2008/03/24

Most of us are moral most of the time

Ross Gittins realises that Most of us are moral most of the time. His ... shocking conclusion is that:

... Sometimes monetary reward is a poor substitute for duty, honour or professionalism in encouraging people to do the right thing.

A new book, Moral Markets, edited by the neuroeconomist Paul Zak, and published by Princeton University Press, argues that most people behave ethically most of the time.

"Just as most human beings have an intact and active moral compass, so, too, does economic exchange, the child of human minds, have a vigorous moral dimension," Zak writes.

Most economic exchange, whether with people you know or with strangers, relies on character values such as honesty, trust, reliability and fairness. And a set of shared values is essential to the functioning of modern economies.

That's the first sense in which markets are moral, Zak argues. The other sense is that market exchange itself can lead to an understanding of what constitutes fair exchange, and in this way build social capital in the community. Research has shown that the values that create social capital are a potent stimulus for economic development.

"Exchange is inherently other-regarding," Zak says. "Both you and I must benefit if exchange is to occur. In this sense exchange in markets is virtuous: one must consider not only one's own needs but also the needs of another."

Emphasis Mine

Here we a confusion between Use Value and Exchange Value. A fair exchange between us means that we consider the goods or services to be of equal value. Neither of us can fairly profit by an exchange. We may find that our new goods have a higher Use Value, but this is not the same as the Exchange Value.

...

"These moral emotions have been localised to evolutionarily old areas of the human brain," Zak says. Many moral decisions, including market decisions, have both cognitive and emotional components.

This is not an attempt to sanctify capitalism. It's an attempt to understand how markets actually work and put back into the story important elements left out of the economists' conventional model, with its focus on supply and demand and price, and its lack of emphasis on "institutions" (which include the moral values of the participants).

Emphasis Mine

Here we have the mistaken belief that markets only exist in Capitalism. Markets exist wherever exchanges of goods and/or services take place. Markets preceded the rise of Capitalism and will certainly be around after its fall.

The article fails to consider the current amorality of the markets could be due to the great concentration of economic power in a relatively few individuals. And that these individuals are immune to any corrective action taken by other more moral people.


Read more!

So, Work Really Does Matter ....

Tom Peters advocates the overthrow of the oppressive Capitalist workplace as he notes that So, Work Really Does Matter ..... He advises workers to:

I am left wondering, in today's world of Brand You, whether the challenge of finding meaning in one's work should be down to the employee herself? Surely it is up to each of us to make the connections and to discover for ourselves the purpose in what we are employed to do? It would be great if leaders could do this for us, but since work means different things to each of us, surely we have at least some responsibility to do this for ourselves?

Emphasis Mine

And as Peters mulls over whether this should be a top-down revolution, or a bottom-up one, one should realise that it is the right of the owners of the enterprise to determine what work should be and in what manner.

This right does not change no matter if the economic system is Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist! It is the owners that change, not the right!

For an idea like tat of Peters to work, a degree of meaningful worker ownership is required. The greater the degree, the greater the control over work a worker has.


Read more!

2008/03/23

Exchange Value

In the WikiPedia article on Exchange Value, a commodity is supposed to have four (4) values. This is incorrect - it has only two (2) values: Use Value and Exchange Value.

Both of these values are directly observable. Use Value is the relative enjoyment of a commodity by an individual compared to other commodities. Exchange Value is what two (2) individuals determine to be a fair exchange between quantities of different commodities.

Use Value may well determine the motivation for exchanging a quantity of a commodity that I prefer less for a quantity of another commodity that I prefer more of. It is possible that I may well go through a series of exchanges in order to gain this.

At present (whilst typing), I am drinking a glass of water. I am not eating an orange. The Use Value of the glass of water is greater than that of an orange for me at the present time.

In the near future, I will have finished drinking the water. Then the Use Value of the glass of water and an orange will be indistinguishable because I will not be preferring one over the other at that time.

Note that I am doing a pair-wise comparison between types of commodities (currently a vague term). This comparison is not a transitive function. If I prefer A to B, and B to C, then does not necessarily mean that I prefer A to C.

With regards to Exchange Value, two (2) individuals are involved in the exchange of different types of commodities. One would not exchange oranges for oranges, unless the oranges differred in some aspect.

Assume that I have twelve (12) oranges, and you have ten (10) apples. There are 120 (= 12 x 10) possible exchange values starting with one (1) orange for one (1) apple, and up to twelve (12) oranges for ten (10) apples.

What then is the right Exchange Value between your apples and my oranges? If we make an exchange, then that is the right answer for us at that time.

Other people may say that the Exchange Value is wrong. Then they would say that one of us profited by the exchange because the Exchange Value was higher than the social average of the Exchange Value for that commodity.

Say we exchanged six (6) oranges for five (5) apples. So, the Exchange Value of six (6) oranges is five (5) apples, and vice verse.

Fred says that I gained an apple on the deal. He means that he thought the Exchange Value should have been six (6) oranges for four (4) apples. And a lot of other people may agree with him.

If that is so, then the social average of the Exchange Value of six (6) oranges would be four (4) apples.

The social average of the Exchange Value can then be determined democratically is there is a sufficiently large number of people involved in the process of exchanging oranges for apples.

However, this social average may change over time.


Read more!