Capitalism: anti market?

[matgb]

The ever excellent chris_dillow_fd has an excellent summary of the banks reaction to Northern Rock at Stumbling and Mumbling, and naturally I concur completely:

This episode shows that many bosses don't really believe in free markets. Instead, they are like the slaggiest single parent. They pretend to be victims, and expect the state to save people from the consequences of their own stupidity and promiscuity. Indeed, they are worse

A large number of capitalist managers and owners pay lip service to markets, but when it comes down to it would rather not worry about that dangerous 'competition' stuff.

Which is why calling markets 'right wing' is both blinkered and stupid--markets are a tool, a means to an end, and are neutral on left/right alignment. But they are a fundamental tenet of a modern free society.

Comments

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a slaggy single mother living off state handouts...

Yeah, best not go any further with that thought, had I?

[matgb]

Can't remember you playing the victim any time recently m'dear.

It's one of those attention grabbing analogies, had to quote it, right? Tis a good article overall though.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I can't see the rest of the article through the red mist, sorry.

[mapp.livejournal.com]

"Which is why calling markets 'right wing' is both blinkered and stupid--markets are a tool, a means to an end, and are neutral on left/right alignment."

The problem is that the right wing has pretty succesfully hijacked the idea of a free market. I wouldn't mind governments saying they're for the free market if they weren't so sodding hypocritical about the whole thing.

(I'm pro-subsidisation, I don't find the idea that the government should help folks out if there's a social need, I just get a bit fed up of hearing about a half-assed, half-hearted approach to the free market from people who should know better...)

[matgb]

the right wing has pretty succesfully hijacked the idea of a free market

Yup, which is why I want to work on claiming them back.

Plus, I've gone away from subsidising in favour of basic essentials--citizen's basic income and get rid of the rest.

[paulatpingu.livejournal.com]

But then the government did step in, proving that if you go to them with a begging bowl and are a large financial institution, you will get help.

It should have been enough that the BoE operated as a lender of last resort, thus guaranteeing Northern Rocks survival. It was only the stupid if understandable reaction of NR savers rushing to withdraw all their money which meant the situation stepped outside of the market and into the hands of the government.

The banks didn't loan in the first place because they were concerned they wouldn't get their money back. What's wrong with that? If NR borrows strangely and gets itself into difficulty, then that's just a flaw of it's financial policy and those who have borrowed more prudently 'win'.

I'm not sure that I get the point of the article. Of course a business in the shit is going to ask for government help. Regardless of your principals or ideas about the free market, you're still going to take any help you can get, right?

[tiredstars.livejournal.com]

I saw someone suggesting that the knowledge the government will step in to absolutely guarantee bank deposits is the equivalent of a 10% corporation tax cut for banks.
I am still surprised the government was pushed into this so easily though. Perhaps it's an attempt to keep Gordon Brown's (and Alastair Darling's) economic record shiny (at least for those who don't know anything about economics) or maybe it's because they knew the crisis could spread easily and had to take dramatic and exceptional steps to prevent this.

Anyway, I thought it was common knowledge opposition to subsidies by corporations stopped at the their bank accounts. Anything less would be an ideological commitment to something, and we know what to think of that.

Paul655

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, the market is neither left nor right leaning, it is a neutral entity. Although it favored more by the right side of the spectrum, the market is for everyone and is truely the source of our freedom in America. I don't affiliate myself with a specific political party, both are too corrupt have a pure view on the market - I consider myself a capitalist - a freedomist if you will.

Anyway, the uncertainty and instability of the market is what keeps us stable, strangely enough. The constant competition and change keeps our market on the path toward prosperity.

Re: Paul655

[matgb]

Heh-supporting markets doesn't make you a capitalist, as we've seen above, capitalism favours oligopolies and lack of competition.

True free markets are only available with a decent socialist setup ;-)

MatGB, Market Socialist (Millite tendency)

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

The idea that markets are 'neutral' is a myth. Governments create markets, governments create the conditions for markets to be created, governments decide to what extent a market is regulated, governments decide to what extent they will subsidise a market, governments control interest rates and money supply to manipulate markets. Markets in turn affect employment, inflation, pensions, currency valuations and so on. Theoretically if a market existed in a complete social and political vacuum, then it would indeed be 'netural'. But as it is, no market is politically neutral in pratice.

[matgb]

Well, summary post--markets are a tool, and are biased the way the regulator wants them to be. Chris (and I) would both see them biased in a very 'left' direction rather than in the current 'right' bias.

But people that blame markets for being 'of the right' are just wrong, and those like Tebbitt that think that the definition of 'right' is to support markets are daft.

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

Again, that 'bias' is always already present in any given market, so markets are only 'tools' in theory, abstract from their real-world emplacements. Any market without regulation and thus in your argument without 'bias' would still be political, however, in that it would have massive political effects through its operations. To use a current example, say the financial markets were almost completely deregulated in the manner that John Redwood proposed. Then the Northern Rock crisis happened, and spiralled out to affect other banks and building societies to plunge the economy into deep crisis. The market would be free so it would not be 'biased' according to your logic, but it would still cause huge social and political upheavals - thus the market is political through and through. In fact, you could say that the less bias there is in a market and the less politicisation there is applied to the market, the more thoroughly a market becomes political!

To use a crass analogy, it's a bit like when somebody is questioned on their politics and they reply that they have none. Invariably the 'neutral' position is actually a right-wing position. Neutrality in any economic, social or political system is a myth.