gnarlylove
Senior Member
From Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet
This makes a very enlightening point about a market economy. Especially with the love affair we have for our markets. Of course we do have subways but the point is glaring at us: markets crowd out the public good for typically private gain and inflated egos. I hope to elaborate on Chomsky's point by taking a look at markets from a different angle. I think this makes alternatives to capitalism worth consideration. Markets as defined by the simple trading or bartering event are natural but markets as employed today is what I am talking about.
We have seen the proliferation of markets in the last half century. Now it seems "I think it therefore I must buy it"--the modern market approach on Descartes' cogito. The majority of economists have little concern for how a market changes the value of the good or how it's perceived. Most firmly believe economics "simply doesn't traffic in morality...Morality represents the way we would like the world to work, and economics represents how it actually works" (Freakonomics).
However, "many economists now recognize that markets change the character of the goods and social practices they govern." (What Money Can't Buy, 120). This is nothing new but with such mass uncritical acceptance of market reasoning, it's refreshing to hear. In 1976, Fred Hirsch, senior advisor to IMF noted the "commercialization effect." The definition is "the effect on the characteristics of a product or activity of suppling it exclusively or predominantly on commercial terms rather than on some other basis--such as informal exchange, mutual obligation, altruism or love, or feelings of service or obligation" (Social Limits of Growth).
With many economists coming forward about the downside to markets, there are many experiments showing how markets taint and even crowd out nonmarket values. Take for example, Dan Ariely demonstrates paying people for something doesn't alway elicit more effort. AARP asked a group of lawyers to assist elderly for reduced fee of $30 to which they declined. Then AARP asked if they would provide it pro bono and they obliged ("Predictably Irrational" in Psychological Science).
This demonstrates that changing the motivation behind a good or service is not always enhanced by market logic or money. Many more instances exist that show markets can and do crowd out other values. Such as the Swiss village of Wolfenschiessen was offered to have nuclear waste site built there. When there was no market incentives (i.e. money) a slim majority agreed (51%) to house the site despite potential risks. When offered up to $8,700 per person a year, only 25% accepted the site because the market values crowded out the nature of civic duty. ("The Old Lady Visits your Backyard" in Journal of Political Economy. Also see Oberholzer-Gee Frey and Richard Eichenberger).
One more brief and well-known example is turning blood into a commodity. The UK rejects this market approach on blood banks Richard Titmuss has noted a wealth of data showing the British system is superior. He argued the American system leads to chronic shortages, wasted blood, higher costs, and a greater risk of contaminated blood. However, there is the ethical argument against commodification: we should not buy and sell blood as it is unfair to those desperate for cash. Thus we exploit low income groups and redistribute blood from the poor to the rich (The Gift Relationship, Richard Titmuss).
More importantly, some argue turning blood into a market undermines the spirit of altruism and charity. In other words, markets can demoralize us and change attitudes. As markets have risen there has been a decline in our moral lives on the whole. From the 50's to today many will note kindness that once permeated society has diminished. Titmuss worried that market driven societies might become inhospitable to altruism and erode the sense of community. No body denies we have become individualists which naturally reduces community focus including the sense of community.
The most pertinent conclusion is markets tend to exert a corrosive effect on norms, especially values of giving and altruism. "The ways in which society organizes and structures it social institutions--and particularly its health and welfare systems--can encourage or discourage the altruistic in man: such systems can foster integration or alienation; they can allow the theme of the gift'--of generosity towards strangers--to spread among and between social groups and generations" (The Gift Relationship).
Sadly politicians and the American public have drilled and been drilled with the success of markets crowding out any ideas that markets may cause more harm than good depending on the service or good. In so doing we have neglected genuine policy (traditionally understood as how humans ought to interact in society) and replaced it with markets. As markets enter areas formerly governed by nonmarket norms and ethics, attitudes change. Take kidneys for example. As markets bid for the price over essential body parts we must ask, are there things money shouldn't be allowed to buy? Are there areas that markets should be banned? Viewing my kidney as an investment and my body as individual parts to be used rather than essential for a quality life corrupts the idea life altogether.
I think this is very important for politicians to bear in mind. Since policy has become beholden to economics and cruel, unforgiving finance mathematics, Republicans and Democrates bow before markets unquestioningly. Both parties worship markets. It's high time we bring national attention to the problems of markets so we can better our society.
Noam Chomsky said:
This makes a very enlightening point about a market economy. Especially with the love affair we have for our markets. Of course we do have subways but the point is glaring at us: markets crowd out the public good for typically private gain and inflated egos. I hope to elaborate on Chomsky's point by taking a look at markets from a different angle. I think this makes alternatives to capitalism worth consideration. Markets as defined by the simple trading or bartering event are natural but markets as employed today is what I am talking about.
We have seen the proliferation of markets in the last half century. Now it seems "I think it therefore I must buy it"--the modern market approach on Descartes' cogito. The majority of economists have little concern for how a market changes the value of the good or how it's perceived. Most firmly believe economics "simply doesn't traffic in morality...Morality represents the way we would like the world to work, and economics represents how it actually works" (Freakonomics).
However, "many economists now recognize that markets change the character of the goods and social practices they govern." (What Money Can't Buy, 120). This is nothing new but with such mass uncritical acceptance of market reasoning, it's refreshing to hear. In 1976, Fred Hirsch, senior advisor to IMF noted the "commercialization effect." The definition is "the effect on the characteristics of a product or activity of suppling it exclusively or predominantly on commercial terms rather than on some other basis--such as informal exchange, mutual obligation, altruism or love, or feelings of service or obligation" (Social Limits of Growth).
With many economists coming forward about the downside to markets, there are many experiments showing how markets taint and even crowd out nonmarket values. Take for example, Dan Ariely demonstrates paying people for something doesn't alway elicit more effort. AARP asked a group of lawyers to assist elderly for reduced fee of $30 to which they declined. Then AARP asked if they would provide it pro bono and they obliged ("Predictably Irrational" in Psychological Science).
This demonstrates that changing the motivation behind a good or service is not always enhanced by market logic or money. Many more instances exist that show markets can and do crowd out other values. Such as the Swiss village of Wolfenschiessen was offered to have nuclear waste site built there. When there was no market incentives (i.e. money) a slim majority agreed (51%) to house the site despite potential risks. When offered up to $8,700 per person a year, only 25% accepted the site because the market values crowded out the nature of civic duty. ("The Old Lady Visits your Backyard" in Journal of Political Economy. Also see Oberholzer-Gee Frey and Richard Eichenberger).
One more brief and well-known example is turning blood into a commodity. The UK rejects this market approach on blood banks Richard Titmuss has noted a wealth of data showing the British system is superior. He argued the American system leads to chronic shortages, wasted blood, higher costs, and a greater risk of contaminated blood. However, there is the ethical argument against commodification: we should not buy and sell blood as it is unfair to those desperate for cash. Thus we exploit low income groups and redistribute blood from the poor to the rich (The Gift Relationship, Richard Titmuss).
More importantly, some argue turning blood into a market undermines the spirit of altruism and charity. In other words, markets can demoralize us and change attitudes. As markets have risen there has been a decline in our moral lives on the whole. From the 50's to today many will note kindness that once permeated society has diminished. Titmuss worried that market driven societies might become inhospitable to altruism and erode the sense of community. No body denies we have become individualists which naturally reduces community focus including the sense of community.
The most pertinent conclusion is markets tend to exert a corrosive effect on norms, especially values of giving and altruism. "The ways in which society organizes and structures it social institutions--and particularly its health and welfare systems--can encourage or discourage the altruistic in man: such systems can foster integration or alienation; they can allow the theme of the gift'--of generosity towards strangers--to spread among and between social groups and generations" (The Gift Relationship).
Sadly politicians and the American public have drilled and been drilled with the success of markets crowding out any ideas that markets may cause more harm than good depending on the service or good. In so doing we have neglected genuine policy (traditionally understood as how humans ought to interact in society) and replaced it with markets. As markets enter areas formerly governed by nonmarket norms and ethics, attitudes change. Take kidneys for example. As markets bid for the price over essential body parts we must ask, are there things money shouldn't be allowed to buy? Are there areas that markets should be banned? Viewing my kidney as an investment and my body as individual parts to be used rather than essential for a quality life corrupts the idea life altogether.
I think this is very important for politicians to bear in mind. Since policy has become beholden to economics and cruel, unforgiving finance mathematics, Republicans and Democrates bow before markets unquestioningly. Both parties worship markets. It's high time we bring national attention to the problems of markets so we can better our society.
