A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states:
==============
The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The
market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans
are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is
an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.
===============

Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate
according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market"
is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people.

He's wrong. Perhaps not universally, but mostly. Only socialist/communist
societies "impose" a market system on people, and the one they impose is
"We'll take everything you produce, decide how to distribute it and decide
how much, if anything, you get back."

His contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek
protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to
"force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what
it takes - force.

As I carefully outlined, his premise is flawed because he ignores the fact
that while human beings are cooperative *in part,* they are also selfish in
part, and it is this individual self-interest that creates "markets" as a
natural function of human society. No force is required, and market
economies naturally flow from human nature and an excess of energy
resources.


You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical
result of basic human instincts.". I wonder.

Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto
industry would concur?

Certainly, if they took the time to analyze the issue.

Do they believe that they should be denied what
Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not.

The flaw in your argument is the presumption that a desire for protection
and a "natural market instinct" are mutually exclusive. They are not. It's a
complex energy dynamic. Natural market instincts may be suppressed during
times of energy stress, but the instinct remains and will re-emerge as soon
as available energy resources begin to exceed basic energy needs.


Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade
dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the
American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what
Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective
stance as opposed to the free market stance.

That has little to do with natural instincts and everything to do with
politics and high-level economic policy. The US response to lumber dumping
by Canada is "protectionist" certainly, but it's not "instinctive." Nor is
the government "forcing" citizens out of a "natural tendency" towards
cooperation. If anything, the government is merely enforcing such natural
tendencies among *clan members.* The dynamics of
interclan/intertribal/international protectionism don't mutually exclude the
dynamics of natural markets.

Polanyi seems to believe, based on what you've posted (which isn't much)
that the natural state of human beings is socialistic egalitarianism where
each member of the clan has no individual self-interest but rather is
absolutely altruistic to the needs of the clan as a whole.

I don't see any evidence that this assertion is anywhere remotely connected
to the truth of human nature, which by observation is clearly almost
diametrically opposed to that model. Human beings are inherently selfish, as
is any organism obeying the prime biological directive of survival, and as a
rule, they only cooperate with others when it is to *their* direct physical
and social benefit to do so. So long as the clan structure and operation
provides greater benefits through group membership than being alone, the
human will seek it out and participate in it. This is the Principle of
Enlightened Self-interest.

But when the clan structure becomes harmful to the individual and his
interests, he will leave the clan and strike out on his own, or seek another
clan structure that better benefits his individual needs.

From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either
protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society
has the power to control the political system.

I think it's much deeper than that. However, it is true that leaders with a
strong power structure able to enforce decisions on the clan can skew the
system markedly. But that's an aberration, not the normal situation.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser