3 ms·
There also seem to be differences in underlying assumptions: whether humans exist to serve markets or whether markets exist only because they happen benefit hum
by TomMckenny 7y ago
There also seem to be differences in underlying assumptions: whether humans exist to serve markets or whether markets exist only because they happen benefit humanity. And a similar question for property itself.
- eru 7y agoNice strawman you got there. You'll have a hard time finding anyone who thinks that humans are meant to 'serve the market'. Especially any economist. The market isn't a separate entity, it's made of humans interacting.
- TomMckenny 7y agoTrue, I put the point bluntly. If the market produces bad outcomes for years on end, which it in some narrow cases it does, do we 1) keep with it regardless or 2) do something else. I think you will find there are quite a few people who will choose #1
- eru 7y agoThe wisdom of this course of action depends on whether that something else produces better outcomes.
- kristopolous 7y agopart of neoliberalism is a theory that everything is a market, in some "natural state" and it's only our human meddling that keeps it from being "free" ... there's been a century of Economic Anthropology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology) that shows this simply does not exist, there is no "natural state" and the definition of "free market" is constantly re-framed. It's a contemporary human social construct and a set of rather arbitrarily defined cultural rules. Market fundamentalism is a form of political convenience, not based on any empirical study of reality.