Thursday, May 21, 2009

You Bought What?


For many people, one of the more frustrating aspects of a free market economy is what the masses find valuable.

“Why in the world would anyone prefer reading Brown’s The Da Vinci Code over Shakespeare’s Macbeth? What’s up with that?” (Or vice versa)

“Why is Peyton Manning (or his offensive linemen, for that matter) paid far more than school teachers?”

"Why does Gisele make over 30 million a year while nurses only earn around 45,000?"

“Why do so many Americans prefer big cars and SUVs to compacts?”

In a free market economy, the largest profits go to the people who satisfy the desires of the masses. The market does not make a formal or academic declaration of “true merit.” Success is not based on what people should want, but upon what they demonstrably do want.

If I choose to be a philosopher, I am choosing a profession that has a very narrow market. Yes, philosophy is important because “ideas have consequences.” However, as the masses prefer the bon mots of Oprah Winfrey to the wisdom of Aristotle, she makes billions while the average philosophy professor makes less than 100k annually … with much of that going to pay off Sallie Mae. All we can learn from a free market economy is what the masses have declared to be valuable, not what is “truly,” “justly,” “rightfully” or “eternally” valuable.

If I differ with my fellow consumers on their tastes and preferences, I am free to say so, free to engage them in debate, and free to go in a different direction. I am NOT free, however, to force them to make other choices.

In the USA, the market place is a democracy where, every day, people cast their votes for the entrepreneurs and businesses which best meets the consumers perceived needs. I am free to compete for these votes, of course, by engaging in any ethical endeavor I choose. I am free to be a philosophy professor, and free to choose sports as my arena of achievement. Well … I should say that I am free within the constraints of my intellect and physiology! However, when it comes to the potential rewards for making my choice, I must be clear as to the size of the market where I am going to compete.

Controlling Choices
There is no question that the masses of consumers often demonstrate a lack of taste or education [cue nose in air]: how else can you explain the mega success of NASCAR compared to that of your city’s symphony? Just kidding. The point is that we all have shaken our heads in bewilderment over what our fellow citizen-consumers have decided best meets their needs. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this response, as long as we do not begin demanding that people submit to our litmus test for what is “most valuable.”

Once we go down this road, once we begin demanding that consumers only purchase what we deem valuable at the price we decide is “fair,” we are choosing slavery over freedom. How so? Because the only way to enforce our litmus test is via the force of laws enacted by our nation’s governments.

In a free market economy, no guns are to be held to your head demanding you purchase a particular product at a specific price. However, when the government enters the market place, it introduces force (laws backed up by police], which always ends up screwing around with our freedoms.

One particular forceful means that the government uses for controlling choices is adding higher taxes for products the elitists in D.C. decide are not healthy (cigars) or safe (SUVs) … which always intrigues me. Why not just outlaw the despicable product?

Speaking of SUVs: The Feds demand that the Big Three in Detroit build tiny little coffins on wheels that get 50 miles to the gallon: “You know, like Toyota does … and they are soooo cheap that Toyota doesn’t even make a profit on them!” Right. What it does to subsidize the coffins is sell gas-guzzling trucks for its customers all across Asia -- for which it makes a boatload of money. Anyway--

The arena of achievement is not only where products and services compete for sales, it is also where ideas compete. Whether it is through public relations, advertizing, case studies published in appropriate magazines or journals, or lively televised debate, every moment of every day someone is seeking to convince potential buyers that their product is superior to all other choices. This is how a free market operates: the force of argument, not the force of law.

If I want more people to pay to hear my city’s symphony the answer is never force. The answer is advertizing, creative marketing, public relations, possibly a more highly skilled conductor, and so forth. Any kind of force will only restrict freedom of choice, and that hurts us all.

Or so I believe …

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009

No comments: