Achieving a Better Civilization Means Confronting an Important Fact: Free Market Capitalism Has Limits
Those who read the comments on this blog recognize frequent commenter MarcoPolo is a man whose position is that free market economics should be the only force guiding our civilization. Using his words, “Attempting to create a “moral” or “ideological” dynamic to any emerging technology is folly,” and he routinely expands that notion beyond “emerging technology” to include all other elements of social progress.
Note: this idea is an ideology in and of itself. It would be incorrect to say that it’s “wrong,” because it’s an opinion, like “Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time.”
But the fact that it’s not “wrong” doesn’t mean that it’s shared by everyone. Many intelligent and well respected people believe that we have a duty as a society to move in a direction of environmental and social justice, universal human rights, a more peaceful world, and other important ideals–and that these aims are clearly not served well with deregulated capitalism on its own.
Of course, this too is just an opinion. Fortunately, it’s one that is shared by an enormous and constantly growing segment of our world’s population, including, I’m betting, the people in the photo above.
An absolute faith in free markets is an illogical but all too common position. Basic economics tells us that the market is a method to determine price and distribute wealth. It requires, by definition, that the market be “free.” Freedom in such a market requires that all participants have equal knowledge and ability to act. De Facto private knowledge and wealth inequality give us markets that are not “free.” Use of the “commons” gives us externalities (pollution) which are social costs not included in any market.
In the face of such logical and failure-in-fact the only fall back position is to say that markets are better than other methods to distribute wealth. The clear problem with even this compromise position is the temptation to ignore the effect of externalities, private knowledge and an uneven playing field.
One market excess leads to another. Markets are based upon an acceptance of human nature. Each person acting in their own self interest (greed) collectively is supposed to create the market and fix realistic prices. What actually happens is that greed overwhelms all other considerations and works to create private knowledge, an economic advantage and eventually to eliminate all competition destroying the market in favor of monopolies. Instead of harnessing human nature we have given economic access to what was once considered a one of the “seven deadly sins.”
We should work to try and make markets as transparent as possible, as free from economic and political influence as possible. Under these conditions many who favor existing markets would be far less sanguine. Some clearly defend existing markets in an almost fanatical way that seems covertly be to support their economic and political advantages.
Craig,
I believe you have quoted me out context.
I do not believe “free market economics should be the only force guiding our civilization “. Nor did I ever say so.
My observation was restricted to the selection criteria for government subsidies or support for emerging technologies.
The proposition that a government, (or even a public company) should not continue to support an uneconomic technology at the expense of the taxpayer and to the detriment of more efficient technologies for political or ideological reasons, does not constitute an “ideology”, it’s just plain commonsense.
By taking my comment out of context, you quite falsely labeled me as a stereotype. By that means you can dismiss the credibility of any contrary opinion by virtue of a stereotype you created.
In fact I support the role of government to regulate and manage the economy. That includes the judicious use of subsidies, incentives etc.
The dynamics of any “Civilization” extend far beyond basic economic factors, but the economy of any “civilization’ will impact on all other aspects.
” Environmental and social justice, universal human rights, a more peaceful world, and other important ideals” ( whatever they may be) are all laudable aspirations, which I’m sure we all aspire to achieve.
What exactly you mean by “deregulated capitalism ” or how it’s supposed to solve anything other than less regulation, you don’t specify.
Craig, that’s the problem with trying to pigeon-hole people. I have observated you tend to label people as “good guys” and “bad guys”. You also approach economic issues and technology from the same ideological basis.
That’s ok, I understand that’s your motivation and what gives you your conviction and passion. These are qualities I admire, but you should also accept that others may value objectivity and approach issues more analytically. They may be less willing to accept or excuse flaws on ideological grounds.
I don’t view every issue through an ideological prism. I don’t identify every issue, organization, or even people, as “good” or “bad”.
In my experience most people are neither good nor entirely bad, most simply respond to circumstance. Nor do I believe people (or organizations) are necessarily beyond redemption. I believe in tolerance and understanding.
But I have witnessed the terrible hardships and suffering created by ideologues. Ideologues are never act alone, to succeed they must attract followers. Those followers must suspend normal human ethics in the hope of achieving a “greater good”. “The end justifies the means”. Except it never does.
It’s my belief that the best human civilizations are built on compromises. In these societies, citizens accept and tolerate a wide variety of opinions and lifestyles, remaining pragmatic and flexible to changing circumstance. The best civilizations can be judged by the way they treat the weakest, most despised members of the community.
But those concept reflect my ideals, I try to put them aside when analyzing the practicality or economic viability of a technology.
Here’s another thread that I’m finished pursuing. Sorry; I’ve said everything I can on the matter.
Well said, Craig.