By Glen Wallace
Advocating for a free market is like advocating for a square circle -- an impossibility. Markets operate much like a game, and just like a game needs rules that all the players are bound by for the game to work, so does a market require rules that players are bound by as well in order for that market to operate at all. The terms 'bound' and 'free' are mutually exclusive terms.
I've never heard of a free market advocate suggesting, for instance, abandoning the Universal Commercial Code (UCC) that most all businesses abide and are bound by. Instead there is a general recognition that there needs to be some set of rules that everyone in the business community more or less agrees to bound by in order for the markets to run smoothly. The UCC is just one example of the myriad of different types of rules, laws and contracts that the market is bound by, both within and without, that even the free market advocates would agree are entirely necessary for the markets to exist at all, let alone run smoothly.
The 'free market' just seems to be some vague pie in the sky variable ideal that people fit into all their fanciful capitalistic hopes and dreams. The problem with vague goals is that some powerful forces can use them as a means to reach their own personal goals by leveraging the masses that struggle for their goals using as their goal what they think is the same goal as the ruling elite. What the masses never realize, is that the goal of the ruling elite and the masses never was the same but rather the goal of the elite is at the expense of the masses. But still the elite create this deliberately vague goal that they call a 'free market' and convince the masses that reaching this goal will lead to
everyone's hopes and dreams being realized. And of course the elite will give the masses step by step instructions on how to reach that goal. The instructions are given because the elite cannot reach their own goal without riding on the backs of the masses who mistakenly think not that they are carrying the load of the wealthy and powerful trying to get more wealthy and powerful, but rather that they are working to achieve their own goals that they have fitted into the label of 'free market.'
But it has never been the plebs that have designed the so called 'free market' but rather it is the bourgeois that have designed the market system to operate in their best interest at the expense of the proletariat that have carried on their backs the bourgeois to any given market system.
Inevitably for those who fail in any market they either will blame themselves or blame the markets for being not free enough and often then will just work harder to create a system that the winners who have already designed the current system say that needs to be done to create a 'truly free market.' But what the winners who design the market system just try to do is tweak the markets in whatever manner will allow them to squeeze out a little more profit because there is never enough profit for them and it is always a fun challenge for them to see how much more they can gain the system in their own advantage.
But the point is there is a vague goal created such that a great variety of goals in the minds of individuals can easily fit their own goal into the vague goal in the sky. Now you have a great number of people chasing after the goal with one label and therefore everyone chasing that goal with the same label thinks that they are chasing after the same thing even though the goal of each individual in the chase varies widely. The only question left then, is who is going to design the path to the goal with the same label. It will of course be those already with power that design the primrose path that
everyone follows because they are convinced that is the one route to their seemingly shared goal. Now, everyone with different goals in their minds effective pull the ropes that pull the bourgeois chariot down the primrose path by advocating for legislation that the proletariat have become convinced will help them reach what they believe is the same shared destination but in reality is the route to a very exclusive destination for the ruling elite that in all likelihood each member of the middle and lower classes has already been excluded from reaching.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
In Spain workers now have to sacrifice their labor for the sake of the banksters
By Glen Wallace
The New York Times article For Spaniards, Having a Job No Longer Guarantees a Paycheck , seems to be describing a situation in Spain that is more dire than how it appears in the mainstream media here in the U.S. Apparently there is a fairly widespread problem over there of people with jobs getting paid either very irregularly in small amounts or not at all. Often the workers not getting a paycheck see few options since they think they will have even less chance of finding another job at all if they leave there current employer. But on the other hand if they try to hold their employers publicly accountable for the non or slow payment of wages, the workers are afraid that will hurt the business they work for so much that it will tip over into bankruptcy.
I had no idea this was going on over there. I imagine many will blame their plight on socialism. I would tend to disagree and if anything lay the blame in the opposite direction on the capitalist bankers that encouraged and profited from the indebtedness that has lead to the current European crisis.
The economic systems that we all live under exist not because it grew out of nature or as some law of physics, but out of the decisions of fallible humans. None of the people featured in the article had any goal or expectation of living lavish lifestyles off of the income they were assured of from their employment. Rather they just wanted to live a simple modest life from the fruit of their hard work in their jobs. But now even though they are working and many more in their country are willing and desirous to work and be productive, they are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads by keeping up with the mortgage payments. Isn't that kind of a funny expression -- 'keep the roof over our heads' -- I mean, where is roof going? Is it blowing away and you're trying to hold onto it? Of course not, but economics is supposed to be fundamentally about the relationship between humans and the material world that makes up modern civilization. Those of us who are satisfied with a modest standard of living should demand an economic system that supports a symbiotic relationship between our participation in that system and an adequate maintenance of its supportive economic structure. The roof is not going anywhere, it is the bank that is deciding that the people living underneath the roof must go and the law enforcement that is supposed to be advocates for the people show that in reality they are advocates for the banks when they use force or the threat of force to evict the people living underneath the roof.
It doesn't have to be this way -- remember, the laws that govern our economic system are not laws of physics but are rather malleable rules created by humans. One of the individuals featured in the story, who is owed $13,000 in back pay, is a woman working in a factory hand rolling paint onto tiles. I wonder how many square feet of wall space in houses all those tiles she has painted could fill? I ask that question because I wonder how much labor is really needed to support a smoothly running modern civilization where most citizens simply want to live a modest life with a modest roof over their heads. What if we were to forget about the big banks and debt? Could we create a system that functioned solely with the goal of first meeting the basic needs of food, shelter, water, sewage, heat, electricity as the top priority and look to how that goal can be met given the available resources of labor and land. If, and only if the basic needs for modest living are met, then those that are especially ambitious can be allowed to pursue a few extra niceties and comforts of life - but only if doing so in no way depletes or takes away from society meeting the first priority of basic needs. Instead, in our current bankcentric economic model, I'd be willing to bet that tile painter is, in effect, through no choice of her own, sacrificing her labor in order to make sure debt obligations are met that keep the banksters living in luxury. What kind of economic system allows that sort of injustice? Clearly a rotten one that needs to be tossed into the compost bin. And from the lessons we have learned we can grow a new fruitful society nourished by the soil fertilized by the mistakes we now know to avoid.
The New York Times article For Spaniards, Having a Job No Longer Guarantees a Paycheck , seems to be describing a situation in Spain that is more dire than how it appears in the mainstream media here in the U.S. Apparently there is a fairly widespread problem over there of people with jobs getting paid either very irregularly in small amounts or not at all. Often the workers not getting a paycheck see few options since they think they will have even less chance of finding another job at all if they leave there current employer. But on the other hand if they try to hold their employers publicly accountable for the non or slow payment of wages, the workers are afraid that will hurt the business they work for so much that it will tip over into bankruptcy.
I had no idea this was going on over there. I imagine many will blame their plight on socialism. I would tend to disagree and if anything lay the blame in the opposite direction on the capitalist bankers that encouraged and profited from the indebtedness that has lead to the current European crisis.
The economic systems that we all live under exist not because it grew out of nature or as some law of physics, but out of the decisions of fallible humans. None of the people featured in the article had any goal or expectation of living lavish lifestyles off of the income they were assured of from their employment. Rather they just wanted to live a simple modest life from the fruit of their hard work in their jobs. But now even though they are working and many more in their country are willing and desirous to work and be productive, they are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads by keeping up with the mortgage payments. Isn't that kind of a funny expression -- 'keep the roof over our heads' -- I mean, where is roof going? Is it blowing away and you're trying to hold onto it? Of course not, but economics is supposed to be fundamentally about the relationship between humans and the material world that makes up modern civilization. Those of us who are satisfied with a modest standard of living should demand an economic system that supports a symbiotic relationship between our participation in that system and an adequate maintenance of its supportive economic structure. The roof is not going anywhere, it is the bank that is deciding that the people living underneath the roof must go and the law enforcement that is supposed to be advocates for the people show that in reality they are advocates for the banks when they use force or the threat of force to evict the people living underneath the roof.
It doesn't have to be this way -- remember, the laws that govern our economic system are not laws of physics but are rather malleable rules created by humans. One of the individuals featured in the story, who is owed $13,000 in back pay, is a woman working in a factory hand rolling paint onto tiles. I wonder how many square feet of wall space in houses all those tiles she has painted could fill? I ask that question because I wonder how much labor is really needed to support a smoothly running modern civilization where most citizens simply want to live a modest life with a modest roof over their heads. What if we were to forget about the big banks and debt? Could we create a system that functioned solely with the goal of first meeting the basic needs of food, shelter, water, sewage, heat, electricity as the top priority and look to how that goal can be met given the available resources of labor and land. If, and only if the basic needs for modest living are met, then those that are especially ambitious can be allowed to pursue a few extra niceties and comforts of life - but only if doing so in no way depletes or takes away from society meeting the first priority of basic needs. Instead, in our current bankcentric economic model, I'd be willing to bet that tile painter is, in effect, through no choice of her own, sacrificing her labor in order to make sure debt obligations are met that keep the banksters living in luxury. What kind of economic system allows that sort of injustice? Clearly a rotten one that needs to be tossed into the compost bin. And from the lessons we have learned we can grow a new fruitful society nourished by the soil fertilized by the mistakes we now know to avoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)