I ran across this quote in a blog recently: “. . . I recently engaged in a conversation with a ‘politically agnostic’ economist whose detached perspective from political tribalism allowed her to offer insights into how free markets could benefit society.”
How free markets could benefit society . . . hmm. I think that might be fine as long as on the other pan of the balance was stacked all of the “how free markets could harm society” aspects.
This seems to be yet another example of an economic presuppositionalist apologist. These are people who preach the merits of free markets, assuming them to be net good things but they have one rather large problem. They cannot point to any such thing ever having existed in anything like a modern society, let alone a successful one. In other words, they do not exist. If they did exist I am sure that they would offer something but what that is is debatable. The historical examples of trying to impose such systems, e.g. The Chicago Boys in Chile, have been disastrous.
The major flaw in capitalism is simple: there is no control over human greed.
The major flaw in capitalism is simple: there is no control over human greed. Currently, in the U.S., we have business leaders saying things like “competition is for suckers” and their main goal is “market domination,” or if they are being cute and precise, “domination of their market segment.” These things are what we call monopolies. Of course, competition is touted as the main cog in the machine of capitalism, but there is no mechanism to preserve or enhance it, so the greedy immediately set out to eliminate it. In its absence there is no one to offer better prices, better service, etc. so they can set their own prices, levels of service, and most importantly, their profit margins.
Free market capitalists also gloss over that there are two primary modes of such intercourse. The Basic Law of the Tribe is that we compete with others, but we cooperate with other members of our tribe. Competition creates winners and losers, consider, for example, sports competitions. Inside of our “in group” we do not want to have any losers, so we cooperate rather than compete. This is why competition in education is a lousy idea, but is still touted by these people as a good idea, because competition works so well in the world of commerce. Yo, business dudes, if it works so well why are you hell bent on eliminating it in your “market segment?” Do we really want our kids to be actively segregated into classes of “winners” and “losers,” by our educational system? We generally consider that to be a failure of our current system. Can you consider your family gathered around your dinner table, but only the kids who did well in school that day get to eat? The others need motivation to work harder, right? Competition is good . . . always, right?
Uncommon Sense 
A Sense of Belonging
Tags: belonging, social species, the meaning of life
I was writing recently on the “meaning of life” (Yes, again . . . or maybe even still.) and I am referring here to some overarching meaning of life in general, not about bringing meaning into your life or creating meanings and purposes.
My opinion is that there is no such thing, and only theists promote it (or rather hijacked the concept) as something only their god can provide us. (It makes sense that imaginary gods bring imaginary benefits.)
I have suggested that there are a great many things people want ahead of learning what this mystical meaning of life is, one of which I suggested was acceptance by one’s fellows. Since then I have been thinking (on and off, not full time) about a sense of belonging.
I remember as a child I was something of a show-off, my most common utterance when on vacation was “Hey, mom, look at me!” In retrospect, most people as children seem to want to be seen, recognized, accepted, etc. But when we grow up, that desire fades a great deal at least as an overt display.
I remember reading a poll that listed “public speaking” as one of the greatest fears of people in society, it just barely edged out “appearing nude at an airport.” (Okay, I made up that joke decades ago and haven’t used it in a while and, well, use it to lose it is my watch phrase.)
So, what happened to all of those kids? I think society happened. As a social species and all that underlies them, such as there is safety in numbers, et. al., there is pressure, often terrific pressure, to conform. Basically we are on display and we want to display that we belong. So, we wear similar clothes, we eat the same foods, we go to the same churches, we talk the same way, and so on. When addressing “others” people often point to things like “they look funny,” or “they all look alike, I can’t tell them apart,” and even to “they smell funny.” Others are not trying to “belong” to our group and so dress differently, eat different foods (and so smell different), and so on. When “foreigners” want to fit in they adopt local dress, local foods, learn the language, etc. At the same time, at home, they try to retain a sense of belonging to the social group they left, but out in society the message was conform, conform, conform.
And this isn’t just white people prejudices. In the past, I don’t know about now, the Japanese sneered at Koreans as being uncouth and being “garlic eaters.” Of course, barbarians are just folks who do not speak your language.
So, as society molds us, we adapt by trying not to stand out, we want to “fit in,” and be accepted as “one of us.”
So, what does this all mean? Damned if I know. Meanings are things that humans identify, recognize, etc. If all of the human beings were to magically disappear, so would all meanings and purposes. They only exist in the minds of humans. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have power.
I have said often enough that meanings and purposes are things we create or adopt (if offered to be shared by others) to give direction to our lives, to create order in our lives. And if those are shared, well, they fit into our sense of belonging, too.
Safety in numbers, baby, safety in numbers.