One term that irks me is "free market". It implies that there is some sort of alternative wherein the market would not be free, or that the market can only be free if it is completely untethered. To me, simply "market" would be a better term. The economic situations exist because of the people involved, period. "Market" is also more inclusive, enabling one to include every single actor (including national governments, international governing bodies, and government agencies). Business types like to disregard these actors as simply getting in the way, but they get in the way as a function of the market. They act to improve it, not to hinder it.
Think of America about 100 years ago, before Roosevelt, before the Spanish-American war made it a burgeoning empire. Income disparity was huge, working conditions were awful, living conditions were awful, etc. There weren't any regulations in place, and as such, lower incomed peoples, who had little effect on the consumer market, bore the brunt of it. Do you think anyone who was in the market to buy a Pullman train car would actually care about the conditions of the people who physically make them? The same could be said for any modern equivalent -- care would only exist within the realm of charity cases one could make public. The workers then, as a market reaction, demand more. Having no actual power (another pool of employees could easily be brought in -- at least we're working) the government (or some actor, though it's hard to think of another) has to step in and say this is not cool, you guys.
The fact is, given a comparable result, give an industry the option to make something as cheaply as possible or the option to make it for more, but make sure everything is done "right" -- workers treated fairly, minimal to no environmental damage, etc -- most would pick the former. And the consumer? Who's to say they'd actually care the research the difference? Chances are they won't, and the more they end up being relatively the same price, the more it gets closer to a coin flip.
But enough of that. It was merely a defense of regulations, a defense of government acting within the market rather than staying aloof.
The modern equivalent of the industrial conditions of the late 19th century is the banking industry. Most western nations have seen their manufacturing economy replaced with the service economy, the backbone of which is banking. Regulations have slowly been taken away since the 1980s (making every government since then at fault, not just Bush or Clinton). This has been done under the auspices that regulation and taxation make them too cautious (as if wanting to stop an industry from losing money could be a bad thing).
Apparently we are now being led to believe that taxation stops companies from hiring more and expanding. Because taxes stop people from doing things? How could expansion and the increased revenues from expansion not be worth the taxes that would inevitably come with it?
Let's create a hypothetical scenario here. There is a man who makes his living hunting deer. Hunting was previously the only profession that was not taxed. The government wishes to add a tax so that 1 out of every 10 deer the hunter kills goes to the government. The hunter does not hunt for subsistence, he turns a profit selling extra meat and furs that he himself does not need. If this tax is imposed, would that stop the hunter from hunting? Would he hunt less? Neither of those is logical. Sure, paying taxes sucks, but everyone does it, and the threat of one existing isn't an economic deterrent in and of itself.
The other problem right now, and this is an issue that is probably larger within the tea party than the occupy movement, is how the industries themselves are ending up writing their own regulations. This is also wrong on so many levels, but i don't feel like coming up with any cute little allegories about why. I'll just say the end result -- the industry status quo is kept; up and comers within an industry may face actual regulations, while long timers face none, effectively monopolizing power (though given it's spread amongst a few partners, oligopoly would be a more precise term).
I'll prolly write something about patent and copyright law, and how it's holding back innovation later, but this is good for now.
-- Knuttel
No comments:
Post a Comment