Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Might wanna read "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith;
"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
|
Sure, but let's look at this recent debacle that was touched off by the subprime mortgage crisis. Would you say that by pursuing their own interests companies like Countrywide, BofA, Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs, et al promoted the interests of society more effectually than what they intended? These men did not act in the public good and it's clear they DID no public good. Quite the contrary.
With all due respect to Adam Smith the invisible hand needs a bit of regulation to keep it honest. As long as free markets are run by mortal men there is going to have to be some sort of oversight. I think this last rodeo with deregulation should be clear evidence to that.
But your post does not address what I was asking directly. It's not a matter of whether or not private industry can do better by commodifying certain goods/services, it's whether or not the commodification should be allowed in the first place. That some companies are commodifying their own employees is repugnant and should be disallowed without debate.