Hi Ed, Arthur and Co, In this discussion I am finding this counterpoising of markets and "truth, beauty, justice and harmony" to be unhelpful. If you're going to attack markets then you are also in danger of attacking free choice.
This generalised attack on "fat cats" is unworthy of intellectual discussion. Some fat cats are so by accident (of birth or lucky chance), some are so by being granted privileges by government, some by being criminal and hiding their activities, some because they are mainly motivated by creativity, some because they are mainly motivated by wishing to be benevolent. You really can't lump them all together. What is the nasty aspect of fat catiness? Superficially, it is if they are mainly motivated by greed. But if that all it is what is really wrong with that? (Bear in mind that wealth always re-cycles sooner or later to the poorest in the land, so it's only a temporary circumstance.) What is really wrong with fat catiness is that the possessors of wealth are also able to wield power far beyond the wisdom of the normal individual. And, sooner or later, this sort of power tramples over ordinary people and causes unnecessary suffering. Power corrupts and all that . . . . It is the power aspect which is the important one, and this deeply involves information and access to justice, too. If we really want to discuss "truth, beauty, justice and harmony" and markets let's get back the fundamentals of human society. Assuming that we can reasonably safely assume that "truth, beauty, justice and harmony" is best understood and practised within the family or within a circle of friends, let's extend our search a little wider to the group or the tribe. One fundamental that existed for millions of years is the need for power-ranking within the group in order to keep peace (and "truth, beauty, justice and harmony") within the group, and to protect from attack from without. This need for power and status is built into us genetically. There's no escaping from it. But within a tribe, the wielders of power were always accessible either to appeal to for justice or to pull down when too tyrannical or senile. The other fundamental was either the cause of the rapid evolution of homo sapiens from his hominid ancestors or a close corollary of it, and this was the need to trade in order to extend the resources available to the tribe and/or improve the circumstance of life. Because it is so relatively recent (50-100,000 years old) this behavioural trait is genetically flimsy compared with power-status. But nevertheless, it is a sine qua non of our species. Trading is what makes us human as compared with other mammalian species. Note, importantly, that power and trade had very little to do with each other originally and occured in quite different circumstances. The leader of a tribe could not supervise fair trade between individual members of two tribes because he had no jurisdiction over the other tribe. It was sufficient that the member of one tribe, for his own benefit, would individually assess the worthwhileness of an exchange with the member of another tribe. Any infraction or guile used in an exchange could only happen once because one party could refuse to trade on the next occasion. The problem since then, however, is that by reason of the development of ever more powerful weapons of warfare, human governments have extended far beyond the limits of the tribe and politicians can now straddle both sides of a transaction. The result is that powerful people can now interfere in trade -- usually because they have been bribed -- to the benefit of one of the parties to a transaction (individuals or corporations or industrial lobbies or professional guilds). Ever since agriculturalisation this has happened throughout history and is as strong as ever today. This is the real problem, It's not markets versus the finer things of life. It is skewed markets (and also skewed access to justice) versus access to sufficient information (and access to the courts) to allow free choice. The opponents of globalisation (as a synonym for free trade), whether they are Islamic terrorists or professors (such as our dear own John Gray of the London School of Economics) are absolutely united in one respect. None of them can put up a reasoned alternative. All they can do is attack. Keith At 13:24 26/10/01 -0700, you wrote: >I agree, Arthur. Thank God that, as societies, we are more than markets in >which people are supposed to behave rationally in their self interest. But >what bothers me at times is that so much of our lives are pressured by >market forces, and I feel it's getting worse, not better. Those who drive >the market seem to have the upper hand. They are quicker than the rest of >us, including our legislators and regulators, always a jump or two ahead. >How then to restore the balance? And for that matter, where is the balance? > >Ed Weick > >P.S. I'm writing this from St.John's, Newf., where the maket is a little >more difficult to drive than in most places. > >> I guess I believe in balance. Between a society of fat cats and huddled >> masses at one extreme and a society of truth, beauty, justice and harmony >> with contented (by whatever means) masses on the other extreme, lies some >> sort of balance where people can live a fairly good life. >> >> I too am sympathetic with Ray's wish to build the "solid principles of >> equality,respect, the valuing of diversity and the belief that every >culture >> andindividual is a great gift to all" into the market system. I don't see >> how a market system can generate or be fully compatible with such goals. >It >> can *accommodate* many of these goals--and does so through legislation of >> various kinds, civil rights, equal rights, etc... >> >> For me, the key is balance. >> >> arthur cordell >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:18 PM >> To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Huddled masses >> >> >> Yes, all of this may be so, but there are also still fat cats who are >> difficult to keep in check by democratic means. I was quite taken by Ray >> Evans Harrell's point about building the "solid principles of equality, >> respect, the valuing of diversity and the belief that every culture and >> individual is a great gift to all" into the market system. It is >beautiful >> thought, but one which I fear would be very difficult to put into >practice. >> It would seem to me that there is a fundamental incompatibility between >the >> kinds of ethics and values Ray proposes and those that are necessary to >> drive market capitalism. They just don't fit together, nor do our elected >> representatives necessarily want them to do so. There is nothing more >> gratifying to politicians and the voting public than a booming economy >> driven by fat cats who are trying to get fatter. >> >> Ed Weick >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, for starters on this planet and in nations which we call advanced >> > industrial societies there are progressive income taxes, anti-trust >laws, >> > laws on insider trading, food and drug laws, etc. etc. >> > >> > The Thatcher-Reagan era tended to reverse some of this but the pendulum >> may >> > be in the process of swinging back. >> > >> > arthur cordell >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:40 AM >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Christoph Reuss >> > Subject: Re: Huddled masses >> > >> > >> > Chris R: >> > > > >> > >In a (direct-)democratic nation state, the fat cats can't >> > > get too fat, because the majority can keep them in check with >democratic >> > > means. >> > >> > Uh, like what planet are you talking about? >> > >> > Ed Weick >> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
