Why the markets won't save us
Imagine a board game, like Monopoly. Everytime you go around the board, you get $200 for passing go. Some people also like to place $500 under "Free parking" for anyone who lands there. At the beginning of the game every one has money, rent is low, and so everyone uses their inheritence (savings) to buy property to invest.
Overtime the commons get reduced and you start getting charged for more and more things that were previously free. No problem since you've got plenty of cash and investments to generate income for you.
But as the board gets built up a few players, by the roll of dice, and perhaps by prudent investments find themselves ahead of the rest, and they reinvest their income into larger properities to generate even more income.
The instructive thing about Monopoly is that it demonstrates the reality of all economic systems that reward success - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It's hard to have too much fun within the rules of Monopoly, but there are games to be played. Property can be traded in a cooperative way, benefitting both sides. AND if you really want to be hated in a 3-way race, you and your buddy can make each other's property rent free from each other. You can even loan/give money to your buddy to keep him from mortgaging his property when you're trying to defeat a common opponent.
It is perfectly reasonable that two or more players might behave cooperatively, and decide to "share" the world, but power is corrupting, and self-interest doesn't clearly allow evaluation of what's in the best interest for everyone. Do I "allow" my competitor to stay in business if I think I've got a better product, if I've got resources to expand and replace his market share?
It is reassuring to think merely "necessity is the mother of invention" and when the shit hits the fan, that the greed of the market will take on the new opportunities created. We can even say that's what nature does - when conditions change and some species fail, others are ready to fill in the holes.
What place is there for compassion and goodwill towards the losers of life? I really do think individuals often make short term decisions against their long term best interest, myself included. Why shouldn't accountability exist for these failures? What good does it do to coddle those who are not mature enough to handle what they have prudently?
Perhaps useless as abstract questions. I suppose questions are reduced to power, and so the question is how individuals can cooperate. Markets under pure competition tend towards eliminating players until a monopoly comes out. Further, speeding up this process cooperative companies can use their mutual strengths to eliminate their competitors.
Free markets demand equal access to information, equal opportunity to participate. If I have inside information that scandal is about to break so I can sell my stock before others, I can take my winnings out before the price falls.
I suppose this leads to my title - why markets won't save us. Markets are good at concentrating wealth and resources towards creating access to new wealth and resources but what does a market do in times of contraction?
When the bear comes out in one market, the investors fly south for the winter, look for alternative markets. But what if all markets become bears?
What if - without continued expansion fossil fuel availability - all markets begin to shrink. What will the big players do? I don't easily believe in the "trickle down" economic theory, except perhaps in special times when resources are growing fast enough.
So what do I mean markets won't save us? Maybe most simply I mean individual wealth means everyone digs in when the bears come out, and the best long term solutions are neglected for a lack of cooperative vision.
This suggest the obvious solution - why governments are needed - to identify a common vision and create incentives towards it. I can understand the market frustrations against government interference, and that a "planned economy" means unforeseen consequences that are counter productive, or even that might delay needed failures for reform.
Maybe the WORST thing governments do is to support stability. I accept the basic idea that markets are always unstable in the long term - that they promote concentrations of wealth and power until unmet needs by those on the bottom finally dissolve their loyalty to the system. The problem with concentration of wealth is it can not help but gain unfair access to power, and because the failure of such wealth would upset the economy too much, they are free to take on risk that they should not, and are protected from this risk unfairly.
Well, anyway, I feel bad about my arrogant title, won't change it. I have no answers. We'll all face with risk and reward, and there's no clear fairness of result. I know my personal response to risk is to withdraw, and I know this response times 100 million means unpredictable collapse.
I can't fault the government for supporting an unsustainable path that looks good in the short term. I know neither government nor capitalism can save us.
Our saviors come from all the ancient personal virtues - chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, forgiveness, kindness, and humility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues
Well, I like the idea of personal choice as making a difference, although more than words, I know real change means a change of myths that support these virtues. Most of all I like the inward challenge, lead by example, and you can't easily judge your neighbor's virtues or vices while following your own!
Overtime the commons get reduced and you start getting charged for more and more things that were previously free. No problem since you've got plenty of cash and investments to generate income for you.
But as the board gets built up a few players, by the roll of dice, and perhaps by prudent investments find themselves ahead of the rest, and they reinvest their income into larger properities to generate even more income.
The instructive thing about Monopoly is that it demonstrates the reality of all economic systems that reward success - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It's hard to have too much fun within the rules of Monopoly, but there are games to be played. Property can be traded in a cooperative way, benefitting both sides. AND if you really want to be hated in a 3-way race, you and your buddy can make each other's property rent free from each other. You can even loan/give money to your buddy to keep him from mortgaging his property when you're trying to defeat a common opponent.
It is perfectly reasonable that two or more players might behave cooperatively, and decide to "share" the world, but power is corrupting, and self-interest doesn't clearly allow evaluation of what's in the best interest for everyone. Do I "allow" my competitor to stay in business if I think I've got a better product, if I've got resources to expand and replace his market share?
It is reassuring to think merely "necessity is the mother of invention" and when the shit hits the fan, that the greed of the market will take on the new opportunities created. We can even say that's what nature does - when conditions change and some species fail, others are ready to fill in the holes.
What place is there for compassion and goodwill towards the losers of life? I really do think individuals often make short term decisions against their long term best interest, myself included. Why shouldn't accountability exist for these failures? What good does it do to coddle those who are not mature enough to handle what they have prudently?
Perhaps useless as abstract questions. I suppose questions are reduced to power, and so the question is how individuals can cooperate. Markets under pure competition tend towards eliminating players until a monopoly comes out. Further, speeding up this process cooperative companies can use their mutual strengths to eliminate their competitors.
Free markets demand equal access to information, equal opportunity to participate. If I have inside information that scandal is about to break so I can sell my stock before others, I can take my winnings out before the price falls.
I suppose this leads to my title - why markets won't save us. Markets are good at concentrating wealth and resources towards creating access to new wealth and resources but what does a market do in times of contraction?
When the bear comes out in one market, the investors fly south for the winter, look for alternative markets. But what if all markets become bears?
What if - without continued expansion fossil fuel availability - all markets begin to shrink. What will the big players do? I don't easily believe in the "trickle down" economic theory, except perhaps in special times when resources are growing fast enough.
So what do I mean markets won't save us? Maybe most simply I mean individual wealth means everyone digs in when the bears come out, and the best long term solutions are neglected for a lack of cooperative vision.
This suggest the obvious solution - why governments are needed - to identify a common vision and create incentives towards it. I can understand the market frustrations against government interference, and that a "planned economy" means unforeseen consequences that are counter productive, or even that might delay needed failures for reform.
Maybe the WORST thing governments do is to support stability. I accept the basic idea that markets are always unstable in the long term - that they promote concentrations of wealth and power until unmet needs by those on the bottom finally dissolve their loyalty to the system. The problem with concentration of wealth is it can not help but gain unfair access to power, and because the failure of such wealth would upset the economy too much, they are free to take on risk that they should not, and are protected from this risk unfairly.
Well, anyway, I feel bad about my arrogant title, won't change it. I have no answers. We'll all face with risk and reward, and there's no clear fairness of result. I know my personal response to risk is to withdraw, and I know this response times 100 million means unpredictable collapse.
I can't fault the government for supporting an unsustainable path that looks good in the short term. I know neither government nor capitalism can save us.
Our saviors come from all the ancient personal virtues - chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, forgiveness, kindness, and humility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues
Well, I like the idea of personal choice as making a difference, although more than words, I know real change means a change of myths that support these virtues. Most of all I like the inward challenge, lead by example, and you can't easily judge your neighbor's virtues or vices while following your own!
posted by Ares Olympus at 5:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home