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

[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.