About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is in response to Adam Reed's post #211 in the price gouging thread. The subject is important enough that it deserves it's own thread.

The market is a spontaneous order. What this means is that the market as a whole is not planned. The individual participants in the market each plan according to their own knowledge and goals, but only socialists try to plan the market.

Spontaneous order is the modern way of referring to Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Peter Cresswell recently published an article on this site The Miracle of Breakfast that, while he doesn't use the term "spontaneous order", nevertheless clearly describes it.

Adam Reed points out that the market is organized, and that is true. But its organization is the result of countless decisions and actions of individual men and women who, for the most part, have no knowledge of each other. Their activities are coordinated, ie, organized, by the price system, not by any organizer.

One of the best and clearest expositions of how markets work is the essay I, Pencil written by Leonard Read in 1958. I have linked to the version at www.econlib.org because of the afterword written by Donald J. Boudreaux. He starts by writing:
There are two kinds of thinking: simplistic and subtle. Simplistic thinkers cannot understand how complex and useful social orders arise from any source other than conscious planning by a purposeful mind. Subtle thinkers, in contrast, understand that individual actions often occur within settings that encourage individuals to coordinate their actions with one another independent of any overarching plan. F. A. Hayek called such unplanned but harmonious coordination "spontaneous order".
For another perspective I offer two quotes from an article by Eric England:
A broad definition of self-organization is as follows (taken from the book Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems):
Self-organization is a set of dynamical mechanisms whereby structures appear at the global level of a system from interactions among its lower-level components. The rules specifying the interactions among the system's constituent units are executed on the basis of purely local information, without reference to the global pattern, which is an emergent property of the system rather than a property imposed upon the system by an external ordering influence.
and
If one was to reword the above-mentioned description of a self-organized phenomenon into economic terms, then it couldn't be done any better than the following quote from Dr. Murray Rothbard's magnum opus Man, Economy, and State:
Directly, voluntary action — free exchange — leads to the mutual benefit of both parties to the exchange. Indirectly, as our investigations have shown, the network of these free exchanges in society — known as the 'free market' — creates a delicate and even awe-inspiring mechanism of harmony, adjustment, and precision in allocating productive resources, deciding upon prices, and gently but swiftly guiding the economic system toward the greatest possible satisfaction of the desires of all the consumers. In short, not only does the free market directly benefit all parties and leave them free and uncoerced; it also creates a mighty and efficient instrument of social order. Proudhon, indeed, wrote better than he knew when he called 'Liberty, the mother, not the daughter, of order'.

Spontaneous order does not mean that the market suddenly appeared like a deus ex machina, rather it means that it is the emergent result of the interactions of men, that it is the result of human action but not the result of human design.

Understanding that the market is a spontaneous order is crucial to understanding how the market works. It's also crucial to understanding why socialism doesn't work.

The concept of spontaneous order is a major building block of the science of economics.


Post 1

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick:

This posting was exactly what was needed to clear the heads of some of the posters on the Price Gouging thread. Much of the poverty in the world is caused by not understanding this basic lesson.

Sam 


Post 2

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

Your claim that the Market, as a social institution, "is the result of human action but not the result of human design" is equivalent to claiming that the rules of interoperation that make the Market (or the Internet, or any distributed system) possible have some origin other than human design. But that is false. Before engineers designed the TCP/IP communication and negotiation protocols, the Internet was not possible and did not exist. Before merchants and businessmen designed the communication and negotiation protocols (the medium of exchange, the price mechanism, the contract, arbitration, auctions, a common understanding of what constitutes consent and what constitutes fraud, etc etc) of the Market, there was no Market. Just because we no longer know the names of the ancient geniuses who first invented the protocols of the Market, does not mean that those ancient geniuses were not human, or that those protocols were somehow invented and agreed on without the intellectual labor of discovery and design.

My guess is that you are arguing from a shallow, narrow, and ultimately theological conception of what constitutes deliberate design. You are restricting your idea of deliberate design to an all-encompassing monolithic plan, to something like Microsoft Windows, or the theological idea of the universe existing in its entirety in the "mind of God." But here in reality, deliberate intellectual labor also figures in the design of interoperable interface protocols that enable interactively growing systems to support independent transactions efficiently and reliably: the Internet, or Unix, or the Market. The idea that distributed systems are "spontaneous and not designed" comes from wishing to deny an evident fact: the power and greatness of the human mind.


Post 3

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some of the aspects of the market are determined by individuals interacting with each other. Some of the aspects of the market were designed.

Rick is only considering the former aspects when he says "market". Adam is only considering the later aspects when he says "market".

Post 4

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam: You have stripped the concept of 'the market' of its essentials by restricting your discussion to the way it happens to be implemented in our current society. 'The market' is also farmers selling their produce in the village square with no "interoperable interface protocols that enable interactively growing systems to support independent transactions efficiently and reliably."
 
They just get together and find mutually agreeable prices. Supply and demand, no coercion, no regulations, no protocols — it's spontaneous order.


Post 5

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Any law protecting free trade and individual rights is a human design for a free market.

That design is not spontaneous - it is rational and deliberate and was formally agreed to by the Founding Fathers in a document called the Constitution.

This (and a few other documents around the time it was drawn up) was the first time in history such a market was explicitly designed by men.

The USA market did not pop up spontaneously. To paraphrase Adam Reed, anyone who propounds that idea promotes a despicable injustice to the greatness of those who did design it.

A plan was laid so that men could ACT spontaneously within a principle-based market (not that the market merely appeared out of nowhere) - starting with the non-initiation of force rule, stated formally as the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just because NIOF is so beloved by anarchists that it is raised from an ethics-based principle to a metaphysical command does not mean that it is not one hell of a sound principle. It is.

Formal individual rights is the legal, planned, non-spontaneous grounds of a rational market design.

Michael

Post 6

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael I agree that men like Jeffeson were essential to the expansion and ultimate protection of the free market.  But it seems the point Rick was trying to make is that the market as a whole did not appear just because Jefferson wrote the declaration of independance.

The creation of what became the foundation of the free market arose from the individual actions of individual men.  The fact that it was expanded upon GREATLY due to great thinkers who refined and defined the market's protocols is a non-essential.

The market emerged because two men each had something to trade, not because someone developed protocols.

---Landon

P.s. Rick if I misinterpreted your idea feel free to call me on it.


Post 7

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam: "They just get together and find mutually agreeable prices." "No protocols — it's spontaneous order."

Argh. "Finding mutually agreeable prices" requires a scad of man-made designed protocols:

A language of communication (without mutually agreed meanings no agreement on the terms of a contract of sale is possible.)

A medium of exchange protocol (prices are agreed on in terms of a medium of exchange.)

A protocol for negotiation of exchange.

An informed consent protocol to invalidate fraudulent transactions (if you sell a sack of potatoes, and you know that they are rotten but hide that fact from the buyer, the buyer is entitled to recourse.)

A protocol for the resolution of disputes without resorting to force.

And so on...

Why claim that all those protocols are not the work product of rational human minds, or that they are somehow dispensable? What is your problem with acknowledging that the Market is built on an indispensable foundation of human genius?


Post 8

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

I'm confused. You wrote:
The market emerged because two men each had something to trade, not because someone developed protocols.
You are implying that people had nothing to trade during all of recorded history before the 18th century? How is it that the market as it now stands did not develop before then?

Just a spontaneous random event that finally transpired, sort of like natural selection?

Michael


Edit:

Another comment - you wrote:
The creation of what became the foundation of the free market arose from the individual actions of individual men. 
Only after they were able to act freely as individual men. And that came from a plan - or protocol, to use Adam's language. I am merely emphasizing the essential starting-point plan (protocol). There are others - the formal rules governing of property rights comes to mind.
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/07, 11:00am)


Post 9

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True, the market as we know it now did develop out of protocols, but weren't there merchants all the way back to biblical times.  And didn't society emerge out of trading among hunter-gatherers.

It was nowhere near as free or functional as it is now, but trading didn't magically start for the first time in the 18th century.

respectfully.

---Landon


Post 10

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think I might've posted my last one a little hastily.  I meant the market as it stands now developed around then (as I stated a bit less calmly in my last post).

But my general point is, trade developed randomly over time due to varisou actions of various people, some of the protocols probably got their start in ungoverned trade, but refining the general actions of independant traders into a set of agreed upon rules drove it further than would've been possible otherwise.

---Landon


Post 11

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

That "set of agreed upon rules" that you mentioned is what is being denied when the word "spontaneous" is used

Call it rights, call it protocols, call it plan, call it design, call it "agreed upon rules," it doesn't matter. The concept is what matters. Someone still thought of all this and agreed to it with others and formalized it - and it is the support on which the free market flourishes (to the extent it is free).

These rules were not spontaneous. Only individual trades are.

Since you are now thinking more deeply about this, I can almost hear your thoughts, that anarchists cannot simply mean that men did not draw these things up on purpose and that everything merely happened by chance. But that is what they hold. Really. Get all the way down to the premises and there you will find it.

That is why I insist on absolute precision in my words.

Michael


Post 12

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam:

"Argh. "Finding mutually agreeable prices" requires a scad of man-made designed protocols"

Argh. That statement is patently false. It is true only in the context of modern markets.

You're back to perverting the concept of 'the market' to the complex system in place today. I have never implied that human genius hasn't made 'the market' as effective as it is now, so please don't go there. But you are implying that markets have never operated without that complexity (and that violates the essence of 'the market'.)

The 'protocols' that you refer to that existed in a primitive market are only those that were in place in any civilized society and had nothing to do with the type of trading that took place in a market place.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/07, 11:49am)


Post 13

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trade developed as an extention of bartering among one's own group, to bartering among other groups...

Post 14

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam:

Protocols facilitate the market process but are not essential for *a* 'market' to operate.

Sam


Post 15

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Correct me if I'm wrong (or being merely duplicative, for that matter), but I think that when Hayek and other economists have used the term "spontaneous order," they're referring to the free market's ability -- through the multitude of individual transactions -- to allocate resources in a much more efficient way than any central authority could.  Each individual transaction is intentional, but no one god-like intends the entire resulting allocation.

That view strikes me as not inconsistent with a recognition that buying and selling involve concepts that were "invented" by people at one time or another.  At the micro level, there must have been a moment when, say, a Neanderthal first thought to himself that life might be pleasanter if, instead of stealing his neighbor's woman and then trying to deal with the neighbor's subsequent wrath, he could assuage the neighbor's wrath in advance by giving him 3 boar carcasses at the same time he takes the woman.  "Mmmm . . . pork!"  "Mmmm . . . woman!"

At the macro level, it took a long time for someone to invent the idea that the market worked better when left alone (all the way to 1776, if you consider Adam Smith the inventor).  Many parts of the world still have not accepted that revolutionary idea.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This'll be my only comment on this [I'm on a diet :-)].

The structures that constitute the *sophisticated framework* of the modern market (excepting government regulation) evolved out of the spontaneous order of the market. Take the joint stock company as an example.

That aside, the real danger in adopting (for those that do) a view that somehow the market *couldn't* exist without an originating structure or set of man-made rules is dangerous. Feed that line to any creepy little statist with a clipboard and the desire to use it, & you'll have regs right up the yin-yang.

Ross

Post 17

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ross,

What facts are objectively true (or false) does not depend on how such facts might or might not be misused. Truth needs to be found out first. Only then does the question of its proper use arise at all.

Sam,

The very concepts of private property, of mutual agreement, of conditional consent to a transfer of title - the elements of even the simplest barter transaction - are themselves protocols that would never have existed at all, except for the work of human genius. These protocols were invented so far in the prehistoric past that we do not know the names of their inventors, but they are no less of human design for being that old.


Post 18

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

At this point I can see points on both sides of the arguement.  The truth is long before becoming an Objectivist I became fed up with all variants of anarchism I'd been exposed to up to that point (being in a punk rock music scene will do that to you).

I was only exposed to the idea of free market anarchism about a year ago. I still see a number of faults with itbut it's a topic of study that's interested me lately. I'm taking kind of a gold digger approach to it at the moment, until I see it proven effectivly false and or worthless.

---Landon


Post 19

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I like Ross Elliot's idea that "The structures that constitute the *sophisticated framework* of the modern market (excepting government regulation) evolved out of the spontaneous order of the market." It conjures up pictures of the evolution of money.

Surely money is a most sophisticated invention -- and one that has evolved indeed, from the clumsy exchanges of cattle for carpets and wheat and iron in the central square, to beautiful coils of silver and copper and gold, to worldwide electronic debit.

Personally, I think that humans are hard-wired for exchange -- evidence from monkeys and primates seems to indicate that 'fair exchange' has been a concern since the beginning for our species, that we inherited an attention to 'price.' Yet the same evidence, when combined with the rich findings from archeology (e.g., agriculture, money) in turn support the idea that advances in human development were propelled by each human inventive advance: written language, arithmetic, king, city, coin, law . . .

Perhaps the crossover points of the disputants here could lie in realizing that science and history give evidence to support most all of the claims raised so far -- depending on where you might place your finger on the timeline of humanity, there is an ancient and then there is the modern.

When did the lurch out of Sam Erica's golden age happen: with domestication of plant and animal, with the first great civilizations, with the first homo habilis protocol for fair trade? has it yet to happen to the Andamanese?

Sam twits Adam Reed for a misread of 'market,' and plays up a useful distinction between a micro-level face-to-face economic exchange (farmers in the market) and the evolved structures that support (and bind) the modern 'market.'

Of course, both readings can be correct in proper context. We could perhaps synthesize the insights provided by both Adam and Rick Pasotto. I agree very much that the magic in the market takes place in myriad small actions that are designed only in the sense that they seem easy, even habitual, 'automated' yet complex. Rick does rightly note the 'price system,' which opens common ground in his and Adam's discussion.

Research into 'self-organizing systems' has revealed some stunning melanges of information and complexity theory, genetics, chaos theory, evolutionary biology -- there are decent findings to support Rick's contentions, yet it should be noted that they also support Adam's. Rick's post would be richer for references to the literature, but I grant his point no problem, in regard to the backbone of small independent actions implementing economic exchange.

How best to balance these sets of observations, then, as Dean Michael Gores seems to ask above?

Here's a current event tale, where the invisible hand of the rural Indian market slips easily into the glove of technology. Cool investment, cool capitalism in action. In this story "Rural Pondicherry's Wireless Internet," at idrc.ca, we learn of a ducks-to-water adhesion to every last modern market tool . . . by the simple peasant farmer, fisherman or village trader. I recommend the article for these gems of human enterprise below (although Objectivists may be unsettled by the evidence of a not-so-invisible hand of collectivism helping out a little bit too . . . and by the creepy Canadian socialist tone to the reporting). With a nod to Sam, I might say we have found "farmers selling their produce in the village square with interoperable interface protocols that enable interactively growing systems to support independent transactions efficiently and reliably."
"Fishermen, dairy farmers, and coconut sellers also keep a watch on product prices. Teachers prepare lessons and students do homework. Panchayats, or local councils, do their accounting and correspondence, and gain access to grants for infrastructure such as roads, bus stations, streetlights, and drains. State and federal government representatives put together their reports and use voice lines to consult with superiors about local queries. Job seekers find employment. Older people share traditional medical lore. Many morning users come to centres to read newspapers. Everybody relies on weather reports."

". . . villagers hear weather reports and other information downloaded from the Internet as audio files and played over public address loudspeakers. One fishing village, Veerampattinam, whose small boats ply the Bay of Bengal, plays US Navy wave height forecasts, fishing-related government announcements, market details, employment news, and current fair prices for commodities such as rice, kerosene, and sugar."


WSS

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.