Tom,
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.
I like what Thomas wrote: That society should "be first" and that the members of the society may choose to use markets when so doing would enhance "peace, order, safety, comfort, freedom, and choices offered to every individual". That seems "obvious" to me, but that may be a view "conditioned" by a certain cultural background, which does not necessarily make it wrong or undesirable, but does need to be factored into our thoughts.
But I still want to try to understand what Harry may be trying to say. So I ask Harry: If you had a free hand to reorganize New York City with its some 8 million or so denizens, what would you do? You have to take into consideration such factors as currency counterfeiters. But I will accept if you answer that your ideas about market freedom cannot work with huge masses or persons crammed into a small geographic area. Then I would ask again, what would you do with New York City? (and don't forget about the "commuter suburbs" in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey).
Best wishes from Chappaqua, which is part of the current hybrid economy of greater New York.....
\brad mccormick
[snip]
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).
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
