The case against Free-Market values

The real problem with our modern free-market mentality is that marketing values have supplanted the other values.

The real problem with our modern free-market mentality is that marketing values have supplanted the other values.
Let me make clear that I am not arguing against the free-market as an economic model – there is no better way to invent, produce, distribute and buy widgets (provided there are sufficient regulations to make such a system work).
What has happened is that free-market values – business values, really – have displaced other values. Love books? Why then open a bookstore! Oops! That won’t work because you’ll lose money competing with corporations who own bookstores for the love of money, not books. Your bookstore will become an expensive hobby.
Want to write a book? You can be the greatest author since Shakespeare and not get published because you’re unknown, and the marketing economics of books are too expensive for the publisher to take chances. Small publishers are a possibility, but you will never make the money you deserve, while some hack who has most of her texts ghost-written is reaping millions.
Want to pass a bill allowing family leave? Politicians who were harping on “family values” will vote against it because it conflicts with business interests.
Want to make us energy-independent and reduce emissions? The corn industry will push through a corn-ethanol bill, even though prairie grass is more efficient as an ethanol source. However, there is no money to be made in prairie grass, since it grows free, and the pesticide industry would be out of luck because the grass doesn’t need it.
Want to put seat belts in cars? No problem. Just fight the auto industry for a decade, and you’ll get it done.

In summary, the constant arguments over the free market often – no, usually ignore the fact that society has other values that should take precedence over the market. The market is supposed to serve the economy. However the economy is not the primary purpose of a society. It is a means of ensuring that society prospers so it can institute and sustain and enhance its other values – whether they are educational, religious, political, etc. I believe we have drifted into the mistake of thinking of the free-market and its values as an end rather than a means, as our cultural ethos rather than an adjunct to that ethos.
Alcuin of York

Comments

White_Feather -

I remember reading once that if The Corporation was given a personality test, it would result as "sociopath".

Leanne -
I will come back to this because it deserves some in depth discussion. I do just want to disagree with your point on publication. I mean, I've made at least $50 out of my book and surely that's fair recompense for three years worth of poetry? Sheesh. What do people expect?

Alcuin of York -
Gee Leanne, how much was your agent's cut? It's better than the $20 that I've made - and to do that, I had to buy more than half of those sold. I think maybe we're just not trying hard enough. Maybe we should be buying more of our stuff.
Alcuin

White_Feather -

Surely there's a thread on here somewhere for published monkeys to advertise their work (and how I can buy it)?

Magsie -

I should hope that a business would open its doors originally for the love of making money. I think there's nothing more pure and right than that motive. If you open the doors of a bookshop for the love of books, then why not give them away? Because money is what makes the world go 'round. It's what causes evolution and civilization. You don't go into business for the love of anything except for business and money and to state that intent as incorrect or immoral is the same as saying "money is the root of all evil" without asking what is at the root of all money.

Now, to attack a society in which a brilliant author is not given the recognition he/she deserves is an accurate argument and rant, and I could rally behind that. I know the same anguish in the music industry where people like Paris Hilton can afford to pay for recognition and a record label and sell many albums on her fortune alone. Money used for the wrong purpose *is* evil. Those are not the byproducts of a free-market. Those are the by-products of a need-system collapsed inside of itself. Pure Socialism at its worst. It is corruption that has a fetid value system at its root, and is not the result of free-market.

The point of free-market is to keep government interference out, so your politician rant makes no sense when the government has no business meddling in free-market affairs anyway. That is not "the problem with free market" that is "a problem with America".

I suggest you read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand to better see what I mean.

Derma Kaput -
Ah, an old thread comes back to life. maybe. sometimes people talk about free-market economics like a bible thumper talks about God, and demonstrate a significant amount of faith in their chosen deity. Government "interference" may get out of hand, but a good deal of regulation can be attributed to real problems that affect the common good - i.e. people. Oftentimes, free market economics entail placing money first and people last, which is good for those with money, bad for those without. America today, with its relative sharing of the wealth and strong consumer market, has as much to do with labor unions and government "interference" as it does with so-called free market economics. Capitalism favors the wealthy and, in its purest form, historically seeks to inhibit any class mobility, guaranteeing a cheap source of labor. This is in our history, and is the current state in much of the "developing" world. Capital exploits the misery of others. Lah di dah. Other factors need to exist for an economic system to serve the greater good - i.e. people. Government regulation is an imperfect factor, but I'd hate to do without it. Unless I had oodles of money.