What restrains a market to so act?

Nothing restrains a market, except government control. The direction of the market is affected by the choices of people.

A normal old vile person given a lot of responsibility may become an
even more vile one. Your run of the mill pedophile put in a classroom
may become that much more of a monster.

When I speak of people, I am speakingf about society in general. Socialism robs people of purpose, generosity, free will, and achievement. A government that assumes social-responsibilty for it's citizens sucks out the responsibity of individuals to care for themselves and one another.

The more people are robbed of ...

read more»

What restrains a market to so act?

Nothing restrains a market, except government control. The direction of the market is affected by the choices of people.

A normal old vile person given a lot of responsibility may become an
even more vile one. Your run of the mill pedophile put in a classroom
may become that much more of a monster.

When I speak of people, I am speakingf about society in general. Socialism robs people of purpose, generosity, free will, and achievement. A government that assumes social-responsibilty for it's citizens sucks out the responsibity of individuals to care for themselves and one another.

The more people are robbed of responsibility, the more vile we become.

You missed my point. Sure, individuals can abuse positions of responsibilty.
I am speaking about individual responsibilities for each other in a society. Rights should not be place before responsibilities, nor should society or laws mandate responsibility.

I'm not sure there is any essential disagreement so far, though we would probably say and emphasize some lesser points differently.

Let me illustrate why I'm rethinking an unfettered free market approach

(but I emphatically do not think that requires socialism/communism...if those were the only two choices,give me laissez faire. However, I think there is an alternate morally defensible, economically viable, socially responible view, but I haven't grasped it.)

Anyway, here's some thoughts which fuel my rethinking.

1. Throwing an orange rubber ball through a metal ring is not worth 30 million a year. I don't know how to decide what it is worth, but it isn't worth that. Just ain't. ...

I'm not sure there is any essential disagreement so far, though we would probably say and emphasize some lesser points differently.

Let me illustrate why I'm rethinking an unfettered free market approach

(but I emphatically do not think that requires socialism/communism...if those were the only two choices,give me laissez faire. However, I think there is an alternate morally defensible, economically viable, socially responible view, but I haven't grasped it.)

Anyway, here's some thoughts which fuel my rethinking.

1. Throwing an orange rubber ball through a metal ring is not worth 30 million a year. I don't know how to decide what it is worth, but it isn't worth that. Just ain't. Neither is dressing up in colorful jammies and pretending to be a cross between a spider and a human. Think about it.

2. I don't care how many hurricanes we get in one season, a nail isn't worth 55 dollars. It's still a nail. It hasn't changed. That doesn't mean the cost of providing it may go up, but that's a different issue.

3. Y'all may not like this one, but defining precise limits aside, as a principle, excess and ostentation are morally indefensible. May the governement restrain it? Indirectly, maybe?

4. Corollary to #3, I think promotion of common good and common welfare *is* morally obligatory. *That does not mean* that it is therefore the state's job not only to encourage it, but to exact amounts it feels will do the trick. I'm just laying out some principles that have me rethinking some things.

5. I'm tending to think that the concept of "excess profits" may be legitimate. At various times, often in wars, companies may see their profits rise in the neighborhood of 500%. Historically, it happens. Isn't that excessive?

Please comment. I appreciate your helping me think through some of this.

I'd appreciate hearing the responses of those who would typically be considered fiscal conservatives, or even libertarian-type viewpoints on economics.

1. Throwing an orange rubber ball through a metal ring is not worth 30 million a year.

Sure it is. If that is what this form of entertainment is able to acquire. The owners of the teams make money than that. Sports is an entertainmentment industry that creates a lot of revenue and those filling the seats are paid accordingly. These businesses also give back a lot of money to their communities and society at large in the the form of charity, spin-off business, filling resteraunts around stadiums.

I don't care how many hurricanes we get in one season, a nail isn't worth 55 dollars. It's still a nail. It hasn't changed.

That is price-gouging and is illegal to do...

1. Throwing an orange rubber ball through a metal ring is not worth 30 million a year.

Sure it is. If that is what this form of entertainment is able to acquire. The owners of the teams make money than that. Sports is an entertainmentment industry that creates a lot of revenue and those filling the seats are paid accordingly. These businesses also give back a lot of money to their communities and society at large in the the form of charity, spin-off business, filling resteraunts around stadiums.

I don't care how many hurricanes we get in one season, a nail isn't worth 55 dollars. It's still a nail. It hasn't changed.

That is price-gouging and is illegal to do during emergencies. If someone wants to charge those prices on a regular basis, then they would not be in business long. This example is a non-starter in the context of overall economic forces.

Y'all may not like this one, but defining precise limits aside, as a
principle, excess and ostentation are morally indefensible. May the
governement restrain it? Indirectly, maybe?

So you propose the government legislate in matters of taste and personal dreams or desires. Where does this end?

Corollary to #3, I think promotion of common good and common welfare *is* morally obligatory.

I agree. However, the government is inefficient and grossly indequate for the purpose of achieving this end. This is best done by individuals, small groups and organizations. This goes to my point about individual responsibility. Ther is a new book out called Who Really Cares. It goes straight to the heart of what the mentality of Socialism can do to the heart of individuals. For example individual Americans give 20 times the amount of Europeans to charities. Conservative minded people give much more than Liberal minded people who think it is the States responsibility to care for

Sure it is. If that is what this form of entertainment is able to acquire.

What is your justification for the idea that true value is determined by what the market will pay? This seems to be an assumption, but how would you respond to the idea that a market might pay more or less than something's true value?

If 200 million people want to pay $150 each to watch me stare at a wall, can you honestly tell me that staring at a wall is worth $300,000,000,000? I could, of course, get more ridiculous than this, but I trust this serves to make the point. Staring at a wall is *not* worth $300,000,000,000, even if there are 200,000,000 people deluded enough to pay $150 a pop to watc...

Sure it is. If that is what this form of entertainment is able to acquire.

What is your justification for the idea that true value is determined by what the market will pay? This seems to be an assumption, but how would you respond to the idea that a market might pay more or less than something's true value?

If 200 million people want to pay $150 each to watch me stare at a wall, can you honestly tell me that staring at a wall is worth $300,000,000,000? I could, of course, get more ridiculous than this, but I trust this serves to make the point. Staring at a wall is *not* worth $300,000,000,000, even if there are 200,000,000 people deluded enough to pay $150 a pop to watch it.

That is price-gouging and is illegal

The principle is the same, though. Those laws are inconsistent with the principle that what the market will pay determines what a good/service is worth.

So you propose

No, I haven't proposed
anything. Just mulling things over. This is a principle which I think
is true. The question is how, if at all, the public laws can recognize
this principle, assuming it is true.

Perhaps there could be
legitimate legislation which simply does not prevent excess, but does
not reward or encourage it, either.

I assure you I have a
"less is more" view of civil government, as a rule: Self, family,
church, community are the governments which ought to have primary
responsibility for assuring that people live together in society as
they ought.

the government is inefficient and grossly indequate for the purpose of achieving this end[/...

read more»

So you propose

No, I haven't proposed
anything. Just mulling things over. This is a principle which I think
is true. The question is how, if at all, the public laws can recognize
this principle, assuming it is true.

Perhaps there could be
legitimate legislation which simply does not prevent excess, but does
not reward or encourage it, either.

I assure you I have a
"less is more" view of civil government, as a rule: Self, family,
church, community are the governments which ought to have primary
responsibility for assuring that people live together in society as
they ought.

the government is inefficient and grossly indequate for the purpose of achieving this end

Also
agreed, but is there not a possibility of rewarding, encouraging,
removing obstacles/hindrances to private individuals and small groups
from achieving this end?

The Bible does speak of the civil magistrate as one who not only is a
terror to them that do evil, but a rewarder of them that do good. I
recognize that the primary vehicle of reward is liberty and freedom
from threat of governmental intrustion or interference. But is that
the only way good conduct can be rewarded?

When I asked whether markets were moral, I meant it as "Do they have moral implications? Do they have a moral element?" Whereas the standard freemarket position would be that they are amoral--neither good or evil.

I did not mean by "moral" to say that any given market is "moralley upright," in the sense of "John's a real moral man." I meant it in a philosophic way, as described above. Are they by nature moral?

I'm tending to think they are, and so, as all humans and human institutions, in need of lawful restraint of evil by the appropriate authority or entity or force.

Having said that, I have little notion of what exactly that would look like, since I think current systems are so fa...

When I asked whether markets were moral, I meant it as "Do they have moral implications? Do they have a moral element?" Whereas the standard freemarket position would be that they are amoral--neither good or evil.

I did not mean by "moral" to say that any given market is "moralley upright," in the sense of "John's a real moral man." I meant it in a philosophic way, as described above. Are they by nature moral?

I'm tending to think they are, and so, as all humans and human institutions, in need of lawful restraint of evil by the appropriate authority or entity or force.

Having said that, I have little notion of what exactly that would look like, since I think current systems are so far off the mark.

I moved recently, and I only have my law books and a few others unpacked and available to me, and I don't know of many online sources to point you towards, so I won't be much help right now. If you remind me sometime later (months...I have a full plate for a while), I will try to provide some suggested reading on Christian views of the morality of markets and commerce and morality, etc.

This is one resource a little to the libertarian and papist side, but has some decent material nonetheless: http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/

Another can be found here: http://www.mises.org/

And here: http://kuyper.org/main/main.php

And here: http://www.chalcedon.edu/ (this one is not specifically economics-oriented, but has a lot on it if you look around their articles and publications)

Aside from those, I'd recommend Dabney's "Practical Philosphy" and "Discussions." These are a bit dated, but surprisingly prophetic, and contain stuff we should think about in bringing Scripture to bear on the world and times in which God has placed us to be salt and light.