To Market, to Market

[vovat]

One phrase I've gotten sick of hearing recently is, "There's an app for that." But that's not what this post is about. Instead, it's about another phrase I've gotten tired of hearing, which is, "The market will regulate itself." Haven't we seen enough evidence that this isn't the case? I don't believe it any more than I believe that God will sort everything out, and I've occasionally seen a practically religious reverence for the concept of the free market. Granted, we've never had a truly free market, especially when you consider that the same companies that are totally opposed to government interference when they're doing well will often come crying to the government when they aren't. When we've gotten close, though, has it ever really helped anyone who wasn't already in power? When people claim to favor deregulation, what do they actually mean? Do they want to repeal child labor laws, mandated breaks, and collective bargaining? It seems like the business world would have been just fine without these things if they hadn't been forced upon them. I'm definitely for more regulation, but I'm not going to pretend THAT would solve everything either. The regulators themselves can be just as corrupt as the businessmen, after all. Still, we have checks and balances in the government, so that we can be protected from the tyranny of the majority (you know, like when voters decide to outlaw gay marriage...oh, wait), and...well, it still often doesn't work, but at least it usually stops anyone from having too much power. So if political scientists recognize that not everything can be decided democratically, then does it really make sense for businesses to be subject to nothing but the behavior of consumers (and sometimes not even that)?

The emphasis on the stock market also sometimes bugs me. It seems all too common nowadays for people to say, "The market is up, so that must mean the recession is ending!" Yet, somehow, I still know a lot of people who are out of work. I'm not saying the market doesn't at all reflect the economic climate, but it's also true that an increased stock value isn't always a sign of prosperity. I remember hearing that downsizing would often temporarily increase the value of a company's stock, but can a business that's laying off a considerable part of its workforce really be seen as doing well? And are people who aren't making any money going to be investing in the stock market, or buying a whole lot of consumer goods? I guess it doesn't really matter, though, because better stocks means that rich people are doing well, and who cares about anyone else? At least, that seems to be the prevalent way of thinking in this country, and probably others as well. Oh, but rich people create jobs, right? Well, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. It depends on what they choose to do with their money, doesn't it? I feel that top-down thinking is ass-backwards. Even if that works well for the government, isn't the government supposed to be working for the people? Eh, I guess that's naive thinking on my part.

Comments

[bluesilverkdg.livejournal.com]

Nothing to add to your post, but I just wanted to say, I'm really liking She and Him. I had no idea who they were the first time I heard them, and was really sort of amazed!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it definitely made me more interested in Zooey Deschanel. Because everyone knows what I need in life is a crush on a married woman whom everyone else already liked, right? {g}