Going to market
We have two market strategies in the United States. The buyer sets the price of a sale in one method – the seller in the other. Would I advocate a single strategy? No, but I would advocate ways to make the ones we have more fair. You see, the problem with our current system isn’t so much that we have two strategies, but that the same people (mostly members of the wealthier classes) tend to set the prices in both systems. That is unfair because those people can control the whole market system and take huge profits from it.
Our market system could be made more fair by arranging it so there is no special treatment for any individual or business or group. No special pricing, no volume discounts -- no special programs. If a product or service is available from a company, that company should make that product or service available to all customers for the same price and with the same conditions. The same idea should also apply to government programs. Each program within the domain of any government or agency should be available to all citizens in that domain and available to them equally and without distinction.
This thinking would create a different kind of economy. Such a market allows the little buyer to compete evenly and fairly with the big buyer. Both rich and poor would have an equal opportunity in the market place. Auctions, commodity markets and stock markets already use a system where the buyer sets the price.
Such a market would enable small businesses to better compete with big businesses. Another thing that would help small business be more profitable would be for all levels of government and their agencies to buy preferentially from small and very small business. I think such a situation should be in place now and enforced with laws. Here’s why --
The government taxes citizens and spends that money. That’s a normal government function. But the in the tax/spend process we have in the United States now the government taxes all citizens and then makes most of its purchases from only a small number of giant corporations. In other words, it takes money from everyone and gives it to a few. It makes it easier for mega-corporations to be profitable and harder for small businesses to be profitable. Such a process is unfair and tends to concentrate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The system would seem to violate the currently popular Keynesian economic philosophy which advocates a more equal distribution of wealth.
The situation may even be viewed as anti-constitutional because it restricts the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for some and promotes it among others.
Our market system could be made more fair by arranging it so there is no special treatment for any individual or business or group. No special pricing, no volume discounts -- no special programs. If a product or service is available from a company, that company should make that product or service available to all customers for the same price and with the same conditions. The same idea should also apply to government programs. Each program within the domain of any government or agency should be available to all citizens in that domain and available to them equally and without distinction.
This thinking would create a different kind of economy. Such a market allows the little buyer to compete evenly and fairly with the big buyer. Both rich and poor would have an equal opportunity in the market place. Auctions, commodity markets and stock markets already use a system where the buyer sets the price.
Such a market would enable small businesses to better compete with big businesses. Another thing that would help small business be more profitable would be for all levels of government and their agencies to buy preferentially from small and very small business. I think such a situation should be in place now and enforced with laws. Here’s why --
The government taxes citizens and spends that money. That’s a normal government function. But the in the tax/spend process we have in the United States now the government taxes all citizens and then makes most of its purchases from only a small number of giant corporations. In other words, it takes money from everyone and gives it to a few. It makes it easier for mega-corporations to be profitable and harder for small businesses to be profitable. Such a process is unfair and tends to concentrate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. The system would seem to violate the currently popular Keynesian economic philosophy which advocates a more equal distribution of wealth.
The situation may even be viewed as anti-constitutional because it restricts the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for some and promotes it among others.
posted by Sam | 3:01 PM
1 Comments:
It seems to me that you have a non-stanard view of how markets determine price. Neither a producer nor a consumer can set the price unless they have have monopoly power by whatever means. In a free market, where there is an absence of monoply power, the equilibirium price is determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves. It is reasonable to point out that many markets are now set up so that a few large corporations have monopoly power. I feel that this is the underpinning of the unfairness that you observe. What you are describing is an ologarchy where the ologarchs use monopoly power to distort markets so they are no longer free: this is fundimentally at odds with democracy.
In order to limit the power of monopolies, I suggest that we find ways to limit intellectual property rights, since these function to grant monopoly power to the holder of the patent, trade mark or copyright. The seven year copyright of our founding fathers has been extended so that works from after 1923 still have not entered the public domain. In the presence of monoply power, a market cannot be free.
As a second point, why do you think Keynesian economic theory is currently popular? Our current government is clearly dominated by neoconservatives. The current budget deficit has almost nothing to do with any sort of Keynesian theory, but has everything to do with foxes guarding chickenhouses. The current Congress has been prostituting itself to the lobbiests and is leaving the bill to our children. This isn't a philosophy, this is simply opportunism by Republicans. Every time we have Repulicans in office, they cut taxes, pretend to cut spending but in fact raise spending. Look at Reagan and GW Bush: both had completely irresponsible fiscal programs. Many Democrats did learn their lesson from the Johnson Great Society program, and they are now the party of relatively responsable fiscal policy. Keynesians are in retreat, but opportunists are taking their place. We need a new economic vision.
Post a Comment
<< Home