I would agree (if that is what you mean by the laws of economics). And I would agree that the law of supply and the law of demand would generally apply in a market economy. But that’s only if a market economy already exists (or something that could be considered approximately a market economy). After all, humans have lived in socieities with quite different economic systems. It’s just that, so far, given the current conditions, a market economy is the most “ecological viable/robust” economy to occur (to use your evolutionary schema).
Well, I agree that we can’t change the laws of economics in the sense that we can’t change the existential fact that we are forced to make choices. And I also agree that if we were to encounter another, sentinent alien species we would be able to do business with them. However, this is assuming that they wouldn’t see us as we see plants and animals. In other words, they may see as creatures which lack the volitional capacity (range of choices) that they themselves have
Others are arguing the min wage thing with skill, so I don’t think much input from me is needed.
The idea of supporting the poor with taxes instead of a min wage sounds fine to me. The main reason that a min wage (or a solution that accomplishes the same thing) is needed is that, inevitably, society contains people, often in large numbers, who work full time, pay their bills, obey the laws, but nevertheless live in “poverty.”
There are about 2,000 work hours in a year (250 days x 8 hours). Even if the minimum wage were $7.00/hour, that’s just $14,000 a year, assuming no paid time off. That is not enough for a person to support just himself, much less a family.
I ask you this question: What does it mean when a person is a decent citizen and works full time but can barely make ends meet? Why is it that our wealthy economy can’t give everyone who is working a certain base level of reward for their efforts?
If you answer that the job isn’t worth the money, hence it doesn’t pay well, there is still the social issue of what to do with our citizens whose skill sets or abilities put them in that position. If you do not grant them a base level of reward, you get class envy and social unrest.
At the end of the day, it is simply worth it to pay off the poor to keep them satisfied and peaceful.
Next topic. I think it’s funny how some of the libertarians here are able so facilely to divide what is truly “free market” from what is “government controlled,” etc. I’ve got news for you:
It’s ALL “free market behavior,” including the government regulation.
Someone selling pot on the street corner is reacting to market forces, despite the fact that it’s illegal and the government is “controlling” it. Likewise, no matter what the SEC says, some big accounting firms and investment banks are going to engage in illegal behavior simply because they figure that the mathematically expectee benefit is positive (ie, potential fine x chance of getting caught is not enough of a deterrent).
People getting sick of one thing or another and getting the government to enact a law (minimum wage, open shop, whatever) so that the policy is supported by the threat of incarceration or violence (because that’s what it is, all told), are also just acting in what they perceive to be their best interests. Similarly, the cartel of capital attempts to put the power of the state behind its own initiatives.
There are grisly market failures and inefficiencies out there; why market fundamentalists refuse to recognize them comes down to faith and piety. The fact that the market can’t stop a company from polluting a river (since they don’t pay the price for same) is just one example.
The libertarian faithful are just going to have to admit (if they wish to be taken seriously, hah!) the following:
There is not a country in the world where their ideal “free market” exists. Not one. The reason being that a modern state cannot function under such conditions.
Well said indeed. The only way one can declare “ownership” is by force or threat thereof. The force available to a government simply trumps that available to individuals who “own” more than other individuals: the extent and manner in which that government exercises that force determines whether it is an autocratic (total force), democratic (force decided by everybody) or plutocratic (no force) government.
