There's a comment been made on the blog suggesting that all markets are anti-social. It was made in response to my blog from this morning where I said I was in favour of the existence of markets.
In this video I argue that we can have fair markets - but it's all down to political choice, just as it is a political choice that right now we have rigged ones.
The video is a bit experimental and not made in my usual fashion. I'd be interested to know if these quick reaction videos have merit.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Personally, I heartily dislike videos. They force me to listen to the entirety, instead of skipping the stuff one already knows and focusing on the new. They also force one to suspend criticism in order to listen – no pausing allowed!
Having said that, many ppl seem to like them; in which case my only criticism is that the sound was too low.
Keep up your good work, and thank you.
I am not always a fab
But some are ….
I try to reach different audiences
Further to my earlier comment: perhaps the best of both worlds might be to provide a transcript, auto-generated if you didn’t write the blog post out prior to recording it?
Not that easy for me to do…
Thanks for your reply via Video Richard. i understand what you mean but i dont see that happening . As Adam Smith said markets need a helping hand which means to stop the accesses of free marketeers. However , since he wrote wealth of nations 1776 it appears that markets will always be beneficial to the capitalists as they control the politicians and the money .
The market has been ongoing for 300 years and we have never had a regulated market for the benefit of all. Politicians are corrupted by money in general. Richard , you expertly tell us what’s wrong with the system and in a utopian world how we could change it but until we the people at the bottom take control of the markets then we are going around in circles…
I agree
Hence my twitter thread this morning
Experiment is the mother of invention. Worth trying, and see where it goes!
On the brief argument in your video:
Markets require rules, or there will not long be markets. The mistake is the belief that markets function well and freely under all conditions. They don’t. Neoliberal ‘free markets’ presuppose an environment of natural, unregulated equilibrium. This proposition is not merely false, but preposterous. Markets are most like varieties of hot-house plants; take them out of a very narrow range of temperatures or stable, tranquil atmosphere, and they will not survive. They are fragile, gentle flowers. I have never, ever understood the absurd self-contradiction of “entrepreneurs” or the general business community, simultaneously demanding that they have completely free markets to allow innovation and change; but demand of politicians that they are given economic “certainty”. They cannot have both.
I agree transparency is the strongest defence of ‘free’ (regulated) markets, but am less sure about the practicality of a ‘level’ playing field, save as a rather optimistic aspiration. Reality is not like that, as you seem to acknowledge; and cost of entry is typically a serious barrier to the openness of some markets, and in some cases hard to remove. I think strong anti-trust legislation (the US used to be quite strict about this, but neoliberalism has gradually infected everything with perverse lethargy); and tough, well resourced, independent regulators are the best defence there (to be clear – we have no culture, desire or expectation of tough regulators in Britain); and taxation. Apart from that, innovation is the best therapy (a new product or technology that outdates the big batallions is always the real solution to the problem).
Thanks John
Richard,
I cant see anywhere else to put this So feel free to move it if you want) and may be a Bear with a very small brain, BUT the Russian GDP is only the size of Italy’s.
Now firstly GDP has its limits – and both Italy & Russia are good examples of this and Russia produces a number of essential materials that Italy doesn’t but it doesn’t seem to explain much Russia’s influence in the world.
There are no Italian Oligarch’s, (Ditto most other nations) Massive Yachts, McMansions in London, etc etc
Can you explain this?
Yes
We sold them kleptocracy
Richard,
Thanks
Never really thought about it that way
I might also add that the suggestion seems to be that Italian culture doesnt look kindly on flaunting wealth, perhaps something that Anglo American culture could shift on?
In the days of Margaret Thatcher there was much talk of free competitive markets. Now that we live in an age where many markets are tending towards an end point of monopoly, neo-liberals rarely mention competition.
I do not think this is a coincidence.
Unregulated markets have about as much chance of being genuinely competitive as a football match without a referee or governing body.
Hi Richard. Hope you are well.
I have known and campaigned for you and your work for nearly 20 years and have offered our services on many occasions as film makers.
Content is always great and I have great respect for you. Your video is out of sync which is abit distracting and the sound needs to be brought up
The most effective way to engage is a mixture of you and cutaways that enforce your messages through graphics and text.
It is easy to do when you are a professional as we have the edit suite, knowledge (over 20 years of filmmaking) and commitment.
However I think you have done quite a good job you have framed it well and kept it quite short.
Min
I am exploring ….. there may well be better answers than this
I may call you
Richard
I liked the “emergency“ quick response video. Because it was so short, there was no need to skip. I would welcome more. It was a little too quiet.
The mistake was Hayek’s. Because he was, understandably, so petrified by the adverse effects of totalitarianism, he believed that the market would protect humankind. He therefore put all his eggs into that one basket. “The constitution of liberty“ was entirely built on “The road to serfdom“, and perpetuated the error. Unless you are an enthusiast for the Eton Wall game, that is to say effectively a totalitarian yourself, it is obvious that markets without protection, that is to say the real “rule of law“, Will inevitably lead back to serfdom, as we now see in the west.
Thanks
This was short and sweet, so perhaps appropriate for a “quick reaction”. However, if you had to script it before reading…
Personally I prefer text, so that I’m not distracted by personality, delivery or background (I always find I want to see what’s on the bookshelf!). I only prefer video when its presentation style with lots of graphics, but that’s just me.
As to content, I think there’s a distinction to be made between markets which can be of benefit to wider society and those financial constructs which have no grounding in the real economy, or which add risk to the system, rather than diminish it. In a “quick reaction” you couldn’t cover it, but I’m guessing your appropriate regulations/regulators cover this angle.
I am not sure where my regulators come into this
Would podcast be better?
I follow a few podcasts on different topics, for me they work better as a conversation between two or more people, rather than a single person addressing an issue. Just a personal preference, and I do realise that makes for extra work. It would work very well if, in the style of YouTube, people could post comments and you respond to those which pique your interest. Again, I’m conscious of the extra work.
I’m very hesitant to make suggestions as to how you should spend your time, but what I think would attract a lot of attention (particularly if trailed on twitter and posted on YouTube) would be a monthly(?) podcast bringing together the things you’ve already covered on the blog and twitter and exploring with a colleague or two the themes which the individual posts have in common. Just a thought.
That may be the way to go…
I am exploring all options right now
Personally, I prefer a written blog…. but I am already engaged with you and your ideas so you should ignore me (on this point only!!)
On markets it is is “horses for courses”. I think markets for government bonds are extremely efficient and work well… there is equal access, transparency and a regulator that has real teeth. Does that mean a market for education is a good idea. No.
Surely a little pragmatism is required rather than “culture war” over whether markets are good or bad.
The promise of capitalism for me was the sharing of wealth – that is what made it work and made markets work from the owner manager to the employee. That to me was the social side of markets – when they delivered the greatest amount of social utility to the greatest amount of people.
It is the financialisaton and deregulation of markets (production, work, employment, unions, manufacturing, pensions) that has undermined all of this in my view and made sure that the redistributive mechanisms of markets no longer work as they did. Finance has made sure more of this wealth from production has gone upwards, not downwards and also to itself. This is the greatest amount of social utility for the lowest amount of people. Inequality in other words.
And then of course we need to consider the environmental degradation caused by markets too. What good is a market that thinks short term and puts its own existence and its customers in jeopardy in the long term?
As you say in your short vid, markets have to be managed – and one of the reasons is short termism and greed. Management and regulation acknowledges real anti-social human behaviours like these and intervenes for pro-social reasons.
That is the correct balance because all markets are, are where people meet and exchange goods and services – we’ve been doing this as a species since Adam was a lad. Those who decry them are simply being dogmatic and nothing else.