In Defense of Markets and Misers

Utilitarianism in Defense of Markets and Misers by Candace Allen & Dwight Lee

Candace Allen and Dwight Lee's analysis of markets and misers in the American economy centers on how these two factors contribute beneficially for economy to become efficient. In the article, the authors discuss the background about how markets and misers have often been projected to society as inefficient factors that contribute insignificantly to the economy. This is because markets are considered as efficient only in profit-making, by providing commodities that are in demand, and optimally using these commodities to gain profit through surpluses. Misers, on the other hand, being frugal in economic, particularly monetary resources, does not contribute to economic growth at all by not spending any money and putting these money in the monetary supply of the society. These 'perceived' notions show the negative image given to markets (participants) and misers, who, because there are no manifest evidence showing how they contribute to the society, are then considered not only as inefficient, but also detrimental to the economic growth of society.

Markets and misers are then analyzed in contrast with the government and philanthropists. Government and philanthropists are considered as beneficial and efficient by people in society because there are manifest evidence that show that monetary resource are channeled for the benefit of the people. That is, government, through its projects and programs, are perceived as contributors to economic growth because it benefits society, especially when programs are geared towards a particular sector in the society, e.g., the women's sector. Allen and Lee expand this point by giving an example of this socio-economic phenomenon: "a tariff duty receives popular support because everyone can see the benefit it concentrates on those who work in the protected industry." Similarly, philanthropists become beneficial and efficient for society because they channel monetary resource for cause-worthy activities, by giving money to foundations and non-profit organizations. Thus, with these two opposing arguments, the article then confronts and discusses how, on the contrary, government and philanthropists are the inefficient, and markets and misers efficient, factors that influence and affect economic growth.

Using utilitarianism in arguing the thesis stated earlier, Allen and Lee then illustrates why markets and misers are more efficient than the government and philanthropists. Utilitarianism is a sociological ideology that centers on the thought that what is beneficial to the society are those forces that provide the greatest happiness and satisfaction to the majority. When applied in the ideology and framework of utilitarianism, the government and philanthropists are indeed inefficient, since, as illustrated in the preceding section, it only channels monetary resources on one particular sector of the society. And because these resources only benefit some selected members of the society, government activities and philanthropists then become inefficient in the socio-economic development of the society under the utilitarian view.

Conversely, markets and misers are analyzed functionally using the same ideology applied in criticizing the government and philanthropists. Allen and Lee argues that, "[b]ecause the benefits of the market are so dispersed, they are largely ignored or taken for granted, while the market discipline that makes the benefits possible is denounced." Indeed, looking at the collective rather than specific effects that markets and misers do to make the economy efficient illustrates how two inefficient factors become functional under the utilitarian perspective, mainly because these factors contribute to the greatest happiness and satisfaction of majority of the society.