What is the "Market?"

While I don't want to be purely hypothetical, I believe the use of the term "market" as a synonym for commerce creates great misunderstanding in our society. The market is not simply business or the exchange of goods. The market is society, government, and commerce wound into a single concept.

According to Wikepedia the Market (disambiguation) "is an ARRANGEMENT that allows buyers and sellers to exchange things." That's right, an arrangement! Markets are the function of a human agreement to allow the exchange, not the act of exchanging and certainly not the participants themselves (businesses, consumers, traders, brokers, etc.).

Once a population decides that it wishes to develop a market as an economic model, mind that it is a decision not as some would lead us to believe an act of nature, the choice becomes whether the market should be a market economy, a.k.a. free market economy, a mixed market economy or market socialism (like China). While there exists no true free market economy in practice, it is a useful concept to illustrate the ecomomic spectrum that ranges from free market economy to planned economy. So what are the differences? The choice by a population to allow prices to be set by market participants and the choice on how labor is to be allocated.

In its truest sense a free market would allow market participants to set prices and divide labor according to their transactions. A choice to create this type of economy can expeirence periods that are quite harsh and can result in social unrest and inefficiency in prices for extended periods of time. On the complete other side, a planned economy would set prices and labor by decision. Planned economies tend to be very harsh as output levels rarely meet necessary needs of thepopulation and labor tends to become lethargic and atrophied. As a result, the entire world attempts to address the inefficiencies of the free market model, i.e. long periods of price and societal stagnation, without the stagnation and generations without innovation that result from a planned economy.

That said, there are a number of caveats to the free market model. There is Laissez-Faire where there are no laws including property rights enforced by the government. This is the free market model on steroids as most economists believe even a free market consists of government overview with regard to settling, in whole or in part, property, contracts and general access to the market. This form of free market literally places the onus on the buyer and seller to deal with one another without appeal or recourse. This is a no holds barred, steal it if you can, John Locke State of Nature system.

Also, there is capitalism which takes a twist on the free market model and develops a coordinated system of protections that allows capital to flow to other users. Here, its no longer buyers and sellers alone, but capital investors and leverage as societally enforced instruments.

The point of all this is that before there is a market, there is a choice to have a market. The market cannot decide anything. Contrary to popular belief the market is not a decider of prices, capital flows, efficiencies, good business, stock prices, commodities, or anything else for that matter. The market participants acting within the construct of an agreed upon arrangement can decide all of those things. Markets are societal creations to create increased standards of living for its populations. In the end, the market is greater than the prices set by its participants or the efficiencies reached by its functioning.

The market is a population's arrangement to trade goods and services. As such, once cannot separate government from the market or the market from sociological trends. The market is politics, it is family values, it is government regulation, it is capitalism, it is socialism, it is laissez faire, it is communism, it is business, it is consumers, it is buyers, it is sellers, it is competition, it is oligolpoly, it is monopoly, it is those who participate and those who choose to protest it- it is what we as society decide it to be. Why? The market is a choice of the population. Whether or not it exists and to what form it takes has to be chosen. As I have blogged, the market is not an end, but a means to an end- prosperity.

The Often Ignored Collectivism of Capitalism

Many have come to appreciate the very simple realities shared by this blog when one abandons ideology, partisanship and prejudice and logically attacks the issues of today. Partisans and one way thinkers are silly. We all appreciate that fact more when we concentrate without influence on a topic with good old fashioned common sense.

Here are a few simple realities many can't argue with nor agree upon:

1. Socialized Medicine. We already have socialized medicine. The insured pay the bills of the uninsured and under insured. Twenty-five dollar aspirin and rising deductibles, premiums and co-pays are the result of free medical procedures performed by hospitals on the indigent, under insured and uninsured. Our disagreement and inability to manage this reality causes tremendous inefficiency.

2. Mark to Market Accounting. There is no such thing as "mark to market." There is mark to transaction price accounting, but transaction prices aren't always correct. In the short run, transaction prices can run higher and lower than what a reasonable person would buy or sell for. The fallacy resides in the fact that it doesn't count those who refuse to come to the market at a said price, the silent majority. When prices are too high many buyers refuse to do business. When prices are too low many sellers avoid coming to the market. Mark to market only measures what those who are willing to do business under very specific conditions, sometimes unwillingly, are transacting at. As price points shift, often there are very different buyers and sellers who come to market. In other words, if one sale is made at x, and no other sales are made, the price would be x, even if ten thousand transactions would have occurred if the price was y. In the long run, values are functions of aggregate incomes and demands of society, not prices.

3. The back story to the stock market. There is no back story or information that is causal to stock prices. In any given day the only invariable truth is that there were more buyers than sellers or more sellers than buyers. The only reason financial news bears any relationship to stock price fluctuations is that the buyers and sellers believe that such stories are related. This results in a massive and naively trusting game of signaling. So long as, the majority of positions all "agree" to weight the news equally, short term fluctuations can be reasonably explained. That said, it's not the news - it's the agreed upon norm of how to act on such news that moves the price. In the end, its the buying and selling that moves price.

4. The market is always right. The market is nearly never right. Over long, LONG, periods of time, the averages of the market tend to support logical results. On any given day, the market is as wrong as any individual. It could be argued the market is further from truth than any free thinking individual in the tendencies of market participants to stampede in and out of positions moving equilibriums past proper price levels at neck breaking speed. If the real value is five and the market spends ten years at 2 and the subsequent 10 years at 8, than on average it was right even if it never maintained that value.

Of course we could go on and on, but it is important to land the plane on the point of this obvious exercise in logic. Regardless of which issue we speak of, the solution to inefficiency, breakdowns, inequity, fallacy, losses and failures is the point of agreement in society. All of our actions impact our fellow countrymen and women. When we agree, momentum is created, whether it be positive or negative. A point of agreement is anything from a sale to an appraisal. The willingness to stay in an upside down mortgage to ensuring all have access to affordable health care. A decision to place a put or call option on natural resources one doesn't require to thinking for oneself. We are our brothers keeper whether we believe that or not. Our failure to properly conduct ourselves in a positive manner shall manifest itself in the our reality.

Energy prices, home values, loan qualifications, joblessness, health care costs, profits and losses are our decisions collectively. They are the fruit of our actions. It is collectivism, or a positive point of agreement, that creates abundance. Our world is a manifestation of our collective perspective. Gold is not edible, usable or valuable in its own right, only by collective recognition and agreement of its value does it become an inflation hedge or an international currency. Whether collection of our individual efforts results in disruption, decay and depression or prosperity, innovation and hope is all decided by the direction of us as a mass. The apex is thus the superseding values of our population to act in self interest without detracting from the progress of society as a whole and influencing our families, neighbors, friends and coworkers to abide as well.

The Illusive Panacea of Meritocracy

Ever wonder why certain people hate Socialism? Probably not. Ever wonder why certain people hate capitalism? Probably not. Have you ever heard the complaint that those systems are unfair? Of course. Okay, so none of this is earth shattering, but there is a common thread that creates disdain? It is the idea of "deserving."

Since the time we were five years old our parents, teachers, storybooks, literary pieces, the movies we watched and our interactions with friends in the school yard all centered around "getting what one deserved." Why do we form lines? It's not because it is the best system for each person individually regardless of their place in the line, but it compliments a system of agreed upon fairness. We believe that first come, first served is fair. That those who are first shall be served first because their timeliness shall be rewarded. They deserve it.

We just as easily could have created a system where the tallest person in line shall always go first. The problem is that if someone is really short they could be waiting for a really long time. They could theoretically be helped after people that arrived much later than them but made the line before they were helped. That just wouldn't be fair would it? The tall people didn't do anything to deserve to be helped first. In fact a system like that would become hard to enforce as short people would be likely to opt out of lines all together and base who is served next on other criteria such as violence, intimidation or "cutsies."

In fact, allowing someone to benefit for something they had no control over would be deemed in the same family as dumb luck. That sure isn't a flattering statement. Luck is receiving something by chance, something one doesn't deserve. Undeserved achievement is so unflattering that one of its recipients may say "better lucky than good," or even more austencious "people create their own luck" to deflect the resulting stigma.

So we have been taught esoteric concepts such as karma, what goes around comes around and someday we all get what we deserve. Is it true? In socialism, their is a tremendous tendency for "free riderism," where individuals can get something they do not deserve. This absolutely burns many who feel like they are getting exactly what they deserve and nothing more. How dare someone get something they don't deserve? In fact, many people are so concerned with who deserves what, that they really don't care if they are getting more than they deserve so long as no one else is. That wouldn't be fair.

In capitalism, often times people condition wealth or monetary success with how deserving the person who possess it. Self made millionaires are far higher regarded than those who inherited money. Those with inherited wealth must "do something" to make a name for themselves or else they are seen as a waste. Smart people stay poor and dumb people rich all the time. While this is not a correlation that we see to be common, it is also not an isolated incident. We all sleep better when the good ones, who deserve it, have good things happen to them. Too bad that this system isn't as correlated as we expect?

Many of the wealthy are born wealthy. They are literally starting the game ahead in the score. Some get lucky and some unlucky. At times, good "deserving" people lose wealth, jobs and stature. At times, people of poor quality gain wealth and prosperity. The reason; capitalism doesn't judge, it rewards much like the polls for an election. When a person exchanges dollars for a good, service or opportunity it is given instead of that dollar being given to another for a good, service or opportunity. It's literally voting with money. It's democracy for commerce, the winner attracts the most dollars. As such, popularity, appearance, timing, feasibility, communicability, connections, access to markets, marketing, perception and momentum are usually the factors with the most magnetic effect with dollars.

Sometimes, that recipient is also a deserving person who worked hard, showed brilliance, was ambitious and withstood great obstacles to achieve. We love these stories because like being first in line, this person used what is generally available to all to succeed- they deserved it. Sometimes, the person got very lucky and was in the right place at the right time. Not bad, but we condition their success. Sometimes, the recipient didm't earn the money used, committed none of the brain power, and achieved on the back of others. Just like the tall people and the free riders, these people are scorned. The deserved, the lucky and the undeserving all get the same result in the accumulation of societal claim checks (or currency), but we don't have the same feeling.

That is why the meritocracy looks so great. In a meritocracy everyone gets exactly what one deserves. However, who is to decide what we deserve? How do we create such a system? What criteria would we use? I guess the root of our frustrations are easy to identify, but beyond our ability to rectify. The humerous part is how something so inherent in our nature is so difficult to attain.

The When, Where and Why of Government Involvement in Commerce

When Republicans are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites. When the Democrats are in power, the cry of the people is that the government is denying us our freedom and interfering by playing favorites.  While neither party will constructively work  along side the party in power in fear that good government will lead to the reelection of their nemesis,  American citizens drown in rhetoric and double speak from both parties about what good government looks like. Regardless of one's political affiliation, this blog attempts to engage readers with the logical, not partisan, discussion of what is necessary government involvement in commerce.

First, let us start with an irrefutable fact of the order of operations.  Government is the first step in economic activity.  Government is necessary to provide at a bare minimum: property rights, police protection, infrastructure and recognized mediums of exchange, or currency.  Yes, I am aware that many anti-establishment Locke Liberals and libertarians would argue against the last two, but in our current developed state these two are enough established to be considered necessities of commerce (i.e. roads, electricity, water, etc.)  They are essential because without any of them, commerce would subside as a matter of natural progression from its current state. 

What levels of commerce would we have if one could take property from another by force?  If there were no roads?  If the electricity was not delivered? If agreements were not binding or valid? If we had to barter with goods to make a purchase?  Certainly not an economy the size, strength and complexity as ours.  Whether it is good or bad, it's where we are at. 

So, the right question is not where government involvement should or should not be, but rather how far should government go?   In a credit based economy, like ours, the government speaks for and develops the value of the assets in our economy (i.e. the government borrows notes from the Federal Reserve, or dollars, at a rate if interest in exchange for true "dollars" that the Fed holds as collateral along with all assets held within the Country).  Oh by the way, for those of you conspiracy theorists, the same is done by many States with Motor Vehicles ( A state takes a manufacturers' "statement of origin" from the maker of the vehicle and in exchange delivers a "title," or license for use, and the ability of that vehicle to be used within that State through the process of registration.  As a result, that State then issues a Driver's License so that it has jurisdiction over the driving patterns of the user thereby controlling the licensee, or "owner," to use that " registered motor vehicle" on their publicly owned streets and highways.  But I digress.

The simple answer is that the proper role of government in commerce is the amount necessary for commerce to "work."  By work, I mean that citizens can effectively participate in the money multiplier and achieve, or reasonably believe that they can achieve, their personal goals and happiness.  This ability, or  at a minimum the belief in this ability, allows the society to function in a peaceful manner as its citizens have an outlet to achieve there desires, or work.  After all, and I recognize people who quote the Declaration of Independence as an authoritative document are annoying, the point of America is the right to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness," right.  The key is for people to have the freedom of the pursuit, that's right THE PURSUIT, of happiness.

In closing, I recognize that the Declaration of Independence is not authoritative in nature.  That said it carries persuasive authority into the intent of our Founders.  Government's role in commerce is the creation and maintenance of channels for commerce so that Citizens can access and thrive in that system.  The government is there to provide and maintain the artery, so that the heart, or private commerce, can pump blood and that blood can freely flow without blockage or interference.  The artery must be maintained though, to maintain its shape so that blood doesn't spurt every where thereby killing the body; as well as, ensuring clear passage.  Further, the artery is to be for the benefit of one's own body.  Should the artery be ruptured, by outside attack or internal disruption, its integrity must be put back in tact to ensure survival of the being.  That said, at no time shall the artery be altered outside its purpose of a conduit and shall never alter the course of which platelets cross its path.  

Now that it is defined in theory, I let you decide the application of this framework in practice.