Economics
"The most common misunderstanding about economics is that it is only about money and commerce...economics concerns everyone and everything." [1] Economics is not just a countries GDP, imports and exports; not just about making monetary profit and avoiding loss. It is about individuals, their interaction which each others and their environment. Ironically, although the economy can be studied, it cannot, with any degree of certainty and consistency, be controlled without relinquishing the liberty of individuals.
The Free Market
I am reluctant to use the term Capitalism, not necessarily because it carries negative attributes, but it does not accurately portray a Free Market. However, the terms are typically synonymous with one antother. "The free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or non-tangible services." [2] A Free Market allows for free exchange and free entry, not to mention free exit.
Although there appear semblances of a Free Market in today's economy, there exists a ranging degree of control from central planners, ie politicians and government officials. Coercive and aggressive restrictions, regulations, and mandates, inhibit not not individuals, but firms from free exchange and free entry in the market. We live in a mixed economy, where many industries are more centrally controlled than others, yet where a free market attempts to thrive. The less restrictions, regulations, and mandates on a market, the better off a market will be able to self manage and self correct.
[1] Rockwell, Lew, The Free Market, Vol. 24, No. 1, January 2006
[2] Rothbard, Murry, The Free Market, Vol. 24, No. 1, January 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I feel my rebuttal to Paul’s comment to my post titled “political economy” grants the reader my position on the fact that idea of a “free market” is ideologically based. While it may be important to explain the Physiocrat’s conception of laissez-faire and especially elucidate the historical necessity of Adam Smith’s political economy to justify bourgeois rule, doing so will take several volumes, that is, 300 words won’t do it justice. Suffice it to say, when bourgeois intellectuals were attempting to solidify the philosophies, morals, and characteristics of market-based economic exchange and sway the elites of the time to invest in capital instead of continue their protectionist (mercantilist) policies, they claimed that by reducing such measures their national wealth would increase considerably. By claiming that the greatest benefit to a society is brought about by individuals acting freely in a competitive marketplace in the pursuit of their own self-interest, the bourgeois intellectuals where attempting to break the monopoly of power held by the kings who supposedly had divine right to rule. Instead, the economy was “self-regulated” through the “Invisible Hand” (of God, Providence, etc). Supposedly, the mechanisms controlling the economy were natural laws uncovered by bourgeois economists.
Of course, this is a crude description of centuries of class struggle, but I hope this compels you to question the viability of liberatianism, austro or otherwise, and read more on the motivations and historical dynamics of the time.
Ideology
ideology (New Oxford American Dictionary)
1 a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy : the ideology of republicanism.
• the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual : a critique of bourgeois ideology.
According to this definition, both Socialism and Austro-Libertarianism appear ideologically based. IMHO, arguing about the ideological basis of one system, while being blind to ones own is a moot point. Both are a system of concepts or ideas, and advocate a certain economic or political theory. Both showcase the manner of thinking characteristic to either a social class (socialism) or individual (libertarianism). The advantage of Austrian Economic component is that it can explain the economy, regardless if it is socialist, capitalist, or mixed.
Bourgeois Intellectuals and the State
If we take a look at what sort of economic theory the state and elites have supported, theories that advocate state intervention are touted, not that of free markets. State interventionist include, Chicago, Neoclassical, and Keynesian. Advocates for the free market have been sidelined. What is advocated as the free market in this day in age is that of state intervention, control, and coercion, but suffice it to say, that is not a free market.
So why is Marxism not ideology? These previous posts titled “... more on historical materialism” and "Philosophers have merely interpreted the world", stated Marx long ago. "The point, however, is to change it" should clarify any misunderstandings. So while someone does not have to acknowledge Newton’s law of gravity to feel its all encompassing effects, humans who don't believe in class stratification (market-based economic systems included) still feel the effect of the resulting oppression and exploitation.
I hope this analogy help one acknowledge the superiority of a historical materialists frame of analysis and why it is far from ideology. This is not a moot point as Paul would like to suggest. So, I am not blind, Paul. In fact, the definition works well with your understanding of libertarianism as you tout ideology, namely that “individuals engage is conscious actions towards chosen goals. One can deduce the logical implications from the fact that individuals act. While valuation and judgement [sic] is in the minds of the individual, it is only apparent when acted upon.” This conception of the world merely glosses over the world, itself. It is a theory in a vacuum, self-serving and lifeless. As Paul indicated in a previous post, “The mind, namely the human mind plays a central role. Praxeology does not deal with ideals, but rather requires ideas. Praxeology does not investigate perfection, per se, but instead examines the actions emergent from the human mind.” What he fails to acknowledge is that for millions of years, humans (and their minds) did not exist on earth. Historical materialism takes this into consideration and presents the social evolution of humans as they produce their own subsistence.
So while Paul claims that Praxeology does not deal with ideals, what is the “free market” other than an ideal that has been created by bourgeois ideologists.
Lastly since Libertarianism have no concern for social justice, it fails to look at the evidence of injustice in the social conditions constrained by class society.
You just proved the ideological nature of Marxism in stating "the point is to change it." Marx has an idea of how a better more egalitarian world would be (not necessarily correct), and that idea directs change. A non-ideological philosophy would not try to change things, but rather, understand the world as it is.
There is a big difference between Newton's law of gravity and stratification, the former is a naturally occurring formula, the latter is created by humans. Human volition creates our world, and humans do not consistently act. However, gravity is constant given the parameters.
I thought we were arguing the economy and the market, but it appears we have embarked on reinvigorating the debate on praxeology and historical materialism, granted all is interconnected. We are not talking about millions of years ago, we are talking about the economy, politics, and government, all of which are human "inventions", of which praxeology is highly applicable. Furthermore, if you think historical materialism takes into account millions of years before humans, I think you are deeply mistaken.
From the New Oxford American Dictionary: "[Historical] Dialectical Materialism is the Marxist theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is believed to be caused by material needs.
By definition, one needs political events, historical events, both which arise from the conflict of social forces, all these require the use of humans. Historical materialism only applies to that of political and historical events from humans.
However, materialism may suffice for explaining pre-human existence, but in a previous thread, it was said that materialism and Dialectical Materialism are NOT one and the same. Even by definitions of each, they are extremely different.
On social justice, this diverges from the economy and market, best for another topic.
Post a Comment