While I see your point, *my* point was that with a selfless-based-economy, there are *no* internal checks and balances - every bit of control has to be external.
With a free-market system, most of the checks and balances are built in. External intervention may be required, but it will be the exception, not the rule. Think of it this way - why do you use a computer? Why not do everything by hand? I mean, they break, they crash, they require intervention... because when they don't, they save you from having to do it all by hand. They are, in many cases, self-correcting, and the result is more than you could do with manual manipulation of the numbers. But, sometimes, it goes boom, and then you step in to give it a kick in the posterior, and it's off and running again. I see free markets in much the same way - they are, for the most part, self-regulating, and require the occasional kick. A selfless-inspired economy that requires control requires *constant* control, there is no throttling back. Every aspect has to be managed for it work effectively, and human nature will be constantly fighting against it.
Of course an ideal free-market system is about as inane as an ideal commune covering 6 billion people - but given the sub-optimal versions of each, the free-market system still contains checks and balances that the selfless-motivated economies will not. One limits the amount of intervention you need, the other requires you to force it every step of the way with a structure that, in turn needs external checks and balances. The latter is open to much more opportunity for corruption, and unchecked selfish behaviour than the former.
For every selfish person you have willing to collude, manipulate, and such, you have ten other selfish people wanting to pull it ten other ways. The net effect is one of a central point where the vast majority of participants can benefit... without external control. Consumers are an active part of a free-market, and can drive businesses to bankruptcy if they don't agree with their products, behaviour, or direction. At the minimum, they can, and do, force lower prices to be offered. That's the whole idea behind a co-op, after all - to produce a buyer's block that is sufficiently strong to influence prices and provide all members with a lower priced selection of products. Make no mistake though, co-ops can be thought of businesses in their own right. Exhibit A: Weaver Street Market. It's going 'corporate', and many people are shocked and upset, feeling that it has betrayed its origins... I saw it as the inevitable next step for a successful co-op.
I don't believe that a perfect free-market will ever appear. I was only pointing out that an imperfect free-market is still better than the alternatives for reducing the amount of external control needed, and thereby reducing the opportunities for utterly unchecked greed and corruption.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-05 05:36 pm (UTC)With a free-market system, most of the checks and balances are built in. External intervention may be required, but it will be the exception, not the rule. Think of it this way - why do you use a computer? Why not do everything by hand? I mean, they break, they crash, they require intervention... because when they don't, they save you from having to do it all by hand. They are, in many cases, self-correcting, and the result is more than you could do with manual manipulation of the numbers. But, sometimes, it goes boom, and then you step in to give it a kick in the posterior, and it's off and running again. I see free markets in much the same way - they are, for the most part, self-regulating, and require the occasional kick. A selfless-inspired economy that requires control requires *constant* control, there is no throttling back. Every aspect has to be managed for it work effectively, and human nature will be constantly fighting against it.
Of course an ideal free-market system is about as inane as an ideal commune covering 6 billion people - but given the sub-optimal versions of each, the free-market system still contains checks and balances that the selfless-motivated economies will not. One limits the amount of intervention you need, the other requires you to force it every step of the way with a structure that, in turn needs external checks and balances. The latter is open to much more opportunity for corruption, and unchecked selfish behaviour than the former.
For every selfish person you have willing to collude, manipulate, and such, you have ten other selfish people wanting to pull it ten other ways. The net effect is one of a central point where the vast majority of participants can benefit... without external control. Consumers are an active part of a free-market, and can drive businesses to bankruptcy if they don't agree with their products, behaviour, or direction. At the minimum, they can, and do, force lower prices to be offered. That's the whole idea behind a co-op, after all - to produce a buyer's block that is sufficiently strong to influence prices and provide all members with a lower priced selection of products. Make no mistake though, co-ops can be thought of businesses in their own right. Exhibit A: Weaver Street Market. It's going 'corporate', and many people are shocked and upset, feeling that it has betrayed its origins... I saw it as the inevitable next step for a successful co-op.
I don't believe that a perfect free-market will ever appear. I was only pointing out that an imperfect free-market is still better than the alternatives for reducing the amount of external control needed, and thereby reducing the opportunities for utterly unchecked greed and corruption.
Cripes, I can ramble.