Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: namaan on 27/11/2009 05:11:47
-
DISCLAIMER: This is not really a new theory. I just didn't see an economics section, and wasn't able to find a economics forum on the web. So here I am! Also, I am not a socialist, communist, or fascist, and don't prefer to be a capitalist (can't really be helped though this day and age). But I'm all for 'free'-markets! Anyway, here you go, and thanks in advance [:D]
There is an argument by hard-line capitalists that bastardizes the 'free' in a free-market system. It seems to suggest that this free should mean free of regulation; as if a regulated free-market system were an oxymoron. A regulated free-market system is not an oxymoron! It's merely a form of qualification. It's similar to how you might say that something is west of east; it isn't an oxymoron, you are qualifying that something is just west of a certain eastern reference point. Now, a free-market system is, inherently, a system. And any worldly system is regulated in some form. Even if a free-market system isn't regulated by humans, it is still bound by natural thermodynamic regulations. In fact, there is no worldly system that isn't bound thermodynamically.
So it's meaningless to ask whether a particular worldly system is regulated or not; it's more accurate to ask about the degree of regulation. We don't live in caves, we don't drink from streams, and we don't take dumps out in the open. That would be the daily state of affairs had we accepted the natural regulatory system as enough for us. And no, we didn't think it to be enough, and rightfully so. What we did do was to regulate and control our activities a bit more than this natural state of affairs. And soon enough we found ourselves living in these marvelous civilizations that we so often boast about, and for good reason of course.
But how ironic is it that it's the economists of our very own great civilizations that tell us that a free-market system that has regulations that even cave men may find lacking is good for us! So let's be clear about a few things then 1) a free-market system without regulation is a non-entity 2) to complement the advances of modern civilizations, a free-market system would ideally have a complementary level of regulatory systems in place.
To those who have gradiophobia (fear of gradations and uncertainty i.e. reality; finding black/white perceptions appealing), it's all too easy to argue that any piece promoting regulations of 'individual freedom' is a propaganda piece for economic collectivists. Well, truth be told, the moment cave men decided to give up their natural dwellings and build some dwellings with their own hands, they took the first steps towards the adoption of the social contract. What is the social contract you might ask? Well, put simply, it's when individuals as citizens give up their rights to the state, and in return expect rights from the collective citizenry of that state. So yes, unless you do live in a cave and drink from streams and take dumps out in the open, you are a collectivist. Of sorts; the caveat of course being that a discussion of the free-market system specifically brings into focus economic collectivism. Never-the-less, the over-arching point here is that all us have already submitted to this social contract that binds us to collectivist terms of interactions with our fellow man.
So the question is, what but the most arbitrary of reasons can one have to extend this collectivist approach to human interactions but not to human economics? Albeit, the point of this piece isn't to go into the specifics of appropriate economic regulation. Rather it's to wholly extinguish the notion that a free-market system is one best served unregulated. I will take my house and my plumbing thank you very much. Actually, there is one more important, though unrelated, point here; the free-market system isn't the birthright of capitalism. Rather, more poignantly, the free-market system does not belong to capitalism; it is merely borrowing it. If the capitalist ideological state can't get its act together and come to the unavoidable conclusions reached above soon, than it's curtains indeed to an anachronistic and static ideology.
P.S. I'm no expert on economics and took no classes. So I hope to learn more than anything. BTW...this was originally written for a different audience, so please don't mind the perhaps aggressive tone?
-
BTW, if this isn't an appropriate place to discuss this (as in, if no one is really interested [:P] jk), then would someone happen to know an online forum where this would be more appropriate? Thanks.
-
You may have heard the expression "The law allows rich and poor equally the right to sleep under a bridge." More importantly, the law allows rich and poor equally the right to give a lawyer a quarter million dollars to access the capital markets, if they don't want to get tasered for not complying with myriad government regulations. This pleases the rich mightily, as it prevents them from having to compete with the poor for capital, resources and customers, not to mention profit and having to provide a competitive product and service. Nice work if you can get the government to do it for you. The poor can still finance their enterprises on the back of their credit card (no lawyer required) and pay the banks 23% interest. Did I mention the banks were owned by the rich? Strangely, this is the two-tier system we have, capitalism for the rich and communism for the poor. Remarkably, the poor form the majority, and voted for the parties who enacted these laws, being told they would control the rough edges of capitalism. Like the poker players say, "If you don't know who the sucker is by now, you are the sucker."