Re: French protest turn violent
The self interest arguments allow for more dynamism for sure but markets don't work in a perfect atomistic and competitive way that economists or shall I say milton friedmanites to try to be more specific say they do and they never will due to the efficiencies of some form of collectivism that is always present in society. THe problem is that powerful individuals or groups can co-opt these collective forces to the extent that the benefits are largely focused on them and its in the collectives self interest to push back. This is why strikes are so effective and why big business tries so hard to tell us its morally wrong. It's in big business' interest to tell the collective that all that is good in their life comes from their genius and business skills and to accept what they're given, while its in the collective's interest to tell big business 'well how about I stop working and you migh't recognise a little more how much you need me and give me my just reward'. Of course the strikes can go too far too but its best to recognise the reality of the tension and try come to an optimal balance than to give all the power to one side or the other. I think what so often tips the balance in business' favour is that individuals can concentrate such disproportionate gains on themselves that they are highly motivated to do so, this is the same reason that socialism failed. Markets may create more competition to reduce this threat but markets aren't perfect and this is why there needs to be a recognition in the collective psyche of their rights to push back. If markets aren't purely effecient then you are likely to have a build up of exploitaive pressures if there is nothing pushing back. As Stephen Hawking said if something is possible it will happen.
The self interest arguments allow for more dynamism for sure but markets don't work in a perfect atomistic and competitive way that economists or shall I say milton friedmanites to try to be more specific say they do and they never will due to the efficiencies of some form of collectivism that is always present in society. THe problem is that powerful individuals or groups can co-opt these collective forces to the extent that the benefits are largely focused on them and its in the collectives self interest to push back. This is why strikes are so effective and why big business tries so hard to tell us its morally wrong. It's in big business' interest to tell the collective that all that is good in their life comes from their genius and business skills and to accept what they're given, while its in the collective's interest to tell big business 'well how about I stop working and you migh't recognise a little more how much you need me and give me my just reward'. Of course the strikes can go too far too but its best to recognise the reality of the tension and try come to an optimal balance than to give all the power to one side or the other. I think what so often tips the balance in business' favour is that individuals can concentrate such disproportionate gains on themselves that they are highly motivated to do so, this is the same reason that socialism failed. Markets may create more competition to reduce this threat but markets aren't perfect and this is why there needs to be a recognition in the collective psyche of their rights to push back. If markets aren't purely effecient then you are likely to have a build up of exploitaive pressures if there is nothing pushing back. As Stephen Hawking said if something is possible it will happen.
Comment