berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (07/25/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Clayton Cramer, before he left this news group, consistently claimed that the free market is an ideal economic system, in particular, famines occur because some countries, regrettably, don't apply free market principles. Here I wanted to exhibit what factual/logical errors were present in his arguments. I hope that there are enough of libertarians left to defend his claims. For easier reading, I first quote Cramer in length, and then quote again the points I do not agree with. Clayton Cramer > >1. We have had, at least in the United States, a *relatively* free >market for most of the time since the Revolution. (This does not >mean that there have been no subsidies, and no regulation.) > >2. A lot non-socialist countries have had famine, but they have been >countries where the free market wasn't even a goal, much less an >imperfectly attained reality. > >3. Setting aside deliberate genocide is incorrect, because one of the >strengths of a free market is that is impossible to create this sort >of madness (genocide) if the government doesn't regulate food sales. >(Hungry people will mortgage their future, and their kid's future, >if necessary, to eat. Where the government controls food, this option >can be made unavailable in a way that cannot happen in a free market.) > >4. I invite statistics on famines throughout history. There has never >been one in *this* country, and I don't believe there has ever been one >in Canada. The Soviet Union is not intrinsically worse off in its >steppes than North Americans are in the Great Plains. (In fact, the >similarities in weather and geography are startling.) My replies: >2. A lot non-socialist countries have had famine, but they have been >countries where the free market wasn't even a goal, much less an >imperfectly attained reality. There is a strong reason to believe that the free market is set as a goal only in affluent societies, thus the absence of famine in free market countries is not an entirely convincing argument that the free market prevents famine, it can also mean that the the free market may emerge only if famine is not possible. Indeed, an occurrence of famine implies that a large mass of people doesn't have means to survive. Such people tend to be desperately poor even in better years. Since to have or not to have becomes the matter of life and death, the have-nots hate the haves, and vice versa. Thus, whoever governs, tends to rigidly control one side of such a polarized society (and, frequently, the other as well). >3. Setting aside deliberate genocide is incorrect, because one of the >strengths of a free market is that is impossible to create this sort >of madness (genocide) if the government doesn't regulate food sales. >(Hungry people will mortgage their future, and their kid's future, >if necessary, to eat. Where the government controls food, this option >can be made unavailable in a way that cannot happen in a free market.) How can people with no property mortgage their future, or the future of their children? The only possibility I know is to sell themselves (or the children) to slavery or other kind of servitude. This was one of the mechanisms creating feudal or slave-owning societies. If these are free market solutions, then feudal plantations and feudal fiefs are free market enterprises. >4. I invite statistics on famines throughout history. There has never >been one in *this* country, and I don't believe there has ever been one >in Canada. The Soviet Union is not intrinsically worse off in its >steppes than North Americans are in the Great Plains. (In fact, the >similarities in weather and geography are startling.) Anybody heard about potato famine in Ireland? Great Britain was one of the most free economies in the world at that time. Also, why 1/3 of Norwegians left their country? Because of hunger. Also, think about Bangladesh: average density of population is about 1500 people on a square mile. Will the introduction of the free market remove famine from this country? Apropos Soviet climate being similar to Greate Plains - Great Plains have a surplus of food because of their sparse population. The bulk of this country grain comes from the corn belt, which has a combination of right precipitation, temperatures and soils without any match in the world, as far as the grain is concerned. I believe that Americans would raise enough food even in Soviet conditions, but it would cost much more. Final remarks. As of today, famine and malnutrition occur mostly in areas occupied by uneducated, poor peasants. How the free market can help them? By offering loans? They are very risky debtors. By selling educational services? They don't have money to pay for it. By buying their labor? In these area there is abundance of people, and no infrastructure. Almost everything what can be produced there, can be produced cheaper elsewhere (try to open a factory in the western Sudan, 1000 miles from a decent road). To create a resemblance of a free market, which in the long run seems to be beneficial, one needs huge intervention, like subsidized education, infrastructure and state guaranteed loans, on the part of the state, which in turns needs foreign help. Has such help been wasted in the past? Sure. Can one solve the problem? I think that anyone who proposes a solutions which cannot fail (like free market) is deluding himself and others. Piotr Berman
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/25/85)
In article <1671@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > > As of today, famine and malnutrition occur mostly in areas occupied >by uneducated, poor peasants. How the free market can help them? >By offering loans? ... By selling educational services? ... >To create a resemblance of a free market, which in the >long run seems to be beneficial, one needs huge intervention, like >subsidized education, infrastructure and state guaranteed loans... >Piotr Berman There seems to be a basic misconception here about what the free market really is. It is not a bunch of industrialists, nor is it a government agency. It is a condition: namely the absence of coercive force restricting the voluntary exchange of goods and services, in this case between "uneducated, poor peasants". No external intervention is necessary for the free market to occur; and no external intervention is sufficient. > I think that anyone who proposes a solutions which cannot >fail (like free market) is deluding himself and others. The free market is not a "solution which cannot fail". It is merely the removal of one (and one of the largest) of the several causes of famine. Allow someone to feed himself: he may or not succeed. But put him in chains, and he will surely fail. --JoSH
lkk@teddy.UUCP (07/26/85)
In article <2921@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >In article <1671@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >There seems to be a basic misconception here about what the free market >really is. It is not a bunch of industrialists, nor is it a government >agency. It is a condition: namely the absence of coercive force >restricting the voluntary exchange of goods and services, in this case >between "uneducated, poor peasants". No external intervention is necessary >for the free market to occur; and no external intervention is sufficient. Is such a condition possible, except in an ideal world of rational individuals? What do you mean by coercive force? A government? A private army? Peer pressure? Custom? A libertarian system only eliminates the first of those forces (governmental force), allowing the others to run rampant. Anyone who beleives that a power vacuum in a society is a stable configuration is simply naive. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/30/85)
In article <1022@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >Anyone who beleives that a power vacuum in a society is a stable >configuration is simply naive. >Larry Kolodney And anyone who believes that I believe that a power vacuum in a society is a stable configuration, is also naive. --JoSH