I realize this is politicizing a great moment of joy, but it dovetails nicely with my previous post. The rescue of the Chilean miners was about as good as it gets when dealing with tragedy. The mine in Chile was a government owned and run. The suppliers of the rescue equipment and expertise were private companies and individuals. Precisely because these rescuers focused their attention on such skills their whole working career, they were able to develop the intricate tools needed for this amazing rescue. This is the result of the division of labour and market based capitalism rewarding innovation. For details please follow this link.
The best line from the editorial is from the Chilean Health Minister who said that he did not even know about copper-lined socks that kill bacteria on feet. Exactly Mr Minister! Innovation is the product of the mind and cannot be centrally planned, likewise it should not be controlled save for the moral and ethical values that most societies adhere to. Each of the products used in the rescue were ideas that people believed would benefit society, so they were developed and brought to the marketplace. Each community has unique needs and unique people filling those needs. Free trade simply allows communities to talk with one another to see if what they have will benefit another community. Chile was a microcosm of this reality.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Trolling For Insight
I have just spent a good while trolling multiple Christian web-logs with one aim in mind...to sniff out ideology that smuggles itself in a theology. I am increasingly dismissive of the anti-Capitalism Christians. I read them only to discover that some political rant-du-jour has become fashionable. I don't want to be dismissive, but all I read is, "we are being screwed by market based economics and if you don't see otherwise, your are a collaborator or worse not (very) Christian." I want to hear a Christian response to the market economy. Yet, I am force-fed some reworking of collectivism or worse the Utopian ideals of "radical ecclesiology" where everyone gets along with some new mindset of sharing and caring. Meanwhile, life goes on.
Chief among these anti free-market capitalism criticisms is the dislocation of the individual from the land, which in economic terms translates into, "the division of labor is problematic". Indeed, there are problems with the division of labor, but we cannot think that subsistence economies don't have their problems (think grinding poverty and starvation). The point that most of these pundits make that I think is germane centers around people being removed from production. The irony is that the Utopian ideas of 'living off our own land' has a romantic view of agrarianism and a deep seated ignorance of how integrated the division of labor is with production.
From a personal perspective, I have taken up gardening and construction over the past years and have come to appreciate the farmer and the tradesman on a higher level. The idea of sending people out to build a homestead and grow their food is fraught with real danger. You don't just stick seeds in the ground and then harvest. Similarly, you simply don't cut a tree down, plant it in the ground and call the house done. My garden has had meager yields, and my constructive efforts take about three times as long as someone with practice.
So, how do you avoid starving and homeless multitudes? The division of labour! People trained in specific skills tend to be more productive. If you have higher farm yields from someone who understands farming, is not that better than and ignorant person starving? Likewise, a tradesman who can frame a house in a couple days with confidence of structural integrity is far more beneficial to society than some rube like me who needs to refer to DIY videos before every new project.
As for people removed from the productive side of life, I would agree that is a problem, but it is not the private sector's problem; it is the government's and academy's problem. Someone working in the lumber industry is deeply concerned about the health of forests and the care thereof. They have seen the destruction caused by past abuses and have honed their skills to avoid such catastrophes. As for farming, few in North America do not know of the dust bowl...the largest agricultural catastrophe in history. There has not been another event because of knowledge gathered and applied by people trained in agriculture.
All this to say that the division of labour is a good thing. Yet, as with all human activities, there are abuses. A free market based division of labour is far more appealing than a forced division of labour which works out in feudalism (modern fascism), slavery (communism) and social injustice (restricted labour force) or a prescribed NO division of labour which is based in subsistence (fend for yourself). And, if we decouple the world economy from free trade, how is that not a regressive form of neo-tribalism? And who enforces such restrictions?
Underlying much of this call for tighter trade is control. Controlling how neighbors freely interact is a Pandora's Box. And regulating the actions of 7 billion humans is no small task. Who calls the shots? Why are those in power better equipped to know what is best in my community compared to me and my neighbor?
Chief among these anti free-market capitalism criticisms is the dislocation of the individual from the land, which in economic terms translates into, "the division of labor is problematic". Indeed, there are problems with the division of labor, but we cannot think that subsistence economies don't have their problems (think grinding poverty and starvation). The point that most of these pundits make that I think is germane centers around people being removed from production. The irony is that the Utopian ideas of 'living off our own land' has a romantic view of agrarianism and a deep seated ignorance of how integrated the division of labor is with production.
From a personal perspective, I have taken up gardening and construction over the past years and have come to appreciate the farmer and the tradesman on a higher level. The idea of sending people out to build a homestead and grow their food is fraught with real danger. You don't just stick seeds in the ground and then harvest. Similarly, you simply don't cut a tree down, plant it in the ground and call the house done. My garden has had meager yields, and my constructive efforts take about three times as long as someone with practice.
So, how do you avoid starving and homeless multitudes? The division of labour! People trained in specific skills tend to be more productive. If you have higher farm yields from someone who understands farming, is not that better than and ignorant person starving? Likewise, a tradesman who can frame a house in a couple days with confidence of structural integrity is far more beneficial to society than some rube like me who needs to refer to DIY videos before every new project.
As for people removed from the productive side of life, I would agree that is a problem, but it is not the private sector's problem; it is the government's and academy's problem. Someone working in the lumber industry is deeply concerned about the health of forests and the care thereof. They have seen the destruction caused by past abuses and have honed their skills to avoid such catastrophes. As for farming, few in North America do not know of the dust bowl...the largest agricultural catastrophe in history. There has not been another event because of knowledge gathered and applied by people trained in agriculture.
All this to say that the division of labour is a good thing. Yet, as with all human activities, there are abuses. A free market based division of labour is far more appealing than a forced division of labour which works out in feudalism (modern fascism), slavery (communism) and social injustice (restricted labour force) or a prescribed NO division of labour which is based in subsistence (fend for yourself). And, if we decouple the world economy from free trade, how is that not a regressive form of neo-tribalism? And who enforces such restrictions?
Underlying much of this call for tighter trade is control. Controlling how neighbors freely interact is a Pandora's Box. And regulating the actions of 7 billion humans is no small task. Who calls the shots? Why are those in power better equipped to know what is best in my community compared to me and my neighbor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
