Markets Are Not The Boss Of Me!

Naomi Klein was on Democracy Now! recently talking about how the markets throw fits when they do not get their way.

But before I watched the day's evening broadcast of the show, I had a similar idea. It occurred to me that there is a perception that everything that society needs will materialize through the magic of the marketplace, as if it were some kind of force of nature, like gravity, or natural selection, that pushes progress ever forward. What society wants, society gets. Adam Smith described it in Biblical terms, as the “invisible hand” that leads individuals, in their pursuit of personal gain, toward their highest potential, and therefore, at the same time, leads society as a whole towards the greatest good. And this is the basis for free market ideology that says that the more businessmen can do their business free and unfettered by rules and regulations, the better for everyone in society. Any government intervention, according to these ideologues, would upset this natural order and cause society to become stifled. What government should do is to free the businesspeople, the entrepreneurs, the CEO's, and the bankers who lend them money, by releasing them from any burdens of paying taxes or chains of following regulations, and all will be well for everybody.

I have been very critical of this view for a while now, ever since I began to examine all this a few years ago, but it wasn't until the other day that any kind of alternative model to this B.S. presented itself. Well, it came to me while I was pulling weeds from a flower bed in my South Georgia back yard, that the marketplace might be better represented as a child that wants everything that it sees and doesn't want to be disciplined or bathed or to eat dinner before dessert or to go to bed at a reasonable hour. This child is very impressionable and easily influenced by marketing and shiny new things. The child's appetite is insatiable and his temper tantrums, epic. And the free marketeers, as parents of this golden boy who they want desperately to love them, have been coddling him, giving him everything he has ever wanted, and refusing to discipline him or lay down any boundaries that would begin to teach him to think of anything other than his own urges and desires. I think that this model is more apt than the “invisible hand” model because it puts us human beings in charge and accountable, as opposed to depicting the market as a force of nature or a gift of God that we should not try to fight against or contain. It takes the marketplace out of the realm of nature or teleology, and puts it where it belongs, as a human construct that we must take responsibility for.

We can nurture the child as well as discipline and educate him. We can teach him values, to be kind, to share, to respect others as well as to be vibrant and innovative. This puts the marketplace into proper perspective, as one part of what human individuals and societies do, along with building communities, exploring the world, connecting with each other through art and music. By putting this human face on this ever so human entity, we demystify it, claim it as our own, and guide it toward helping us better ourselves spiritually as well as monetarily. We can embrace our child as a connective force rather than a divisive one. By depicting the marketplace as the child of humanity, we free ourselves from the tyranny of righteous inequality that has been imposed upon us all in the name of capitalism and patriotism and so-called "progress." Naomi Klein often cites this quote by Milton Freedman:

“Only a crisis produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”

Well, here is an idea that I am throwing out there to lie around, as we certainly have a crisis on our hands, and the time for change from the conventional thinking about the supposed “free markets” has come.

In my book, No Stranger to Strange Lands: A Journey Through Strange Coincidences, Connective Thoughts, and Far Flung Places, I talk about property ownership and Ayn Rand as well as some ideas that nomadic cultures have to offer, about sharing of resources as opposed to hording, being flexible, holding leadership accountable, negotiating diversity, but I do not offer a new framework to replace the one that I criticize so harshly. I also explore how ideas spread around in the book, and now, picking up on all of that, the idea had come to me as Ms. Klein was expressing them to Amy Goodman, but before I had any knowledge of the interview. That's what I mean by those "strange coincidences."

And so I am encouraged to continue to build on my ideas, especially this idea for a new model to replace the old one that I believe has been leading us so astray, ever since the Enlightenment, when they thought that they had everything all figured out (yeah - right!).

I am no economist, yet I am deeply interested in economic ideas because our lives are so very enmeshed it that realm, particularly now that our whole economic system is falling into disarray. What I am really interested in is how we think about it all, perhaps it could be called “meta-economics,” the over-arching principles by which we understand how monetary systems function, because how we look at the world around us encompasses everything, from monetary to spiritual to social to physical to mental to emotional to environmental and other realms.

I have come across two items in collecting my thoughts for this piece that help to illustrate my points. The first appeared in my monthly newsletter from Dr. Susan Love, M.D. I keep updated on the latest cancer research news because I lost my mother to breast cancer back in 1989, and now my younger sister is a two-time cancer survivor, of the rare and very aggressive type called Inflammatory Breast Cancer. I like to stay informed of any new information that would be helpful to my sister as well as to myself and my other sister about understanding the disease and preventing it. Here is a quote that piqued my interest:

"Many women find that once they hit menopause their libido isn't quite what it used to be. The pharmaceutical companies are well aware of this, too. That's why they've been trying to identify a treatment that could essentially be the female equivalent to Viagra. To date, they have had virtually no success. Which is why they keep studying—and trying to find a place on the market for—a testosterone patch or cream for women."

This goes to my point about meta-economics by highlighting the difference between how the market is perceived to function versus how it really functions. It directly contradicts the notion that the market is consumer-driven. The fact is that the pharmaceutical companies believe that they will be able to make a lot of money by developing a female version of Viagra, even though all the research from the past eight years has shown that women's bodies are very complex and tend to respond badly to all kinds of hormone treatments, and that the women in the study were not really as interested in their product as the companies would like.

I will add that in the mean time, there still is no cure for cancer, while those horrible chemotherapy drugs continue to be widely used and highly profitable. I can hardly believe that in the twenty years since my mother died, they haven't developed a better way to treat cancer than to poison the patient and hope that the tumors and cancerous cells will be killed instead of the whole person. It seems barbaric to me. It also boggles my mind that the cause of cancer is still such a mystery. Of course, the chemotherapy industry would go under if a proper cause were found, which makes me wonder just how hard they are really trying to find the cause, let alone the cure.

The Progressive idea of health care is that it is a human right and should not be driven entirely by perceived market forces – so would that change the emphasis from treatment to prevention? Take the profit motive out, and the pharmaceutical companies might end their search for the female Viagra, and instead concentrate on keeping women more healthy, which would probably increase their libido. As it stands, they continue to push for this product that no-one wants and that actually causes cancer. So much for the greater good of society!

The other item I came across was this quote about Mikhail Gorbachev, when he was named Time magazine's “Man of the Decade” of the 1980's:

"The metaphysics of global power has changed. Markets are now more valuable than territory, information more powerful than military hardware."

The fall of the Soviet Union was supposed to be the big triumph of capitalism over communism, although the same article admits that it didn't take effect just off the bat:

“Estee Lauder and Christian Dior opened exclusive shops on Gorky Street. Meanwhile, soap, sugar, tea, school notebooks, cigarettes, sausage and other meats, butter, fruits and vegetables, and even matches are scarce.”

In fact, free market capitalism blossomed in its purist form as the Russian Mafia soon took advantage of the lack of infrastructure and the chaos of change. But the capitalists of this nation were quite smug about the whole affair. Ronald Reagan even took the credit for the change of heart of the Russians, although I personally think that the credit properly belongs to the Beatles. The supposed end of the cold war was going to open up all of vast Russia as a market for goods from the U.S.A., and military hardware was to go the way of the dodo bird. And yet, the military was able to survive just fine, and communism did not exactly go away, a la China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and our neighbor, Cuba. In addition, Western Europe, Canada, and lately, a wave of nations in South America have been moving toward more socialist structures as a way to better serve all members of society and to uphold basic human rights, such as the right to health care, for example.

And now, the reign of the unfettered free market ideology is coming unraveled in a catastrophic downfall. The fitful child is already screaming and kicking as our society denies him his usual toys and finally says “No!” to his excesses. No, we cannot continue borrowing and borrowing, just to keep him happy. No, all is not well in our metaphorical family situation, as our government has been insisting, hoping to avoid the reality of the economic abyss from coming forward until after the elections, so that the Republican Party that has clung so fervently to the “free market” delusion would not appear to the electorate to be so incompetent, so responsible for our pain.

No, child, you do not any longer have the privilege of spending all our money as you like, for your purchases have been frivolous and selfish and have done nothing to further anything but your own hedonistic greed. It is time, child, that we gave you some direction, some boundaries, some rules to follow, so that our family can get through this crisis, for we all need to make sacrifices, to come together and join forces to survive.

And let this be a lesson to you, dear child, that acting in pure self interest does not result in the best society after all, as we had believed, so long as we were able to keep the blessed cycle of consumption churning. It is finally time to educate you in how to be a better human being through learning to limit yourself, to be empathetic to the needs of others around you, to help out around the house, and to respect those who care for you. It is finally time, Market, to grow up.

see:
Democracy Now! November 25 2008, Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson Dissect Obama’s New Economic Team & Stimulus Plan