Written circa 2003
Economic fundamentalists claim:
They campaign against:
Economic fundamentalists oppose tariffs on the grounds they constitute a barrier against free trade.
They oppose farm subsidies on similar grounds.
They are opposed to unions and arbitration systems on the grounds that employers and employees should individually negotiate agreements.
They argue that the rich need to be encouraged and the poor compelled.
Finally, they claim that if the markets are not interfered with some of the prosperity will eventually trickle down to the waged and even unwaged workers.
Apologists for Capital promote such fundamentalist dictates yet simultaneously support:
If the fundamentalists really want the market to be the final arbiter and are not prepared to oppose the things which assist Capital then logically they should not oppose those things which assist workers in their struggle against Capital.
Fundamentalists are content to let workers negotiate with Capital in the absence of unions, arbitration systems, decent income support systems and minimum wage legislation on the grounds that the market must be the final arbiter.
Even if unions, arbitration systems, decent income support systems and minimum wage legislation are in place the market will still determine whether Capital will offer any worker a job and on what basis.
The real objection, of apologists for Capital who rely upon economic fundamentalist’s prescriptions, is not that the market is determining outcomes between workers and Capital but that the worker’s power is increased and the power of Capital to compel is less absolute.
If the fundamentalists were required to logically present their case then they would have to argue that they are opposed to workers selling their labour at a rate satisfactory to the seller rather than at a rate dictated by the fear of impoverishment. If they were forced to argue rationally their message might have less appeal to the bulk of the population.
Copyright © 2020 John Tomlinson