FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Firmhand - absolutely, it is ultimately in the marketplace a case of power exchange, which can be equal or unequal dependent on the circumstances of a transaction - even if we only adjudge it so from the point of view of money being a symbolic representation of power.
This latter idea is interesting from a runic perspective too, where money is seen as power, along with the idea that like with the body, the power must circulate in order for life to occur, with the consequent notion that greed and hoarding reduces prosperity.
Great analogy, E! Love it! I may even use it from now on. 
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
But this idea of money as power (not control type power, but the power to do) does necessarily bring us back to the idea of fair/unfair, in that to my mind it would seem that it is generally those with the power who tend to make the most unfair partners in a transaction - and indeed who receive special consideration when the payment is to be made on credit in a competitive market. They can purchase at lower cost, pay lower wages and so on, because they have an unfair advantage in the first place. This unfair advantage is perpetuated and strengthened by the unfair bargaining power they have in the first place, so the rich get richer whilst those with whom they deal do not prosper from their dealings. We could of course say, that this is because they were better negotiators from the start, (dealing unfairly) or that they had innovated and should prosper from their discovery - though this ignores that their ability to innovate is not insular but generally arises from their membership of society, a membership of the society which equipped them to make their innovation.
As long as you wish to use the concepts of "fair" and "unfair" in regards to free markets, you will always fail in your attempts to manage it, or your attempts will always lead to a command type economy.
First, I'll agree - to an extent - with SM that "free market" is a bit of a misnomer. It is simply short-hand to describe a mechanism of power exchange that has existed before mankind even existed. If the thread doesn't get derailed, I'll try to bring in NG comments about the two types of pubic service, game theory, evolution and "free markets" in detail. They are all related.
In anticipation, If you'll read Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" (and if you are interested enough, email me on the on the side, and I'll send you a copy), he discusses how game theory and selfishness can lead to a state of equilibrum where altruistic and selfish behavior can become part of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS). You can liken the "free market" to such a strategy.
Wanting the free market to be "fair" is an attempt to destablize a system that is a mix of altruistic and selfish, and make it wholely altruistic , and therefore inherently unstable. The result will always be unstable according to game theory (and evolution).
Communism is a good example I believe. In theory, it is a very moralistic theory, with "share and share alike". But it is unworkable for the simple fact that all it takes is a single group to gain the power to control the resources of "the market", and it becomes a wholely selfish system, rather than an altruistic one.
Socialism seems to be a better strategy. It is more of a mix of the two archetypes of "selfish" capitalism and "altruistic" communism. Much of the political discussion in the West today is not about whether a nation should be pure communist, or pure capitalist, but which way the economy should lean. It's a matter of emphasis and focus rather than an argument about pure types.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Anyway, I wondered if this might work;
Everything, labour, services, materials, power and products is priced at cost + 10% profit - and this is universally applied. This doesnt fix prices as such, since different providers will have differing costs on which they base their profit margin, yet there would be produced a general range of price for all providers in a given market, over a variation of +/-x% around an average. Buying decisions can then be made on the basis of the provider's quality and efficiency, rather than bargaining inequalities between the parties, whilst the buyer knows he is paying a fair price for the particular delivery, which gives a reasonable profit to the seller. The nature of the exchange is thus known to both parties beforehand. Such a system would also be simple to administer given the tax returns of all participants must show 10% gross profit.
How would this work in the economy as a whole though? Certainly, the price of some goods on which there is now a low margin, would increase, although the reverse would also apply. And wages for labour would incur the same alterations, with similar effects - albeit that wages being now related to living expenses and those living expenses being known from before such a change, the alteration should have the effect of reducing the high end and increasing the lower end such that there is still the necessary difference between wages of different sections of labour, but not the marked discrepancies we have now.
I'm sure there is a flaw in this somewhere but I'm too tired to think about it now, so please feel free to indicate them!
Lady E,
Lots of flaws.
Again, what you are describing is a command economy, which is inherently unstable.
Someone will have to set the margins of profit and the ratios, and determine what is "fair". Once you give that power to an individual or group, eventually they will use that power for their own selfish needs, and you'll end up with a non-altrustic system in which the rhetoric of "fairness" disguises and attempts to hide the basic "unfairness" of the system.
One of the reasons that capitalism and liberal democracy works so well together is that the power of the people tends to better balance the power of the group that controls the resources. It's an attempt to address the basic question of "unequal power exchange". One of the biggest instruments of the power of the people is through the political system i.e. the government.
But, if the government becomes too powerful for "the people", and exercises enough power to overwhelm the "elites", then you have an unstable system again.
If the government becomes simply the instrument of the elites, once again you have an inherently unstable system.
If the government becomes too powerful, and isn't part of the elites, and isn't beholding to the people, it becomes the new elite, and again, an unstable system.
A simplistic view is of a triad: the people, the elites, and the government. As long as there is a balance between the three, you have the maximum room for growth, economic freedom and opportunity. If any one of the three becomes predominate, then you have a system that works to it's own agenda, and takes power from the other two.
Again ... this is a simplistic analogy for the sake of discussion. You can have other centers of power in a nation, religion being one of them. Religious belief systems can become the lubricate in such as system, or the sand in the gears. Or even become its own center of power, such as it is in Islamic countries.
But in the Western Democractic system, the place of religion is one of setting boundaries, giving guidance to individuals in control of the other three areas of power. It can be the system that socializes members of all three into what is "acceptable" (a system of morality), and give a sense of common identity to them all, cementing a group consciousness and focus on what is of importance.
It is that belief system that can ameliorate the worst excesses of each group, especially if it is not beholding to any one of them individually. If it can be the "honest broker" rather than a shill for one of the groups.
Does it have to be "religion"? No, I don't think so. It has to be a shared group of beliefs that isn't in thrall to any one center of power though.
Which is why I have said that state supported religions aren't good, and why, in Europe, it was the kiss of death for many churches. Seen in league with the government, which were part of the elites, it was seen as opposing the power of "the people" (and it was). As the people gained more control of the governments, the church was therefore marginalized in many respects by them.
What I see you as attempting in this thread is to come up with a shared belief system that isn't based on religion.
I admire and respect that. But I also think it is easy to confuse morality with reality, and end up in an unstable situation.
After all, if what you are trying to accomplish was easy - we'd already be there, wouldn't we?
FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread