Moral Criticism of the Market

Moral Criticism of the Market

I disagree with the author's major premise and conclusion. He contradicts himself by suggesting that the basis of his support for a free market is that it depends on offering something of value to others and that the problem with the dynamics of commercial advertising lies primarily with the individual. The reality of the advertising industry is hardly that it merely increases public "awareness" of available products. In fact, the main effort of commercial advertising is precisely to create the perception of need, even (or specifically) where it is illusory. To use the author's example, by the time someone covets a Mercedes that he sees driving past him on the street, he has already been inundated by years of explicit and implicit messages that the Mercedes symbolizes respect and achievement.

The fashion industry provides an even better example because it no longer exists to fill any actual need (since modern clothes could last for years). Instead, all of its efforts are intended to generate a perceived need by purposely changing "fashion" regularly to create a need that would not exist otherwise. While the author cannot be faulted for failing to know what would happen two decades after his article, the entire economic crisis was substantially the result of materialism, artificial need, and the preoccupation with "acquisitive" success. Specifically, the Wall Street culture produced wealth without creating any products that benefitted society and the housing market collapse was mainly caused by individual greed and the need to compete with the neighbor.

The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

http://www.thefreemanonline.org

Moral Criticisms of the Market

by Ken S. Ewert • March 1989 • Vol. 39/Issue 3

Mr. Ewert, a graduate of Grove City College, is working on a master's degree in public policy at CBN University.

According to an author writing in a recent issue of The Nation magazine, "The religious Left is the only Left we've got." An overstatement? Perhaps. However, it points to an interesting fact, namely that while the opposition to free markets and less government control has declined in recent years among the "secular left," the political-economic views of the "Christian left" seem to remain stubbornly unchanged.

Why is this so? Why are the secular critics of the market mellowing while the Christian critics are not?

Perhaps one major reason is the different criteria by which these two ideological allies measure economic systems. The secular left, after more than half a century of failed experiments in anti-free market policies, has begrudgingly softened its hostility towards the market for predominantly pragmatic reasons. Within their camp the attitude seems to be that since it hasn't worked, let's get on with finding something that will. While this may be less than a heartfelt conversion to a philosophy of economic freedom, at least (for many) this recognition has meant taking a more sympathetic view of free markets.