From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 20:28:48 MDT
Mike Lorrey writes:
> --- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > Rafal Smigrodzki writes:
> > > ### ....Of course, the effectiveness of the legal system is
> > > impaired by the fact that the state owns and operates
> > > courts, instead allowing private courts to operate and
> > > compete.
> > > So you have slow, expensive courts bound by
> > > statutes and regulations, but this is just another argument for
> > > the free market.
> >
> > I don't see how the free market can be given unfettered free
> > range without destroying itself. Like a fire that doesn't stay
> > in the fireplace, but burns the house down.
>
> How, exactly, would it destroy itself?
I'm using free in the widest sense of the word where
essentially the strong holders of capital are free to exploit
the weak providers of minimal cost labour across national
borders if they so choose.
Labor, especially unskilled labor can be purchased by large
multinations essentially anywhere in the world. Capital is pretty
portable. Multinationals can regime shop for the best tax and
cost of production packages from a variety of governments that
want to attrack investment and even in free countries create
jobs for the locals and increase their chance of being elected.
Essentially the problem is that in a global system capital flows
far more easily that labor. The market is free but only is some
respects. And unless labour can move from one country to
another with relative ease the labor market is not free.
And this means that cheap labor in say the US cannot compete
on price with cheap labor in say Malaysia. The States will quite
rightly in my view insist of safety standards for its workers and
this lifts the cost of the workforce. In countries where a injured
worker is essentially just tossed aside for another the labor
force is cheap.
I guess my point in nutshell is, in the absence of giving labor
the ability to wander across any borders they wish to get the
work they'd be willing to do at the price they'd be willing to
do it, which would see immigration to the west in sqillions,
the next best thing is to ensure that minimal safety standards
(for one thing) are a cost all countries have to bear so that
labor competes on a level playing field.
> >
> > Seem to me that some of the problems of globalis[ation]
> > arise because the free market is expected to work without
> > the rule of law being established first. The free market may
> > allow slavery, human rights abuses (safe work environment
> > etc) and the removal of the forms of institution that give
> > societies order if it is not checked to some extent. Imo
> > anyway, I'd be interested to see how an alternative view
> > might run.
>
> A free market would not allow slavery, ipso facto.
I'm probably using a wider interpretation of free market than
you had in mind. For the most part I am for as much freedom
as possible. I'm pretty much a libertarian. But occassionally
competition just makes for waste.
> If workers are not free to leave employment, they are not
> in a free market.
Agreed and in the global cheap labour market, the cheap
labor is not free to move to any country it likes.
> It is, however, the responsibility of employees to determine
> their own best long term rational self interest. In areas where
> exploitation of ignorance is possible by capital, collective
> bargaining via unions is a legitimate and libertarian means of
> raising up the awareness of the proletariat so that they can
> act as self-responsible individuals.
>
> It is rather obvious that those in our economy left most
> ignorant are those educated by the state apparatus. Whether
> this be at the hands of mercantilists looking to exploit or
> socialists looking to launch revolution (probably a bit of both),
> it is also rather obvious that even in the area of education,
> free markets produce the highest quality products and have
> the happiest workers.
I'm not sure but I think you are thinking of the US as the market
whereas I am thinking of a global market place. In the second
there is no US constitution protecting most of the population.
And there can be strong commercial pressures for superfunds
chasing the best return on investment and multinationals seeking
the cheapest locations to construct their products to seek
out manufacturing locations where the protections of the US
constitution don't apply.
Now if this is pushed to far the US unskilled workers find they
can't get work. But they can still vote (including voting themselves
money). My point is eventually this can destabilise even a country
like the US.
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 20:36:51 MDT