The best example of this economic system is known as market economy or free market economy. The American Heritage Dictionary defines this system as "an economy that operates by voluntary exchange in a free market and is not planned or controlled by a central authority; a capitalistic economy." This system relies on "market forces" (supply and demand) or the "invisible hand" for the allocation of resources. In other words the product's availability and its price are automatically determined by supply and demand without any interference from the government or any other central authority. It is important to note that the government is not the only authority that can influence the market. Some groups may find some things objectionable (drugs, pornography, etc). Church, for example, may interfere with the market if it declares usury a sin. In an ideal free market only the supply and demand determine the availability and price of the products. And that supply and demand is generated by individuals. At the core of this system, therefore one finds the individual and not the group. In this system, it is the interest of the individual that is paramount. Everything revolves around the individual and his desires; and since it is self-interest that is at the centre, the social transactions become a series of quid-pro-quos.
One of the early proponents of free market policies (repudiating the existing Mercantilism [ ]), Adam Smith, in his magnum opus "the Wealth of the Nations" (1776) argued the case for quid-pro-quo system as such:
"But man has almost constant occasion for help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers another bargain of any kind, proposes to do this, Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of." [ ]
Of course a system that relies on individual's self-interest necessarily requires an individual that is free. That is why all the proponents of this system such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mills and others were also were proponents of democracy and individual freedom. But it seems, to me at least, that individual freedom that is required in a truly free-market economy can not be achieved in a democracy. Democracy means that although certain individual's rights are guaranteed; it is the majority's (i.e. the group's) interest and not the individual's that is at the centre. Here is the crux of the problem: individual's interest vs. the group's interest.
All the proponent of the free-market economy, especially those that preach Consumerism (economic policies that place an emphasis on consumption, and, in an abstract sense, the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society [ ]) have tried and are trying to get rid of anything that interferes with this free-market. That is why they constantly push for smaller government, more individualism, and more deregulation.
From a purely economic point of view, any regulation imposed on the market interferes with the efficiency of that market, i.e. reduces the profit for individuals. Now consider the function of laws and regulations. Laws, rules and regulations are necessary to keep order in any democratic society. If one gets rid of all the regulations, then one is left with nothing but chaos; and chaos is where profit is maximised.
Look at history and see how few people have earned tremendous profits in chaotic times. Look at how robber barons in US amassed tremendous wealth in absence of regulations. Look at the Russian oligarchs and how they became billionaires in a short time because of chaos and absence of regulations. Look at Enron. For a few, it makes sense to deregulate the market, to have smaller government and to have a "free market". But to achieve this in a democracy we need to have people that are willing to vote for such a society. There is only one type of a person that is willing to benefit from chaos and that is the Homo Economicus or the Economic Man. This Man is an individual that is in essence an amoral being driven solely by his/her pursuit of self-gratification.
The Making of the Economic Man
The greatest threat to the ideal free-market economy and consumerism is not the government or regulations but the established religions with their absolute values. Established religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism just to name a few, do not approve of selfishness and blind pursuit of accumulation of wealth. Their values are absolute and can not be changed. It is not possible to change the words of Bible or Koran now. One may attempt at interpreting the texts differently, but the core values stay the same. For example all the established religions forbid greed, the very foundation of the free-market capitalism. If you look at the seven deadly sins: hubris/pride, avarice/greed, extravagance/ lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth; you'll see that all are connected to selfishness and are exactly the things that are being promoted by the corporations.
How do they (these Economic Men) side-step this issue? There are several ways:
" If one can buy into the religious establishment, then it is simple enough; get the religious leaders to bless the new way of thinking and preach it from the pulpits.
" If one can not, then one can create similar religious establishments that are similar to the old establishments and then slowly change the underlying values until it fits one's ideals, while at the same time trying to persuade the members of the old establishment to join the new congregations.
" If that doesn't work or seems to take a long time, then one can start a war between the religions and within the religions. In the ensuing confusion and chaos, one could penetrate and take over the old establishment. If nothing else, a religious war will distract the religious leaders and their followers sufficiently to allow the masses to be converted to the new religion of extreme individualism.
Meanwhile the missionary work is carried out post-haste through media. These Economic Men have acquired great fortunes and using some of that fortune have gotten hold of the Media. Using the media, they have entered into our homes and are trying hard to persuade us to accept their distorted picture of the world as reality. Today, almost any advertising for any product contains at least two of the 7 deadly sins as their "selling" points. To be egoistic and self-centred is promoted as the normal mode of behaviour. Look carefully at some old movies and see what they were promoting. Now look at some of the new ones and see what they are saying. Look at the TV shows and soap operas; you'll see that they mostly deal with self-gratification, money and undermining of the absolute values.
Some may take issue with this, arguing that I am being paranoid. I may be; but one can not ignore the fact that as our values are becoming relative, the borders of what is acceptable are constantly pushed to include the unacceptable. Some values have been so distorted that what was considered a "sin" is now portrayed as a virtue. If you don't believe me, just consider greed and the Wall Street. If you don't believe me look at series such as "apprentice", "Playboy", "Big Brother", etc. What are they trying to teach us? In guise of healthy competition, they are teaching us to be egoistic and selfish. The recurring theme in majority of these reality shows is this: try to be smart and look after the number one, yourself. Disloyalty, dishonesty, malevolence, and all other instruments of deceit are used by the contenders to win. If you examine these shows you'll see that there is always a competition with one winner at the end. The participants have to lie, cheat, and deceit each other to advance to the next level. In the end the winner is the one that has managed to basically screw everyone else.
In these settings corruption of values is a given; indeed this corruption is required for the shows to exist. But the manipulation and brainwashing is not in the media alone. Our schools and institutes of higher education are also used to preach the gospel of free-market economics and extreme individualism.
We seldom think about universities as places where people are brainwashed or manipulated. We like to think that institutes of higher education are temples of knowledge, unsoiled by corporate greed, ideological preferences, etc. And to a certain degree this is correct. As long as you deal with the physical universe, Universities and Colleges are impartial and objective (if you disregard the current evolution vs. intelligent design argument). You see studying engineering, architecture or medicine is straight forward. One plus one makes two; and will remain two no matter how many tests you conduct and how many people argue for, or against it.
But as soon as you enquire about the working of the society, the power structure, the means by which power is attained and exercised; you enter the world of manipulation, half truths and lies. Universities and colleges suddenly become places where Machiavelli would feel right at home.
You see when students begin their studies in Business or Economics; they are presented with a set of "FACTS" about an ideal society and its inner workings. For example, it is taught that there is almost always an inverse relationship between unemployment and interest rate; with the exception of stagflation, when both rise together. The aim, the students are taught, is to keep certain figures within certain parameters. For example inflation should be kept bellow 2%, or ideal unemployment figure should not be about 5%. There is no or very little concern about the consequences of economic policies. When they teach students the concept of downsizing, or relocation of production facilities to a lower cost country etc, they emphasize economic efficiency and maximisation of profit, rather than its effect on the society as a whole. No one mentions the effect of this downsizing or exportation of jobs on the poor people who depend on these jobs. People are irrelevant; they are only numbers to be played with until the proper profit margin is achieved. The costs of broken homes, alcoholism, theft and violence is not discussed or considered. They hammer this into the heads of the students as being the truth, nothing but the truth, so help them God. Students are taught to see people as individuals driven by self-interest.
One of the early proponents of free market policies (repudiating the existing Mercantilism [ ]), Adam Smith, in his magnum opus "the Wealth of the Nations" (1776) argued the case for quid-pro-quo system as such:
"But man has almost constant occasion for help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers another bargain of any kind, proposes to do this, Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of." [ ]
Of course a system that relies on individual's self-interest necessarily requires an individual that is free. That is why all the proponents of this system such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mills and others were also were proponents of democracy and individual freedom. But it seems, to me at least, that individual freedom that is required in a truly free-market economy can not be achieved in a democracy. Democracy means that although certain individual's rights are guaranteed; it is the majority's (i.e. the group's) interest and not the individual's that is at the centre. Here is the crux of the problem: individual's interest vs. the group's interest.
From a purely economic point of view, any regulation imposed on the market interferes with the efficiency of that market, i.e. reduces the profit for individuals. Now consider the function of laws and regulations. Laws, rules and regulations are necessary to keep order in any democratic society. If one gets rid of all the regulations, then one is left with nothing but chaos; and chaos is where profit is maximised.
Look at history and see how few people have earned tremendous profits in chaotic times. Look at how robber barons in US amassed tremendous wealth in absence of regulations. Look at the Russian oligarchs and how they became billionaires in a short time because of chaos and absence of regulations. Look at Enron. For a few, it makes sense to deregulate the market, to have smaller government and to have a "free market". But to achieve this in a democracy we need to have people that are willing to vote for such a society. There is only one type of a person that is willing to benefit from chaos and that is the Homo Economicus or the Economic Man. This Man is an individual that is in essence an amoral being driven solely by his/her pursuit of self-gratification.
The Making of the Economic Man
The greatest threat to the ideal free-market economy and consumerism is not the government or regulations but the established religions with their absolute values. Established religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism just to name a few, do not approve of selfishness and blind pursuit of accumulation of wealth. Their values are absolute and can not be changed. It is not possible to change the words of Bible or Koran now. One may attempt at interpreting the texts differently, but the core values stay the same. For example all the established religions forbid greed, the very foundation of the free-market capitalism. If you look at the seven deadly sins: hubris/pride, avarice/greed, extravagance/ lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth; you'll see that all are connected to selfishness and are exactly the things that are being promoted by the corporations.
How do they (these Economic Men) side-step this issue? There are several ways:
" If one can buy into the religious establishment, then it is simple enough; get the religious leaders to bless the new way of thinking and preach it from the pulpits.
" If one can not, then one can create similar religious establishments that are similar to the old establishments and then slowly change the underlying values until it fits one's ideals, while at the same time trying to persuade the members of the old establishment to join the new congregations.
" If that doesn't work or seems to take a long time, then one can start a war between the religions and within the religions. In the ensuing confusion and chaos, one could penetrate and take over the old establishment. If nothing else, a religious war will distract the religious leaders and their followers sufficiently to allow the masses to be converted to the new religion of extreme individualism.
Meanwhile the missionary work is carried out post-haste through media. These Economic Men have acquired great fortunes and using some of that fortune have gotten hold of the Media. Using the media, they have entered into our homes and are trying hard to persuade us to accept their distorted picture of the world as reality. Today, almost any advertising for any product contains at least two of the 7 deadly sins as their "selling" points. To be egoistic and self-centred is promoted as the normal mode of behaviour. Look carefully at some old movies and see what they were promoting. Now look at some of the new ones and see what they are saying. Look at the TV shows and soap operas; you'll see that they mostly deal with self-gratification, money and undermining of the absolute values.
Some may take issue with this, arguing that I am being paranoid. I may be; but one can not ignore the fact that as our values are becoming relative, the borders of what is acceptable are constantly pushed to include the unacceptable. Some values have been so distorted that what was considered a "sin" is now portrayed as a virtue. If you don't believe me, just consider greed and the Wall Street. If you don't believe me look at series such as "apprentice", "Playboy", "Big Brother", etc. What are they trying to teach us? In guise of healthy competition, they are teaching us to be egoistic and selfish. The recurring theme in majority of these reality shows is this: try to be smart and look after the number one, yourself. Disloyalty, dishonesty, malevolence, and all other instruments of deceit are used by the contenders to win. If you examine these shows you'll see that there is always a competition with one winner at the end. The participants have to lie, cheat, and deceit each other to advance to the next level. In the end the winner is the one that has managed to basically screw everyone else.
In these settings corruption of values is a given; indeed this corruption is required for the shows to exist. But the manipulation and brainwashing is not in the media alone. Our schools and institutes of higher education are also used to preach the gospel of free-market economics and extreme individualism.
We seldom think about universities as places where people are brainwashed or manipulated. We like to think that institutes of higher education are temples of knowledge, unsoiled by corporate greed, ideological preferences, etc. And to a certain degree this is correct. As long as you deal with the physical universe, Universities and Colleges are impartial and objective (if you disregard the current evolution vs. intelligent design argument). You see studying engineering, architecture or medicine is straight forward. One plus one makes two; and will remain two no matter how many tests you conduct and how many people argue for, or against it.
But as soon as you enquire about the working of the society, the power structure, the means by which power is attained and exercised; you enter the world of manipulation, half truths and lies. Universities and colleges suddenly become places where Machiavelli would feel right at home.
You see when students begin their studies in Business or Economics; they are presented with a set of "FACTS" about an ideal society and its inner workings. For example, it is taught that there is almost always an inverse relationship between unemployment and interest rate; with the exception of stagflation, when both rise together. The aim, the students are taught, is to keep certain figures within certain parameters. For example inflation should be kept bellow 2%, or ideal unemployment figure should not be about 5%. There is no or very little concern about the consequences of economic policies. When they teach students the concept of downsizing, or relocation of production facilities to a lower cost country etc, they emphasize economic efficiency and maximisation of profit, rather than its effect on the society as a whole. No one mentions the effect of this downsizing or exportation of jobs on the poor people who depend on these jobs. People are irrelevant; they are only numbers to be played with until the proper profit margin is achieved. The costs of broken homes, alcoholism, theft and violence is not discussed or considered. They hammer this into the heads of the students as being the truth, nothing but the truth, so help them God. Students are taught to see people as individuals driven by self-interest.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
