> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 9:16 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Liberal Capitalist Fundamentalism > > On 4/17/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >>I think it is worthwhile to consider what the main advantage afforded by >>our present political-economic system: the harnessing of the baser desires >>of people for the common good. > > > I think we're kidding ourselves when we think greed is the significant > component of why our system works. "Greed is good" serves those who focus > on wealth and power by giving them an excuse to disregard the reality that > politics and markets demand as much cooperation as competition.
I see at least two questions mixed together here. One of them is the question of human motivation. The other is whether only competition exists, or whether cooperation also is an important factor. The argument that cooperation is an illusion has been purported by Social Darwinists. As I'm sure you know they emphasized the "law of the jungle." Everyone is in direct competition with everyone else. Cooperation and good faith are temporary illusions at best. It's a dog eat dog world. Altruism is unnatural and wrong (see Ayn Rand). But, this view is not at all integral to a democratic capitalistic system. Indeed, it is a position that is held by a relatively small minority. Liberal democratic systems require two components: 1) Some form of market economy 2) Some form of representative government. These can range in balance from the small government pro-business American system of the Roaring Twenties to mid-60s European systems that had significant government ownership of the means of production. In all of these cases, there is both competition and cooperation. Markets require both. Competition is frequently seen between like positions. Sellers compete with each other for customers. Buyers bid against each other to purchase the same items. At the same time, free trade, almost by definition, requires cooperation between buyers and sellers. Both must agree on prices, terms, warranties, etc. for the sale to be transacted. There can be cooperation between different sellers and different buyers. Cooperation between sellers usually involves working together to get more favorable selling conditions. One example of this is a labor union. Another is a cartel. And of course, corporations are cooperative ventures. Many shareholders pool their money together to pay for and profit from larger operations than could be accomplished by a single person. So, I'd argue that the existence of cooperation as well as competition has long been accepted as part of market economics. The critical aspect I was thinking of is not ubiquitous competition, but the actions of the various agents in the market to further their own interests. Clearly, there are times when it is one's enlightened self interest to cooperate with someone else. When I worked for a company, it was worth my while to do things that benefited that company. It was also worth my while to cooperate with vendors, since they product I needed to do my job. Now, I work hard to cooperate with my customers. I try to make working with me as easy as possible for them. But, I admit that I don't do it just because I like people. I know that a good, cooperative working relationship increases the chance of doing future business with them. So, to get back to your first statement, I don't believe that greed is good. But, I do believe that it is good for economic models to recognize that people are often greedy...and that self interest is usually a very powerful motivating force. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
