Why do non-wealthy people believe in the "free market"?

This is not my quote, I forget who said it initially, but in America poor people think they're millionaires down on their luck.

 

In my parents' case, they believe in the "invisible hand" - so in other words, regulation is unamerican and ungodly.

 

So God's influence (invisible hand) is diminished by government? Never heard of that one before. Last time I checked, it took more than governmental regulation to impede God's will. If they are Christian, your parents may want to read the New Testament to find out how successful government is at impeding God.

To the OP, the free market isn't the answer to everything under the sun like some believe, but it's a huge, essential part of the equation.

 

Let's chew on this for a while, because it's a terribly interesting and odd thing that many of those who idolize the ideals represented in The Wealth of Nations haven't the foggiest idea what it actually says outside of the one or two obligatory sentences in the standard high school history book or the subliminal praise it receives throughout media.

Regarding our current corporate capitalism, the rampantly anti-democratic aspects of it fit well within the "Principal Architects" paradigm proposed by Smith, which he used to decry the mercantile system:

In fact, class plays a huge role in Smith's work, although nobody ever hears about that anymore in the USA. From an analogical point of view, it's easy to see that Smith would be just as upset at the public's lack of a voice in our current system as he was at the time of its publication. For example:

Furthermore, Smith was extremely wary of corporations and predicted precisely the "personification" that happened in the USA and subsequently slowly eroded any hope of true democratic ideals. Patricia Werhane wrote in Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism:

Smith writes (in typical cumbersome prose):

But by the far the most interesting thing is Smith's ideas regarding division of labor - time after time after time we hear that Smith is pro division of labor, it's practically preached as gospel in economics. But Smith thought it was terrible and actually suggested that governments would have to intervene to stop it:

The fundamental argument Smith makes is for freedom and equality (classic liberalism), the exact opposite of rule under autonomous and virtually unregulated authoritarian institutions like corporations. It's a complicated argument, but Smith thinks that with perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality. Solidarity, sympathy, right to control your own work - these are the tenets of Smith - heresy in capitalist dogma.

Sorry for the long post.

 

I often wonder this myself and have argued extensively with people over this. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how obvious it is that the free market has failed and deregulation has screwed us over (S&L crisis, Great Recession, Enron, etc.), there is large group of people in this country convinced the only one at fault is the government.

The right wing has cleverly got the middle class fighting against each other. It's never the rich or non tax paying corporations we get angry at it's minorities, or people on welfare, or illegals. People get angry over government spending because for some reason they think it's all going out of their pocket and to some cadillac mother with 4 children from different daddies. I can't tell you how many times I get the arguement about how half of the population pays no taxes and all the taxes are paid by the rich. Of course this ignores the plethora of taxes like sales, lodgers, SS, Medicare, gasoline, property, etc. but who cares about facts.

Facts do not matter. Like the fact that we are a mixed economy and not a capitalist economy and that is why we have been so succesful. Nope it's 100% free market capitalism that built this great nation I know it because great actors er Americans like Reagan told me so.

 

There is no truly capitalist country in the world. In "true" capitalism, everything is for sale, even freedom. Thus one could make the argument that America is certainly the most capitalist nation on the planet... Notions of "free market" in America are just plain silly - what little free market ever existed died in the great depression. Let's quote Chomsky, because he's the master at illuminating this sort of doublespeak:

This is good stuff, so let's keep going:

It's a lie basically. You're taught a whole host of half-truths and unverifiable ideology until you cannot separate it from reality. And it's supported by a vast media empire that functions as a giant propaganda arm. More than that though, it's a giant distraction! The unabomber, Kaczynski, wrote about this in his manifesto and I think he really hit on some truths:

Or as Kenneth Burke puts it:

Capitalist society alienates us all from the concept of value. Rather then trusting our own instincts and feelings, capitalism urges (or even forces) us to see value strictly in terms of monetary value. No longer can we find the sunset a wonderful, valued thing, that is, unless we can find a way to charge people money to see it. Burke reasons that this coercion is the cause for the continued spread of capitalist society. You simply brainwash everyone into believing that the harder something is to achieve (or buy) the more value it holds. Kastely (writing about Burke) states, “By reducing all values to considerations of price, capitalist explanation requires the least number of entities to explain an event.”

 

main$tream media.

 

Why? Because everyone here has been raised to fear socialism and communism.

 

I wonder why? Communism just works so well everywhere in the world.

 

Nowadays, the typical Libertarian hipster reads/quotes Rand for her crackerjack ideals.

I've noticed that specialization and over-competition discourages any sense of keeping a thorough knowledge base in other aspects of life, but I never knew Smith already pointed it out.

 

Incredible post. Maybe you should clean it up/ expand it a bit and try to publish it on Huff Post or some larger forum.

 

Are you actually equating the "invisible hand" of Smith with God's will?

If so, the OP has nailed it-- the main attraction is the overwhelming desire to explain all human behavior and prospects with one simple theory.

 

i dont believe the free market failed b/c we do not have a free market - we have a fascist/crony capitalist government and yes, it has failed.

 

So reminsicient of the old Stalinists who refused to give up the faith, oftern for many years, as the facts came in about Stalinist Russia.

 

But the fear of communism is a hyperbolic cry from the right wing with no bearing on what is actually going on in our country. We are so far from a centrally planned economy (the central tenet of true communism) that "communism" shouldn't be used to describe anyone in this country save the minuscule number people who are actually members of the American Communist Party.

In addition, even if liberals enacted every single wish list item they have, we would STILL be so far from a centrally planned economy that using "communist" to describe it would be highly hyperbolic.

 

Thadeus, rhad, et al -- considering your stated views, I am curious as to the demarcation line between rich and poor. At what dollar amount, by annual income and/or by accumulated assets, do you consider a person "rich?" This is the same question I posed to glynch in another thread, but I am curious as to which camp I fall by your definition. At what point does one stumble from the glorious poor to the nefarious rich? Just curious.

 

That's like saying if you're not Conservative, then you should be a Liberal extremist. There are two ends of the spectrum and only the truly stubborn (or stupid) are on them. Most people tend to be moderates; why take the pros and cons of one side when you can have the pros of both?

 

what do you want? we live in a world with advanced health care, the internet providing information at our finger tips, a ford focus has ammenties that only luxury cars had twenty years ago.

what ever has been providing the motivation, we live in an an advanced technological world beyond our fore fathers wildest dreams just fifty years ago.

is the problem that you don't think there is a real chance for upward mobility. there are several issues to address, but the "free marke" has provide us with some great products in the last twenty years