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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2007-Sep-23, Sunday 17:22 (UTC)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.