# The Problem with a Market Society



## gnarlylove

From Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet


			
				Noam Chomsky said:
			
		

> Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you cant buy a subway because thats not offered. Market systems dont offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, youre going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, its simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, its less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and theyre all part of general class war.



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.


----------



## LibertyLemming

You misunderstand... sure profits are a primary motivator in free market economics but equally as powerful is the desire to keep profits low, because the consumer that a business depends on wants to pay the lowest price possible. Even with the influence of governments which terrible destruct the market most companies have single digit profits already.

In a truly free market you would see even lower profit margins.


----------



## Moonglow

I prefer the agora..


----------



## LibertyLemming

Moonglow said:


> I prefer the agora..



Don't see why you couldn't have one of those in a free-market society bro

a mall with a gym and art theater sup?


----------



## Moonglow

Just like the 1970's all over again.


----------



## LibertyLemming

youre a thrill to talk to


----------



## gnarlylove

LibertyLemming said:


> You misunderstand... sure profits are a primary motivator in free market economics but equally as powerful is the desire to keep profits low, because the consumer that a business depends on wants to pay the lowest price possible. Even with the influence of governments which terrible destruct the market most companies have single digit profits already.
> 
> In a truly free market you would see even lower profit margins.



I'm having a hard time understanding your point. I don't understand low profit margins and how that is affected by the government. I assume you mean regulations try to re-distribute the capital? Why is it desirable to have low profit margins?


----------



## Moonglow

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand... sure profits are a primary motivator in free market economics but equally as powerful is the desire to keep profits low, because the consumer that a business depends on wants to pay the lowest price possible. Even with the influence of governments which terrible destruct the market most companies have single digit profits already.
> 
> In a truly free market you would see even lower profit margins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding your point. I don't understand low profit margins and how that is affected by the government. I assume you mean regulations try to re-distribute the capital? Why is it desirable to have low profit margins?
Click to expand...


Lower taxes..


----------



## History

Obviously the Market Society has worked all these years.. We're still talking right?? In a Market Society?? That is, for the most part, a free country??

Yeah.. America doesn't hate the poor, it doesn't like the Lazy.. Many differences.. if you are Poor in America, it is most likely your fault


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> From Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet
> 
> 
> 
> Noam Chomsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you cant buy a subway because thats not offered. Market systems dont offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, youre going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, its simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, its less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and theyre all part of general class war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


You convinced me, I am packing up and moving to Venezuela tomorrow.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

While there are always exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of us in this country are where we are in life based on the choices we made throughout it.


----------



## gnarlylove

I wish there weren't folks with no intention of reasoned argument crashing this thread. For god sakes it's in "Philosophy" which you have no interest in. You're looking for "Politics" which centers around rhetoric and propaganda. Philosophy seeks to understand, unlike Sophistry, which is literally all there is to American Politics anymore.

The fact someone is poor is more likely an indication of where they were born. It's much less of an indication of how hard they work/can work. You seem to forget that there are over 300 million people in America and there are less than 200 million private sector jobs. Even if everyone supposedly sought work (like they are not doing that now!) only a few thousand people would be hired, what are the rest to do? There simply is not enough work for the amount of people in this country yet the blame seems to always lie with not working hard enough. We do not live in a meritocracy, end of story. 

Of course personal choices have a lot to do with where one ends up but to think for a second society is offering sufficient opportunities and quality education to all low-income children is just intentional ignorance. Until we offer quality nutrition (which effects growth, brain development and cognitive function), quality education, and adequate opportunities to low income districts, then we will never enable the majority of them earn their way. That's because opportunity does not exist for them except in a minority of instances. That's because the wealthy and middle class are given these opportunties first and the majority of Americans (the working class) are left to fight over what's left, which is insufficient to meet their needs. But what do we care since our needs are met? That's just it, we don't.

The expression "ugly American" isn't just an expression used to desribe Americans traveling abroad. Its also an apt description of the attitude many Americans have concerning their fellow Americans when it comes to working conditions and low wages. As long as YOU are making a living wage they could care less about someone elses low wages or lack of opportunity. So go ahead and sit in your warm homes while people struggle with the basics. You don't care and you don't care about a solution--that's because it's not "your" problem.

At least own up to the fact you have no empathy for humanity. That your only concern is you and perhaps your family. Anyone else deserves to die, I mean, what do you care?

The Policy of Debt, Compounded Interest, Cyclical Consumption and Wage Slavery (selling body and time for survival) are all ESSENTIAL to our current system and they are designed to keep the poor poor. So that explains why social mobility in America is the worst among any developed nation. That precisely means those with low incomes find it difficult to climb out of poverty despite all the hard work and ceaseless efforts, they simply cannot get a break.






Of course there are examples when hard work leads to success but shove a sock in it if you think this is how broader society works for low income people--of which no one is on this thread--so no wonder you don't give two shits about low income people and how American policy particular harms the poor.


----------



## gnarlylove

The point in my original post is that Markets (and Economics alike) do indeed traffic in morality and that they do not own up to this fact. That markets reward egos and punish the empathetic and caring. Indeed, psychopaths are common among Wall St. 
With our egos always wanting more, we always want more money. Indeed, capitalism is the best at generating wealth. But should this be the goal of society? Wealth creation?

Blithely dismissing fundamental problems with markets and capitalism for the sake of "We have no alternative" is lazy. It's more like we don't want an alternative. And not that I support Denmark's specious Socialism, but simply stating "Socialism doesn't work" is also lazy because it's literally never been tried. To point to capitalist economies with moderate welfare programs and heavy taxes (only when compared to America) is not socialism. It's a blend of capitalism and state sponsored socialism.

Have you ever read genuine socialist polity? Hearing it from the news or reading it in a popular magazine does not count. I'm talking about have you read Marx, have you read others who genuinely lay out socialism? If not I politely ask you to not make unsupported claims in a Philosophy thread.

Socialism is not an end in itself anyway. It is a social theory bridge to get people to drop our unchecked egos and consider the public good. In capitalism we are supposedly profit maximizing entities always pursuing what's in our best interest (despite the fact Public Relations and advertising attempts to get us to indulge regardless of whether its in or best interest). That's why its commonplace to not give two shits about your fellow humans. But we know humans don't always act this way so why do we base a society on faulty rationality? Are you saying I should stop caring about humans so I can do better in society? That sounds incredibly unwise. Monetary success is not the be all end all of life--the meaning of life consists in being well rounded, not some profit king or queen.

So once we are drop out fetishism for the ego in a highly functioning socialist society, says Marx, then we can innovate yet another more lasting society. If everyone could participate in society instead of being stuck on Maslow's lowest rung in abject poverty, don't you think that would enable them to further OUR endeavors to advance science, technology, and just about everything? If instead of 85 people owning as much wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion people, don't you think it would be worth while to get these people some food, education and then give them enough opportunities that enables them to participate with healthy brains and bodies to innovate and create just like the middle class?

I guess you prefer indirectly trampling those underfoot for your own personal gain instead of seeing society flourish with significant reductions in crime rates, the need for charity including gov't aide and having millions die from preventable diseases like malnutrition and malaria?

That's right, you must not give two shits about the development of society and for humanity to flourish. You seem to care about how you flourish and relinquish all responsibility and empathy for a fellow human. Boy that's a friendly and sociable society--I want to live there! While I'm not implying we are directly responsible for each person's well being, what I am saying is give a shit and standing against bad policy that results in this extreme gap is worth something doing.
Although economics assumes we are profit maximizing entities (the ethical egoist prescription), focusing on one's own self interest all the time is detrimental to communities and societal cohesion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> I wish there weren't folks with no intention of reasoned argument crashing this thread. For god sakes it's in "Philosophy" which you have no interest in. You're looking for "Politics" which centers around rhetoric and propaganda. Philosophy seeks to understand, unlike Sophistry, which is literally all there is to American Politics anymore.
> 
> The fact someone is poor is more likely an indication of where they were born. It's much less of an indication of how hard they work/can work. You seem to forget that there are over 300 million people in America and there are less than 200 million private sector jobs. Even if everyone supposedly sought work (like they are not doing that now!) only a few thousand people would be hired, what are the rest to do? There simply is not enough work for the amount of people in this country yet the blame seems to always lie with not working hard enough. We do not live in a meritocracy, end of story.
> 
> Of course personal choices have a lot to do with where one ends up but to think for a second society is offering sufficient opportunities and quality education to all low-income children is just intentional ignorance. Until we offer quality nutrition (which effects growth, brain development and cognitive function), quality education, and adequate opportunities to low income districts, then we will never enable the majority of them earn their way. That's because opportunity does not exist for them except in a minority of instances. That's because the wealthy and middle class are given these opportunties first and the majority of Americans (the working class) are left to fight over what's left, which is insufficient to meet their needs. But what do we care since our needs are met? That's just it, we don't.
> 
> The expression "ugly American" isn't just an expression used to desribe Americans traveling abroad. Its also an apt description of the attitude many Americans have concerning their fellow Americans when it comes to working conditions and low wages. As long as YOU are making a living wage they could care less about someone elses low wages or lack of opportunity. So go ahead and sit in your warm homes while people struggle with the basics. You don't care and you don't care about a solution--that's because it's not "your" problem.
> 
> At least own up to the fact you have no empathy for humanity. That your only concern is you and perhaps your family. Anyone else deserves to die, I mean, what do you care?
> 
> The Policy of Debt, Compounded Interest, Cyclical Consumption and Wage Slavery (selling body and time for survival) are all ESSENTIAL to our current system and they are designed to keep the poor poor. So that explains why social mobility in America is the worst among any developed nation. That precisely means those with low incomes find it difficult to climb out of poverty despite all the hard work and ceaseless efforts, they simply cannot get a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are examples when hard work leads to success but shove a sock in it if you think this is how broader society works for low income people--of which no one is on this thread--so no wonder you don't give two shits about low income people and how American policy particular harms the poor.



I would love to make a reasoned argument, but you don't have a reasonable position. Debating you reasonable makes as much sense as arguing evolution with Ken Hamm. The only way to deal with you is to be as absurd as you are.


----------



## gnarlylove

Instead of you disputing any of my claims you assert your "I'm right and your flippin' stupid" comment right on cue. How utterly surprising coming from you! I don't know a post you've made that didn't use that template.
I'd ask you to dispute, say, how markets don't corrode values and contribute but we both know your only capable of name calling and slap happy allegations of "I'm right and you're wrong." Don't bother wasting your time, we already know what you'll say.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Instead of you disputing any of my claims you assert your "I'm right and your flippin' stupid" comment right on cue. How utterly surprising coming from you! I don't know a post you've made that didn't use that template.
> I'd ask you to dispute, say, how markets don't corrode values and contribute but we both know your only capable of name calling and slap happy allegations of "I'm right and you're wrong." Don't bother wasting your time, we already know what you'll say.



I must have missed the part where I said I am right. The problem here is not one of right and wrong, that could be debated endlessly, the problem is just that you posts aren't even wrong, they are just blathering from a person that never learned how to think.


----------



## midcan5

gnarlylove said:


> I wish there weren't folks with no intention of reasoned argument crashing this thread. For god sakes it's in "Philosophy" which you have no interest in. You're looking for "Politics" which centers around rhetoric and propaganda. Philosophy seeks to understand, unlike Sophistry, which is literally all there is to American Politics anymore....



Interesting thread.  Don't expect reasoned debate from most people online, people like Quantum use ad hominem arguments as they are naive children. Most replies have nothing to do with the content of the OP. But don't let them deter you, others may read and learn. Use trackbacks, save your links, if you stay online long enough you'll find much of the same but on the rare occasion some interest and thought.


----------



## editec

Moonglow said:


> I prefer the agora..



The agora only existed because the people formed a government to protect it, of course.


----------



## LibertyLemming

SAYIT said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand... sure profits are a primary motivator in free market economics but equally as powerful is the desire to keep profits low, because the consumer that a business depends on wants to pay the lowest price possible. Even with the influence of governments which terrible destruct the market most companies have single digit profits already.
> 
> In a truly free market you would see even lower profit margins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding your point. I don't understand low profit margins and how that is affected by the government. I assume you mean regulations try to re-distribute the capital? Why is it desirable to have low profit margins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe LL misspoke. Clearly market economy profit margins are driven by supply and demand. The more demand, the more likely other suppliers will jump in, forcing competitive pricing. I must admit I weary of the "evil capitalism" argument. Until a better system is developed, and socialism certainly isn't that system, we'll all just have to muddle along with what we have. BTW, as a socio-political commentator Chumpsky makes a fine linguist.
Click to expand...


What I was saying is that a free market simultaneously strives to reach the highest and the lowest profits possible. Highest because the owners of business want to have the most profits possible. Lowest because consumers want to pay the lowest price possible. 

I was trying to show that currently, even with massive regulations in favor of and helping some businesses, they still show very low profit margins. These margins would likely be reduced sans government because their legislative access would try up as would their protection and the market would again be more competitive. 

A truly free market should be how our society is structured, not with a government.


----------



## dblack

The problem is in equating the market and society.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

False premise. There is no reason why someone can not invest their own private capital and work within contract laws to build a subway system. That's where I quit reading.


----------



## LibertyLemming

dblack said:


> The problem is in equating the market and society.



It isn't a problem or even something that has to be done. The market will do the things society wants on its own without government interference and destruction.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> While there are always exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of us in this country are where we are in life based on the choices we made throughout it.



That's an opinion ^^^ and one which strikes me as absurd.  We are a product of choices made to be sure, but there is not a singular cause for poverty, nor a singular cause for great success.  We all know people who were born with talent, skills and abilities far above the norm, and others born with limits, some severe, some physical and some mental.

Painting with too broad a brush creates a picture which limits detail and thus practical and productive debate.  It's one of my major peeves when reading posts such as the one above.  There are billions of human beings on the planet today and we are all unique - to put anyone group in a box based on one data point - sex, color, ethnicity, wealth or poverty - is absurd.


----------



## SAYIT

gnarlylove said:


> I wish there weren't folks with no intention of reasoned argument crashing this thread. For god sakes it's in "Philosophy" which you have no interest in. You're looking for "Politics" which centers around rhetoric and propaganda. Philosophy seeks to understand, unlike Sophistry, which is literally all there is to American Politics anymore.
> 
> The fact someone is poor is more likely an indication of where they were born. It's much less of an indication of how hard they work/can work. You seem to forget that there are over 300 million people in America and there are less than 200 million private sector jobs. Even if everyone supposedly sought work (like they are not doing that now!) only a few thousand people would be hired, what are the rest to do? There simply is not enough work for the amount of people in this country yet the blame seems to always lie with not working hard enough. We do not live in a meritocracy, end of story.



This is a clear case of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. In our population of over 300 million are more than 100 million children, retired seniors and unemployable citizens. Are you suggesting our economy must provide them with jobs? Frankly you are so busy trying to sell your dogma you have lost contact with reality. That seems to be common among socialists.


----------



## dblack

LibertyLemming said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is in equating the market and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a problem or even something that has to be done. The market will do the things society wants on its own without government interference and destruction.
Click to expand...


I was referring to the notion that market values and societal values are one in the same. Many liberals reject free market capitalism because they, rightly I think, see humans as worth more than their 'market value'. But the market, like government, isn't the be-all, end-all of society. The vast bulk of our interactions with each other happen outside the realm of trade, and outside the realm of government.


----------



## LibertyLemming

dblack said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is in equating the market and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a problem or even something that has to be done. The market will do the things society wants on its own without government interference and destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to the notion that market values and societal values are one in the same. Many liberals reject free market capitalism because they, rightly I think, see humans as worth more than their 'market value'. But the market, like government, isn't the be-all, end-all of society. The vast bulk of our interactions with each other happen outside the realm of trade, and outside the realm of government.
Click to expand...


The problem with your criticisms, or liberals, of capitalism is that we currently do not have capitalism but corporatism and cronyism.

I agree the bulk of interactions happen outside of the government, but not outside the market.


----------



## dblack

LibertyLemming said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a problem or even something that has to be done. The market will do the things society wants on its own without government interference and destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the notion that market values and societal values are one in the same. Many liberals reject free market capitalism because they, rightly I think, see humans as worth more than their 'market value'. But the market, like government, isn't the be-all, end-all of society. The vast bulk of our interactions with each other happen outside the realm of trade, and outside the realm of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your criticisms, or liberals, of capitalism is that we currently do not have capitalism but corporatism and cronyism.
> 
> I agree the bulk of interactions happen outside of the government, but not outside the market.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm not making my point clearly. What I'm saying is I'm sympathetic to the common liberal's rejection of the idea that human value is a market calculation. People offer value to society in ways that can't be measured in dollars.


----------



## LibertyLemming

dblack said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to the notion that market values and societal values are one in the same. Many liberals reject free market capitalism because they, rightly I think, see humans as worth more than their 'market value'. But the market, like government, isn't the be-all, end-all of society. The vast bulk of our interactions with each other happen outside the realm of trade, and outside the realm of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your criticisms, or liberals, of capitalism is that we currently do not have capitalism but corporatism and cronyism.
> 
> I agree the bulk of interactions happen outside of the government, but not outside the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm not making my point clearly. What I'm saying is I'm sympathetic to the common liberal's rejection of the idea that human value is a market calculation. People offer value to society in ways that can't be measured in dollars.
Click to expand...


Okay. I agree with that... I'm not sure who thinks of people in terms of value besides employers and the government though. Capitalism is about human action not human value


----------



## midcan5

As I read through these posts and threads I often read about this magical Market that can do all things. A kind of Supermarket that builds roads, bridges, tunnels, subways yet? But you know what, I never see one of this Market miracles. Where are they folks? 

"Throughout the nineteenth century, the loans which financed large American capital investment programs, mounted by private consortia, were continually defaulted on. *The history of the American railroads is a history of default. More specifically, the history of American capitalism is one of default. This happened in a spectacular manner during the Panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1892-93 and 1907.* None of this reneging happened in the civilized manner organized by a Solon or a Sully. Rather it involved a panic and a crash, which created massive bankruptcies, which in turn wiped out massive debts. Because of the disordered way in which each ripping up of obligations came, the result was always a short period of widespread depression before the cleansed economy took off again with renewed force. In the Panic of 1892-93 alone, four thousand banks and fourteen thousand commercial enterprises collapsed. In other words, the nonpayment of debt was central to the construction of the United States.... The great depressions of the last hundred and fifty years can be seen as the default mechanisms of middle-class societies. Depressions free the citizens by making the paper worthless. The method was and is awkward and painful, particularly for the poor, but it destroys the paper chains and permits a new equilibrium to be built out of the pain and disorder of collapse.... One of the most surprising innovations of the late twentieth century has been not only the rationalization of speculation but, beyond that, the attachment of moral value, with vaguely religious origins, to the repayment of debts. This probably has something to do with the insertion of God as an official supporter of capitalism and democracy." p403 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards' 


"Capitalism is the ownership and use of the concrete but dynamic elements in a society - what is commonly known as the means of production. A capitalist is someone who produces more capital through the production of the means he owns. This necessitates the periodic reinvestment of part of the capital earned into the repair, modernization and expansion of the means. Capitalism is therefore the ownership of an abstraction called capital, rendered concrete by its ownership of the means of production, which through actual production creates new capital.... However, capitalism as conceived today tends to revolve around something called the profit motive, even though profit is neither a cause of capitalism nor at the heart of the capitalist action. Profit is a useful result of the process, nothing more. As for the ownership of the means of production, this has been superseded by their management. And yet, to manage is to administer, which is a bureaucratic function. Alternately, there is a growing reliance upon the use of capital itself to produce new capital. But that is speculation, not production. Much of the development of the means of production is now rejected as unprofitable and, frankly, beneath the dignity of the modern manager, who would rather leave such labour and factory-intensive "dirty" work to Third World societies. Finally , the contemporary idea of capitalism grandly presents "service" as its new sophisticated manifestation. But the selling of one's own skills is not a capitalist art. And most of the jobs being created by the service industries are with the exception of the high-technology sector descendants of the pre-eighteenth-century commerce in trade and services." p360  'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


----------



## gnarlylove

So pleased to see some genuine exchange of ideas. *breathes a sigh of relief*

Would love to weigh in when I have more time. For now though, my contention in my original post was that market values tend to crowd out our more deeply held social values and human virtues. To think they are one in the same seems a bit odd. Society existed prior to markets. If by markets you mean only the exchange of goods then I suppose we agree but I am referring to the markets we have in society today. The one's that determines whether one has food or is eating out of a trash can. I know both and the latter is unacceptable in a healthy society but clearly is widely accepted in our society, since we more or less refuse to offer basic needs to people (unless the sell their time and body for survival/comfort thereby becoming alienated from the natural processes of life). Then we kick 'em while their down for having no ability, no avenue to earn. My point is a detailed one and does not attempt to make sweeping generalizations, as Wry said, there is no singular cause of events and painting too wide reduces our ability to perceive what's really going on. Now allow me to generalize haha

I think in summary the problem is we have unwittingly accepted markets at the behest of those who benefit most from markets (or more accurately cronyism). With money more valuable than a human life, we can see that society is bound to fail or flounder is ceaseless dysfunction. It's because we don't treat humans as they really are--we see them as labor machines to be bought and sold. Don't forget discarded!


----------



## Toro

Norm takes apart another straw man.


----------



## LibertyLemming

heard this one the radio yesterday:

I point to the United States from 1865 until 1914 (Federal Reserve Act) as an example of what a Libertarian State could have looked like. Slavery ended. There was no central bank, no income tax Labor was paid for what it was worth (no pesky minimum wage laws). This country ran on tariff and a one penny per barrel tax on distilled liquor. Maybe the tariff and alcohol tax moots my point. Major internal improvements were financed by privately issued bonds or tolls, not directly via taxes. Individuals that used roads, paid for their use. The Patent office boomed as the government kept out of the way of individuals like Edison, Ford and Westinghouse. One could argue a Patent office is not libertarian, but Patent infringements were not handled by an armed bureaucrat, it was Patent holders who prosecuted/sued when it came to trade secrets. In a Libertarian society, an inventive person does have the right to profit from his work.

Also, from 1870 to 1890 real wages increased by 50%. When was the last time that happened? 

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Toro

Slavery ended because of a war that killed a couple hundred thousand people.


----------



## LibertyLemming

probably why he said the period after the war huh nerd


----------



## LibertyLemming

even though that isn't really accurate


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish there weren't folks with no intention of reasoned argument crashing this thread. For god sakes it's in "Philosophy" which you have no interest in. You're looking for "Politics" which centers around rhetoric and propaganda. Philosophy seeks to understand, unlike Sophistry, which is literally all there is to American Politics anymore....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thread.  Don't expect reasoned debate from most people online, people like Quantum use ad hominem arguments as they are naive children. Most replies have nothing to do with the content of the OP. But don't let them deter you, others may read and learn. Use trackbacks, save your links, if you stay online long enough you'll find much of the same but on the rare occasion some interest and thought.
Click to expand...


This from the guy that is so stupid that the only way he can post is cutting and pasting other people's words that have nothing to do with whatever point he is trying to make.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> The problem is in equating the market and society.



Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> While there are always exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of us in this country are where we are in life based on the choices we made throughout it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion ^^^ and one which strikes me as absurd.  We are a product of choices made to be sure, but there is not a singular cause for poverty, nor a singular cause for great success.  We all know people who were born with talent, skills and abilities far above the norm, and others born with limits, some severe, some physical and some mental.
> 
> Painting with too broad a brush creates a picture which limits detail and thus practical and productive debate.  It's one of my major peeves when reading posts such as the one above.  There are billions of human beings on the planet today and we are all unique - to put anyone group in a box based on one data point - sex, color, ethnicity, wealth or poverty - is absurd.
Click to expand...


"You didn't build that."

Want to tell me again you don't support communism?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> As I read through these posts and threads I often read about this magical Market that can do all things. A kind of Supermarket that builds roads, bridges, tunnels, subways yet? But you know what, I never see one of this Market miracles. Where are they folks?



In other words, you read stuff that no one is saying.

Believe it or not, that says more about you than it does the people who posted the stuff you aren't reading. The market is not magical, unlike the government. The market is a dynamic result of multiple forces that end up reinforcing cooperation over competition. I would explain how that works, but the math is actually complicated enough, and esoteric enough, that I don't understand it well enough to explain it to illiterates. I can, however, point you to a really easy to understand film clip that explains why you are wrong.


I ignored the rest of your post because, like everything you post, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> Slavery ended because of a war that killed a couple hundred thousand people.



No it did not.


----------



## Toro

LibertyLemming said:


> probably why he said the period after the war huh nerd



When referencing that time period, does that also mean blacks and women as less than people also represent libertarian paradise?  Or do we conveniently brush that under the rug because it doesn't fit the neat little narrative?

BTW, economic growth per capita during that time was no different than the next 100 years.







However, there were 13 recessions, the greatest frequency of recessions in the history of the nation.  Literally, half the time from 1865 to 1914, 9000 days, was spent in recession.  

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

There were multiple financial panics.  That's why the Fed came into being in the first place.

So if your libertarian paradise means 25 of the next 50 years in recession, you can keep it.


----------



## Toro

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery ended because of a war that killed a couple hundred thousand people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it did not.
Click to expand...


My mistake.

"A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.

618,000 people did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Thanks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery ended because of a war that killed a couple hundred thousand people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> "A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.
> 
> 618,000 people did.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Still wrong, the war might have been justified over slavery, but it did not end it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is in equating the market and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.
Click to expand...


How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is in equating the market and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
Click to expand...


In a word, no.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a word, no.
Click to expand...


Because you say so?  I know you're a partisan hack and not very bright.  I know that.  So why prove it with such a stupid response?


----------



## Toro

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> "A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.
> 
> 618,000 people did.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still wrong, the war might have been justified over slavery, but it did not end it.
Click to expand...


What ended it?


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, which is why I stopped taking the OP seriously. Discussing the merits of a free market with an idiot that thinks the economy and society are the same thing is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a word, no.
Click to expand...


I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a word, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so?  I know you're a partisan hack and not very bright.  I know that.  So why prove it with such a stupid response?
Click to expand...


No, because you are stupid.

Tell me something, O he of the impossible to categorize stupidity, is the global market and economy the product of some global society I didn't notice? The last time I looked every single country had its own individual society, yet they all trade in the same market.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> "A couple hundred thousand people" didn't die.
> 
> 618,000 people did.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/s...cent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wrong, the war might have been justified over slavery, but it did not end it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ended it?
Click to expand...


So far, nothing, it still exists.

This map shows where the world?s 30 million slaves live. There are 60,000 in the U.S.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a word, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.
Click to expand...


That would depend on what market we are talking about, wouldn't it? The thing is, it really doesn't matter what society, the government, or what economic system a country uses, markets still run independently based on clearly defined laws that exist completely independent of anything man can do, kind of like the weather. We can fiddle here and there ot change little things, and the impacts are subject to the butterfly effect, which means they can be magnified, but no one has ever managed to create a market the behaves according the rules of communism or socialism. Markets exist outside, and independent of society.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.
Click to expand...


While they are supposedly separate, without society, one does not have a market. However, as markets enter new realms (like Shakespeare in the Park or Linestanding for hearings in Washington) they tend to crowd out norms that formerly governed our behavior.

Instead of treating each other like humans with equal rights to see a Congressional hearing or Shakespeare we have allowed markets to create profit where profit did not exist. 

Anyway, markets are not real. To think markets exist independent of human society is not properly understanding them. They are not concrete entities and stand independent of us. They are by-products of human creation. They are the outgrowth of human interactions based on human needs and human desires.

So while society is tangible (the community of humans working together) markets are not. However, they have tangible effects just like society. And these effects almost in every case reduce humans or social interactions to a price. Humans are priceless as well as social interactions since they provide us with something money cannot buy (or at least should not be allowed to buy). Yet the market is setting a price on people and genuine interactions and I assert this is immoral or at least corrupting. For children and youth, even people my age--26--who lack concern for their philosophy, will easily subsume this demeanor towards other humans. This meme would and has spread rapidly into all sorts of areas markets traditionally do not enter. Yet I know we both agree market values and norms confuse humans and genuine interaction with items. This was my basic point. 

So I argue that markets are corrupting when it comes areas typically governed by societal norms. I'd further argue that markets are corrupting in general (and should be done away with or overhauled) but this induction is beyond the scope of the evidence I've presented and isn't thus a viable argument. But I believe it.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.



Lost my train of thought haha.
I wanted to say markets, as our society uses them today, are utterly essential for society. To say human interactions happen outside markets is missing the point. If one does not participate in the market they either die, eat and survive from discarded market items as homeless folks, or must become a hermit or invite a bunch of hermits to make tools from nature and create sustainable living scenarios.

By participate in markets I mean we must accept fiat currency, accept wage slavery (face it, if you are born in poverty you must start by selling your body for survival and many millions in America are engaged in this), accept the police and laws as authoritative (otherwise they terminate your freedoms and ability to participate in society).

This is a lot to demand from a person born into this world in order to merely engage in society.
In order to be alive and have non-market interactions, we must accept market conditions as final (or do what I said above.)

If this is true, then it sure sounds like your statement that most human interactions occur outside the market is moot. The market dominates the lives of those participating in society. To not accept the market is to make it wildly difficult to even live, let alone actively participate in positive social interactions.

In other words, though your statement is technically accurate, it misses the point. It deceives us into thinking the market is independent of our day to day conversations and interactions but the market is baked into the base of societal human. To act as an empathetic human towards every pursuit and interaction is to effectively sign up for being a looser in the marketplace. The market has taught us we must consider ourselves first in order to succeed. Although some people and organizations succeed based on empathetic principles, they are themselves engaged in a mixed approach of empathy and ego. For markets to put the ego to the fore and sometimes punish empathy is a sick society.

And yes, by markets I mean the ones we have today. I am not equivocating on markets by meaning simple trade and bartering. No, how markets function today are essential for humanity to live. And I think this demonstrates a massive flaw since as I've argued elsewhere that markets have corrosive effects on human relationships.


----------



## Indeependent

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a word, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so?  I know you're a partisan hack and not very bright.  I know that.  So why prove it with such a stupid response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you are stupid.
> 
> Tell me something, O he of the impossible to categorize stupidity, is the global market and economy the product of some global society I didn't notice? The last time I looked every single country had its own individual society, yet they all trade in the same market.
Click to expand...


World Trade Organization.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they different?  Isn't an economic system/policy a product of a society?  I'm confused, please edify me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While they are supposedly separate, without society, one does not have a market. However, as markets enter new realms (like Shakespeare in the Park or Linestanding for hearings in Washington) they tend to crowd out norms that formerly governed our behavior.
> 
> Instead of treating each other like humans with equal rights to see a Congressional hearing or Shakespeare we have allowed markets to create profit where profit did not exist.
> 
> Anyway, markets are not real. To think markets exist independent of human society is not properly understanding them. They are not concrete entities and stand independent of us. They are by-products of human creation. They are the outgrowth of human interactions based on human needs and human desires.
> 
> So while society is tangible (the community of humans working together) markets are not. However, they have tangible effects just like society. And these effects almost in every case reduce humans or social interactions to a price. Humans are priceless as well as social interactions since they provide us with something money cannot buy (or at least should not be allowed to buy). Yet the market is setting a price on people and genuine interactions and I assert this is immoral or at least corrupting. For children and youth, even people my age--26--who lack concern for their philosophy, will easily subsume this demeanor towards other humans. This meme would and has spread rapidly into all sorts of areas markets traditionally do not enter. Yet I know we both agree market values and norms confuse humans and genuine interaction with items. This was my basic point.
> 
> So I argue that markets are corrupting when it comes areas typically governed by societal norms. I'd further argue that markets are corrupting in general (and should be done away with or overhauled) but this induction is beyond the scope of the evidence I've presented and isn't thus a viable argument. But I believe it.
Click to expand...


That is an interesting, if specious, argument. 

If you look at the way things actually work you will see that, even in the absence of a social structure, people still trade with each other. In fact, trade will exist outside society if it has to, trade is the driving force in human interaction. Without trade we wouldn't even be apes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it is. But that's the point, it's a by-product of society, not the whole enchilada. The vast bulk of our interactions with other people in a social context have nothing to do with trade or markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lost my train of thought haha.
> I wanted to say markets, as our society uses them today, are utterly essential for society. To say human interactions happen outside markets is missing the point. If one does not participate in the market they either die, eat and survive from discarded market items as homeless folks, or must become a hermit or invite a bunch of hermits to make tools from nature and create sustainable living scenarios.
> 
> By participate in markets I mean we must accept fiat currency, accept wage slavery (face it, if you are born in poverty you must start by selling your body for survival and many millions in America are engaged in this), accept the police and laws as authoritative (otherwise they terminate your freedoms and ability to participate in society).
> 
> This is a lot to demand from a person born into this world in order to merely engage in society.
> In order to be alive and have non-market interactions, we must accept market conditions as final (or do what I said above.)
> 
> If this is true, then it sure sounds like your statement that most human interactions occur outside the market is moot. The market dominates the lives of those participating in society. To not accept the market is to make it wildly difficult to even live, let alone actively participate in positive social interactions.
> 
> In other words, though your statement is technically accurate, it misses the point. It deceives us into thinking the market is independent of our day to day conversations and interactions but the market is baked into the base of societal human.
> 
> And yes, by markets I mean the ones we have today. I am not equivocating on markets by meaning simple trade and bartering. No, how markets function today are essential for humanity to live. And I think this demonstrates a massive flaw since as I've argued elsewhere that markets have corrosive effects on human relationships.
Click to expand...


I have one word for you, barter.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> That is an interesting, if specious, argument.
> 
> If you look at the way things actually work you will see that, even in the absence of a social structure, people still trade with each other. In fact, trade will exist outside society if it has to, trade is the driving force in human interaction. Without trade we wouldn't even be apes.



I do not mean mere trade. Your argument is based on a different definition of markets. In other words, you have just committed the fallacy of equivocation. However, I sincerely respect your post as it involved genuine discussion. I want to thank you and encourage this from you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an interesting, if specious, argument.
> 
> If you look at the way things actually work you will see that, even in the absence of a social structure, people still trade with each other. In fact, trade will exist outside society if it has to, trade is the driving force in human interaction. Without trade we wouldn't even be apes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not mean mere trade. Your argument is based on a different definition of markets. In other words, you have just committed the fallacy of equivocation. However, I sincerely respect your post as it involved genuine discussion. I want to thank you and encourage this from you.
Click to expand...


Different definition of market?

Tell me something, oh purveyor of all things idiotic, what the fuck is your definition of market?


----------



## gnarlylove

You identified bartering or trading. This is the simple exchange of goods and services for other goods. This is a rudimentary definition of a market and should not be confused with our current monetary system. Barter or trade has been going on as long as humans have existed in early forms of society such as chiefdoms.

The other definition of markets is far more complex than the exchange of goods where the transaction immediately produces results. Adam Smith is well known for his elucidation of market economy. Barter is a mere part and parcel of modern markets. So you're right to think bartering/trading happens today. But it's much more complex. We exchange money for money and one currency for another. The stock market cannot operate as it does today without fiat currency. Many modern transactions have nexus of effects unlike in a barter economy. Once the transaction is complete in a barter system, both parties can be assured they have a final product and few if any effects will be realized after the exchange event. In our current markets it can take months and years for effects of transactions to be realized. Indeed, this results in the stock market can be one of systemic risk for the whole society as we saw in 2008. Bartering only makes systemic risks impossible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> You identified bartering or trading. This is the simple exchange of goods and services for other goods. This is a rudimentary definition of a market and should not be confused with our current monetary system. Barter or trade has been going on as long as humans have existed in early forms of society such as chiefdoms.
> 
> The other definition of markets is far more complex than the exchange of goods where the transaction immediately produces results. Adam Smith is well known for his elucidation of market economy. Barter is a mere part and parcel of modern markets. So you're right to think bartering/trading happens today. But it's much more complex. We exchange money for money and one currency for another. The stock market cannot operate as it does today without fiat currency. Many modern transactions have nexus of effects unlike in a barter economy. Once the transaction is complete in a barter system, both parties can be assured they have a final product and few if any effects will be realized after the exchange event. In our current markets it can take months and years for effects of transactions to be realized. Indeed, this results in the stock market can be one of systemic risk for the whole society as we saw in 2008. Bartering only makes systemic risks impossible.



Can you really be that fucking stupid? What the fuck do you think money is, nitwit? Is it something that somehow cancels the value that people put on things, or does your brain simply fail to grasp that money is just a way to facilitate trade and/or barter?


----------



## LibertyLemming

money is a product no different than your fucking iphone the idea that currencies are impossible without government is absolutely insane


----------



## gnarlylove

LL, what are you talking about? no one said governments are essential to the role of money or stock markets. are they involved? yes.

markets that exist today confer normative and prescriptive values upon society. trading and bartering does not. hence my whole argument that when economists say markets do not traffic in morality, well it turns out they absolutely do. and our society is utterly dependent, we are used as machines in factories and cubicles to fulfill the production of profit for wealthy folks we will never meet. in a bartering system humans trade items to excel in their life. the market of millenia ago simply did not confer prescriptive behaviors like it does today.

if you are fuzzy on what prescriptive values are, look them up QB before you reveal your shameless naked ego for all to see. no one wants to read your prate because this poor child never got the attention he wants...so he has to scream over a damned computer. what a totally hollow behavior, but i know it helps you sleep at night. you are literally incapable of communicating on the level. and your exceptionally robust ego shields you from seeing that you are displaying unbridled arrogance and ignorance in every single post. god help us given shallow pricks like you are the majority, not the exception.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> LL, what are you talking about? no one said governments are essential to the role of money or stock markets. are they involved? yes.
> 
> markets that exist today confer normative and prescriptive values upon society. trading and bartering does not. hence my whole argument that when economists say markets do not traffic in morality, well it turns out they absolutely do. and our society is utterly dependent, we are used as machines in factories and cubicles to fulfill the production of profit for wealthy folks we will never meet. in a bartering system humans trade items to excel in their life. the market of millenia ago simply did not confer prescriptive behaviors like it does today.
> 
> if you are fuzzy on what prescriptive values are, look them up QB before you reveal your shameless naked ego for all to see. no one wants to read your prate because this poor child never got the attention he wants...so he has to scream over a damned computer. what a totally hollow behavior, but i know it helps you sleep at night. you are literally incapable of communicating on the level. and your exceptionally robust ego shields you from seeing that you are displaying unbridled arrogance and ignorance in every single post. god help us given shallow pricks like you are the majority, not the exception.



Still not even wrong.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Simply put, government policies can mean the difference of billions of dollars for major companies, and spending on politics offers a superb payoff. A study from the University of Kansas found that companies lobbying for a tax holiday received a 22,000 percent return on the money they spent to influence the legislation."
Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone? | The Nation

Markets have taken over our government and so that corporations can buy results. This is a result of a market society gone wrong. Money has more value than human relationships.

Maybe your point is our society differs in degree, not in kind to former societies. Is this your complaint? Then I can safely agree with you without changing my argument. No one denies our society is quite different from one centuries ago and that the direction markets have taken has severely handicapped people in making good long-term decisions. No one knows how to live within their means, just like Government. I'm not saying we all should but if allowing our expenditures to rule our life is a bad thing. We need to develop a sense of worth outside the realm of money and markets--but sadly markets tend to corrode our once held values.


----------



## SAYIT

gnarlylove said:


> "Simply put, government policies can mean the difference of billions of dollars for major companies, and spending on politics offers a superb payoff. A study from the University of Kansas found that companies lobbying for a tax holiday received a 22,000 percent return on the money they spent to influence the legislation."
> Where Have All the Lobbyists Gone? | The Nation
> 
> Markets have taken over our government and so that corporations can buy results. This is a result of a market society gone wrong. Money has more value than human relationships.



Socialist Silliness. Money simply exists to facilitate bartering.


----------



## SAYIT

midcan5 said:


> As I read through these posts and threads I often read about this magical Market that can do all things. A kind of Supermarket that builds roads, bridges, tunnels, subways yet? But you know what, I never see one of this Market miracles. Where are they folks?



Funny, when I read them I am amazed by those who diss America's market system, as imperfect as it is, and in all seriousness argue that we would be better served by ditching it in favor of the Soviet or some other socialist model.


----------

