|
January 12, 2006
The market will not be denied--some random ramblings on economics
There's a good article in Tech Central Station today which traces the decline and fall of the German biotech industry. The pattern is a common one: first the government regulates, imposes controls, and tramples markets. Then the industry withers and relocates. In all things, the Market will not be denied. It can't be. This is a concept that has long fascinated me. All transactions between human beings take place on a value consideration basis determined by a host of intangible factors, modified by the constraints of supply and demand. People perceive the Market as harsh, or heartless, or fueled by greed, or [insert your pejorative of choice]. Some have attempted to invent alternate systems. In all cases, they have failed to realize that even if you alter the mechanism of exchange, people still ultimately seek to acquire things most valuable to them at the least cost. This holds true even in communes. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," sounds nice, but the fallacy of that statement is contained in the wording. How do you determine need? Why, by assignment of value of course. When a person works like a slave (and indeed, communism makes the most sense when understood as a form of state-mandated universal slavery), he does so out of fear that failure to do so will result in a denial of needs. Thus, he exchanges his labor for what few goods can be obtained from others (embodied by the state, community, or what have you). In other words, within the framework allowed by regulations governing commerce, exchange will always happen according to Market principles. The less arbitrary interference (i.e. government intervention), the more efficiently the Market operates, and the more value is created. Government interference in any way, shape, or form by definition destroys value. It is no coincidence that over the period from 1950 - 1995, the countries which experienced the highest rate of GDP growth were the countries whose laws most respected & protected property rights (specifically: Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). When governments step in, you get effects like those from the article linked above. German firms once dominated the biopharmaceutical field. Known as the “medicine chest of Europe,” German drug makers spawned U.S. divisions that are now multinationals in their own right. But today, as The Philadelphia Inquirer detailed in a recent series, there is not one German company among the top ten drug-makers.It is a simple lesson with simple, straight forward, common sense causes and effects. Unfortunately, the vast majority of politicians & bureaucrat decision makers aren't sufficiently smart to understand that lesson. Of course, you could argue that the vast majority of politicians couldn't be morons. If I grant that argument, however, then the only other possible explanation is that the vast majority of politicians are corrupt and/or dishonest. So I've decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to stupidity. posted by Beck on 01.12.06 at 12:17 PM
Comments
It is not exactly a universal law. I was surprised to discover the other day that under feudalism, things like the price of bread remained the same, even during times of plenty and famine. Because that was just how the economy worked, where conventional pricing set (I assume) by whichever lord was in charge, was more important demand value. Not exactly something to aim to return to, of course! nic · January 13, 2006 09:51 AM It is *ridiculous* to point to feudalism as an example of a "market". You're dismissed. Billy Beck · January 13, 2006 02:38 PM I would further add that, even to the extent that there was any sort of "price fixing" in feudal times, markets would still ultimately assert their supremacy, though in often unpredictable ways. For one thing, there would be no mechanism for rationing in the case of extreme scarcity. There would simply be shortages and starvation (which, in fact, happened quite often). In times of surplus, value would be destroyed by people failing to consume as much as they potentially could have, and by causing incorrect asset realocation (if you have too much wheat, maybe you should be planting some barley, etc, etc, etc). Finally, serfs didn't really have access to money--they were simply given back a portion of the fruits of their labor. They exchanged their labor for these handouts, and since their labor input remained relatively unchanged (i.e. non-stop toil from sun-up to sun-down) then you could argue that the "price" didn't change, but you'd be engaging in the falacy of incorrectly identifying the serfs as free, rational decission makers when in fact they should be classified as slaves. Beck · January 13, 2006 03:49 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It seems that an overcontrolling government gets what it truly deserves-nothing to control.