The market is just a device for allowing people to exchange their goods and services. It has no responsibility to anyone nor does anyone have a responsibility to it.
When a market is free, everybody benefits from its use. When everyone uses the market and benefits from its use, then as they are the community, the community benefits from the market "as if by an invisible hand".
And that is all the "invisible hand" means. When every member of the community is better off, then the community is better off. Does that make sense?
Harry
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas wrote:
> Ed Weick wrote: > >> Brad, you seem to proposing that the market should be viewed as part of >> society, responsible to society, and not the other way around. What a >> radical thought! > [snip]
Thomas:
This is a radical thought that has a lot of truth in it and may answer one usasked question. What is first. The market or society. I would answer - society and society invents and defines the market to serve itself which is comprised of the individuals within that market - in current terms within our national boundries. An enlightened society would choose activities that benefited all members of that society - why because of the benefits of peace, order, safety, comfort, freedom, and choices offered to every individual. Currently we reward and idealize the rich and powerful. Perhaps that explains the defenders of the current society. They either are rich and powerful or aspire to be. A different ethos is possible, the greatest good for everyone and therefore a different activity of supply and demand might make more sense in the process of creating more equality.
> > I don't think I've just drivelled out another obvious "romantic" > platitude, although I didn't give my reference: > > ...[T]he principle should be "Protect the worker, > not the industry." > > "Tariffs on steel: George Bush, protectionist: The > president's decision to place high tariffs on > imports of steel is disgraceful", The Economist, > 9-15Mar2002 (page ref. lost). > > This article is behind the pay-for barricade on the Economist > website -- It will take someone who saves the > print editions or has a subscription to get at the > article. > > But I believe the idea was that every country should provide > its workers a social safety net, and *then* remove > tariffs and let uneconomical industries fail if foreign > competition beat them. > > [Of course, this doesn't answer the question what to > do about a counry that is a universal loser like the > U.S. may have a predilection for tending to become -- > I'm thinking here about things like "Detroit" which > produces cars nobody except an American or somebody > with "American envy" -- would buy.] > > I hope this helps... > > \brad mccormick
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.comcast.net/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003
