I imagine the market unable to decide what the priorities for a people (but only for certain economic operators) have touched some nerve, and noted some interesting attempts to climb by mercatisti mirrors that defend their idea of the market that does it all. Since I was rimpoverato have used some simple examples, we go to the clearest examples of how the market is unable to manage priorities.
You will have heard of Quinoa. It was a plant used by popolazone South America for daily consumption. Aside from all the buzz that has turned into a “super-food” when it is only for contemporaries who want to lose weight (for the ancients who preferred to fatten it was not as Super ). the problem is that the food fashion, demand increased enormously.
This, for several years has raised the price so much that the agreed farmers sell their crops to foreigners, who were paying more, than the local population. That started to go hungry because it failed one of the most common foods.
Now, if we think in terms of priorities, all the priorities dictated by the market, or if you prefer the “capitalism” have been respected. Who wanted to maximize profits it did. The problem was that if we ask what are the priorities of the population, in an area where people spend l ‘ Too bad it’s a very long cycle, and in the meantime people are dying of hunger . In reality, then the South American governments have regulated the export (they had the right priority) and then Quinoa today is also cultivated in Europe and America. But if we had left the choice, would starve to thousands.
This is a prime example of how capitalism is unable to correctly choose priorities population at the market. HA identified the priorities of a category of persons and only one, the farmers. And this category has been identified on the basis of a policy: “those who can accumulate” earnings. For these market easily calculates the priorities, but these people are only a small subset of the population.
What if we ask the market to choose priorities for the entire population ? At first you will defend citing Friedman and saying that they have no responsibility , but actually I did not ask what the priorities of a companies. I asked what the priorities entire population .
And here we make another case.
Here we are talking about population but not of society. American companies are selling to the Chinese of interception technologies that are potentially dangerous for Americans. Once the Chinese have had the technology and know how to apply, they can use it over wide ranges of the US population itself, and even on military allies of the US.
Now, the question is simple: this is definitely in the interests of IBM and Google, but if you were an American president, and you had only five or six companies that have this know- how, preferisreste who worked for the your national security, or for their national security?
what is the priority, including the profits of your companies and national security?
the danger is simple: if tapped the phones of family members of the military normally get the location of a military in a fairly short time, plus other interesting information. When his wife tells her sister that John does not call for three days, the light knows his unit is busy. Etc. If you do it on a large scale and listening for a long time, in terms of big data you can get a lot of information.
Now, from the market point of view, IBM and Google are good. The priority is to create value for shareholders. But of the population which are priorities? Since this is potentially dangerous technologies for national security, surely are mixed.
As you can see I’m not pulling out responsibilities to an entity called “society”: the problem is people . The fact that anything that does not apply to entities that pay a dividend is considered “company” by mercatisti me very little concern: change the name to something does not change it.
A speech with a marketism can almost always win in this way:
The market regulates itself and meets the demand.
But the priorities for the population do not always take place under form of application.
But if the population has a priority, it will produce an application.
not necessarily: if there is no industry there is no demand for engineers. But building industry may be the priorities of a population.
But if there is demand for industrial products, then the industry will be born.
Not always. It could only arise to trade in these products. The point is that the government might want to industrialization without anyone who asks. Russia has found many times in this situation.
But why build the industry trade if those products is cheaper?
Why the government wants to build a nation, for example. is a priority for the population.
But if you want the government then it is a government priority, not the population.
Semantics. The point is that you know not indicate what the priorities for the entire population.
But it is not true: if a country is enriched, are all better.
It is not He said, because it depends on the distribution. Also, there are not only economic priorities. What are the environmental priorities? What are the priorities of the education system? What are the priorities of the elderly? And those kids?
But if you enrich can have whatever they want with the money.
Even national security? They buy missiles to keep in your garden? What are the priorities that the market assigns to national security?
Well, there is the military-industrial market.
Aha: and then the defense priorities are dictated dall’equilbrio between supply and demand on the arms market? And if the enemy they fight impippa and requires something else?
This is not the task of the market.
Wrong: if you want the policy called the market, you have to dictate policy for all things you are required . Defense, health, pensions, culture, sports, environment, anything that a government take care.
But the market has no social responsibility.
That is your opinion, Rand and probably other worshipers of their pigs comfortable. But while you spend the time to smell your stool for pleasure, the population lives. It wants the government to put their issues on the agenda that disrupt their lives.
But life it can be described in economic terms.
Life of economic entities can be described in this way, but the population is not just economic entities. A very handicapped can not produce anything. What are the market priority for people not participating in the market?
But if you do not participate in the market why should we care about them?
Why participate in politics, they vote and they are part of population. So I repeat the question: what are the priorities that you designed for entire population , including those who are not economic entities?
In general, if you have such a discussion with a market-oriented, what you have to do is to point out that the market fails to indicate, on a global scale, a number of priorities that meet the entire population. He manages to indicate priorities for economic entities, such as capitalism fails to give priority to those who can accumulate capital but fails to give priority to the entire population. Defense, Environment, Childhood, Special Needs, Senescence, education, human rights, are excluded.
The most philosophical at this point pull at stake Rand. The old bitch had some interesting insights, but he had a big problem not to answer the question in a way that is useful for the government of a population . The rand continued to say how functional the individual was totally functional for the population which means that if a traitor is offered wealth to kill your president on the eve of a war, automatically the entire population benefits from it. I keep seeing the Rand as a more talkative bitch average, and its arguments always seem to “my pigs comfortable now have freedom.”
In general, mercatisti with me do not hold up the discussion for a long time . Just remember that their weakness, when they propose to do always what the market wants,