Comments on: Market fundamentalism has left Britain in the economic relegation zone – it’s time for a rethink

By: xrt89

xrt89 — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:30:00 +0000

You miss my point. It is not a choice of it falling into the hands of the “state” versus “hands of a minority faction”. It falls into the hands of the latter becuase of collusion with or usurption of the state. The only way you can control factionalism if thorugh legal or constitutional controls that prevent one faction from dominating.

The market mechnaism is also invisible. It’s also not a quasi-natural object. It is not even a singular object. Markets can take multiple forms because they exist in different institutional contexts of culture, law, etc. in whuch there are different political/social/moral comitments. Modern economics ignores this as it reduces all human action to utilitratian economic decisions. This is itself a moral/political commitment but not recognised as such.

By: Goinlike

Goinlike — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:57:00 +0000

I agree regulation is always for someone . As the market mechanism operates ‘ invisibly ‘ then the only means of controlling it is to restrict it.
The possibility that it may fall into the hands of a minority faction is surely better than that it falls entirely within the grasp of one faction ie the state where the supply is effectively controlled .
There are occasions when you do not want a market to operate eg drugs or a war economy where it is vital to concentrate production on essentials and you accept rationing as the price to be paid for it.

By: xrt89

xrt89 — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:15:00 +0000

The market always operates through regulation. There can be no markets without regulation. The issue is regulation for whom? Whether it’s the Soviet Union, Britain in the time of Smith, or the present day UK, regulation is often for a small and powerful minority faction. Smith was not against sensible regulation that protected the interersts of the many in fair competition.

By: Goinlike

Goinlike — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:01:00 +0000

The author entirely ignores the metaphor. The hand is ‘invisible’ hence it operates automatically and without human intervention.

By: Moana

Moana — Sat, 26 Aug 2017 07:03:00 +0000

I too enjoyed the “ripping apart” angle but I think the article ignored one key set of metrics: that current productivity of the global economy is based on exceeding the ecological carrying capacity of the planet. Therefore the piece failed to address the false claim that growth is desirable.

By: xrt89

xrt89 — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 20:38:00 +0000

“The first is that the ‘invisible hand’—a phrase taken wholly out of context from Smith’s (incoherent) usage in The Wealth of Nations…”

Agree about Smith being taken out of context but why is Smith’s usage incoherent? It’s just a metphor (which he uses only once in the book) for unintended consequences and one that was used by many others before and after Smith.

“But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.”

Note that a large part of Wealth is taken up with attacking the actions of merchants, politicians and others whose actions have both intended and unintended consequences that are against the public interest.

By: Robin Wilson

Robin Wilson — Fri, 25 Aug 2017 06:48:00 +0000

Very kind. Thank you.

By: BC

BC — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:27:00 +0000

Excellent ripping apart of all the claims of the neo-liberal consensus. What immediately strikes me about the exploration of what is working and working well for others is that not even Corbyn’s supposedly extremist Labour Party is advocating anything approaching the radical shake-up the UK needs to catch up with the rest of the industrialised world. We need government to actively direct industrial and commercial policy; we need welfare to be an active component of the economy rather than a safety net for “hopeless cases”; we need to start tackling rentiers and arbitrageurs as parasitic vermin rather than treating their wealth extraction as somehow beneficial to society.

This is what makes openDemocracy worth having, folks!