As I read this chapter my thoughts kept coming to an end. Every word I agreed with and the more I read, the more I agreed. Why is this? The first chapter in Free to Choose gives a brief summary of a few of the author's reasons why capitalism/free market works and socialism does not. Again, I agree, agree, agree! Why do I agree though? I have obviously grew up in a society that for the most part applauds the merit's of capitalism and is looked on by most of the world as the "land of opportunity" regarding economics. I went to a university that was very politically conservative and very free market in its teaching. I obviously read those who confer with my ideas, and my ideas line up with those I read. But what if it wasn't so? What if I grew up under communism. What if the world I lived in was socialist, or my school taught Marx over Friedman? As far as economic philosophy is concerned, I had to ask myself, "Am I a product of my environment or is this teaching truly the best?"
I think I have come to a conclusion. Especially over the last 100 years, but over all of history we have seen that markets that are able to operate freely have yielded the best return to it's citizens. Unfortunately we have never (to my knowledge) ever seen a true, in every sense of the phrase free market. Until we do, I will have to hold my opinion close, but my thought is this, men are wicked enough to need regulation. Friedman address this issue and states that government should be used only to the extent that it is beneficial for all (or at least nearly all.) This is obvious, but it does in a sense violate the idea of a true free market. In a true free market I there would be no laws or regulations. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The need for such things is obvious for a society to operate effectively or else businesses would be impossible to run without risk of bandits over running profits.
Needless to say I've rambled on long enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The story of the 20th c. is that markets are in and socialism has failed, absolutely. It yielded more starvation, more political oppression, more pollution.
You might also consider your (our) Western individual-centered bias as well - to see how the market is best for individuals, based on the premise that more individual liberty = good. Many societies think of themselves as embedded in a family/community first, then as individuals.
To throw in a "spiritual" angle, what has been most frustrating to me about Christian economists / free-marketeers is that so few are explicit (if at all) in rejecting consumerism/materialism, which has a very solid biblical base, any way you cut it. Now - they could distinguish that from their academic stance that free markets are the most effective at allocating resources, the most effective social arrangement. That's not contradictory. (Like legally allowing pornography / hard drugs / gay marriage vs. actually practicing them).
But if you aren't careful to separate the two, you fall into the "more goods/services is always better" thinking that I believe undermines Christian spirituality based on the life/message of Jesus (that homeless, unpredictable, revolutionary who kept trying to redistribute everything ;). I found this sobering when my Christian econ professor sent an article to the class to clear up some debates we had in class - it was "In Defense of Consumerism". I was sad that the prof could not separate the two in his teaching.
The article can be found here:
http://mises.org/story/2178
My ramblings in the school newspaper re: markets & spirituality can be found here (double click it, copy, paste):
http://athada.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-capitalism-and-cake-draft-2.html
Whew again.
Also, I'm open to see if there is a more nuanced social arrangement than the simple socialism vs. capitalism divide that the free-marketeers like to push.
Post a Comment