Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 52
Is the Pensée Unique in Economics perhaps a mere instrument of social engineering and control? Indeed, as Werner points out, “If most outcomes are due to anonymous market forces, we may more readily accept them … If … one price applies to all, then this seems fair and transparent. But if reality is one of pervasive disequilibrium … then there may also be different effective prices for different people. Furthermore, some people will get the goods or the jobs, while equally qualified others won’t. This becomes especially obvious when considering the types of jobs that many of us would like to have, thus where labour supply is significantly outstripping labour demand: movie actors, TV announcers, TV anchorpeople, singers, models, even successful painters, artists in general, writers and journalists. The majority to whom such jobs are not available and who may have less rewarding jobs will find it easier to accept if such jobs are said to have been determined by market forces. The incumbents are simply the best, and thus the market has efficiently allocated the jobs to them. But the fact is that excess demand for such jobs means that the labour market in these industries does not clear. It is rationed, and rationed markets are determined by allocation. Somebody has the power to pick and choose who will be given a chance in the form of a contract with a music company or a book deal – and who will be promoted sufficiently to reach prominence in a world characterized by imperfect information and lack of knowledge about whose works are truly valuable. … Similarly, are the programmes offered on TV necessarily the best possible programmes that one could produce? Are all the important news items reported? Or are markets rationed, and a powerful executive has simply decided that certain types of programmes should be broadcast, while other information is withheld?
Thus it cannot be said that the market mechanism is unimportant. On the contrary, it appears to be playing an important role in our society – but that seems largely confined to the world of rhetoric and public relations: the rhetoric of the free market mechanism serves to hide the reality of pervasive rationing, untransparent allocation decisions and the power by the allocators to control resources. It therefore may serve to render reality more acceptable, without too much political resistance or demands for fairness, transparency and social justice. Ironically, the true role of the free market may be based on the reality of imperfect information and the consequent scope for manipulating information about reality.”
Most definitely. But, even though this is quite something indeed, are we to think it is all there is to it and thus stop here?
