Market Myths in Contemporary Economics

This paper elaborates on the economic operating system (EOS) the role it can play in growth. It focuses on markets, price determination and forces of demand and supply in order to illustrate how an EOS model offers greater economic growth, stability and safety. It delves into market theory to determine whether what is commonly understood about market forces and free markets in contemporary economics is as reliable as might be expected; do free markets encourage or retard economic growth? It is often, for amusement, brought up how modern medicine despite its advances cannot cure the common cold. Contemporary economics has a similar pet peeve; it does not know how to cure common inflation and deflation. The same way medicine leaves the body’s immune system to deal with colds until a cure is found contemporary economics leaves inflation and deflation to market forces to sort out with the occasional booster shot of intervention when this process seems to fail. To this day the stand off between Keynesian and Monetarist models demonstrates the irascible nature of this economic bug; it seems in contemporary economics there is only one way to control it and that’s do nothing about it. This nothing in contemporary economics is what is referred to as free markets. Allowing free markets to set prices and act as a mechanism for managing inflation works, what doesn’t work is that free markets systems based on a Monetarist model lack reliable growth and not being able to do anything comprehensive when market forces begin to act up. In a downturn, suddenly the liberty of free markets can become a threat to economic stability. Free markets may work best in an economic operating system (EOS) model better able to exploit the efficiency of markets. whilst accelerating economic growth

Market Myths in Contemporary Economics

This paper elaborates on the economic operating system (EOS) the role it can play in growth. It focuses on markets, price determination and forces of demand and supply in order to illustrate how an EOS model offers greater economic growth, stability and safety. It delves into market theory to determine whether what is commonly understood about market forces and free markets in contemporary economics is as reliable as might be expected; do free markets encourage or retard economic growth? It is often, for amusement, brought up how modern medicine despite its advances cannot cure the common cold. Contemporary economics has a similar pet peeve; it does not know how to cure common inflation and deflation. The same way medicine leaves the body’s immune system to deal with colds until a cure is found contemporary economics leaves inflation and deflation to market forces to sort out with the occasional booster shot of intervention when this process seems to fail. To this day the stand off between Keynesian and Monetarist models demonstrates the irascible nature of this economic bug; it seems in contemporary economics there is only one way to control it and that’s do nothing about it. This nothing in contemporary economics is what is referred to as free markets. Allowing free markets to set prices and act as a mechanism for managing inflation works, what doesn’t work is that free markets systems based on a Monetarist model lack reliable growth and not being able to do anything comprehensive when market forces begin to act up. In a downturn, suddenly the liberty of free markets can become a threat to economic stability. Free markets may work best in an economic operating system (EOS) model better able to exploit the efficiency of markets. whilst accelerating economic growth

Market Myths in Contemporary Economics

This paper elaborates on the economic operating system (EOS) the role it can play in growth. It focuses on markets, price determination and forces of demand and supply in order to illustrate how an EOS model offers greater economic growth, stability and safety. This paper delves into market theory to determine whether what is commonly understood about market forces and free markets in contemporary economics is as reliable as might be expected; do free markets encourage or retard economic growth? It is often, for amusement, brought up how modern medicine despite its advances cannot cure the common cold. Contemporary economics has a similar pet peeve; it does not know how to cure common inflation and deflation. The same way medicine leaves the body’s immune system to deal with colds until a cure is found contemporary economics leaves inflation and deflation to market forces to sort out with the occasional booster shot of intervention when this process seems to fail. To this day the stand off between Keynesian and Monetarist models demonstrates the irascible nature of this economic bug; is seems in contemporary economics there is only one way to control it and that’s do nothing about it. This nothing in contemporary economics is what is referred to as free markets. Allowing free markets to set prices and act as a mechanism for managing inflation works, what doesn’t work is that free markets systems based on a Monetarist model lack reliable growth and not being able to do anything comprehensive when market forces begin to act up. In a downturn, suddenly the liberty of free markets can become a threat to economic stability. Free markets may work best in an economic operating system (EOS) model better able to exploit the efficiency of markets whilst accelerating economic growth

How Social is European Integration? Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 18/2007

The social dimension of the internal market or of the EU more generally has recently been under quite fundamental attack. Calls for 'Europe' to be 'more social' have been heard repeatedly. Witness the polarized debates about the services directive, the anxieties concerning several ECJ cases about what limitations of the free movement of workers (posted or not) are justified or the assertion of a 'neo-liberal agenda' in Brussels disregarding or eroding the social dimension. This BEEP Briefing paper takes an analytical approach to these issues and to the possible 'framing' involved. Such an analysis reveals a very different picture than the negative framing in such debates has it: there is nothing particular 'a-social' about the internal market or the EU at large. This overall conclusion is reached following five steps. First, several 'preliminaries' of the social dimension have to be kept in mind (including the two-tier regulatory & expenditure structure of what is too loosely called 'social Europe' ) and this is only too rarely done or at best in partial, hence misleading, ways. Second, the social acquis at EU and Member States' levels is spelled out, broken down into four aspects (social spending; labour market regulation; industrial relations; free movements & establishment). Assessing the EU acquis in the light of the two levels of powers shows clearly that it is the combination of the two levels which matters. Member States and e.g. labour unions do not want the EU level to become deeply involved ( with some exceptions) and the actual impact of free movement and establishment is throttled by far-reaching host-country control and the requirement of a 'high level of social protection' in the treaty. Third, six anxieties about the social dimension of the internal market are discussed and few arguments are found which are attributable to the EU or its weakening social dimension. Fourth, another six anxieties are discussed emerging from the socio-economic context of the social dimension of the EU at large. The analysis demonstrates that, even if these anxieties ought to be taken serious, the EU is hardly or not the culprit. Fifth, all this is complemented by a number of other facts or arguments strengthening the case that the EU social dimension is fine

Socioeconomic and Demographic Profile of Market Place Informant:the Influence of Market Maven on Thailand Shoppers

The buying decisions of customers are influenced to a greater extent by the suggestions or references given by their friends and near ones than the information obtained by means of advertising or any other medium. The concept of word of mouth is independent of the products and services or the producer. It is a known fact that satisfied customers share their satisfaction with their group, either formally or informally. This satisfaction is shared in the form of information, which is nothing but publicity for the product which comes free of cost. This information sharing which spreads cumulatively is called word of mouth. This paper therefore, looked into the socioeconomic and demographic profile of marketplace informant and their influence on Thai shoppers. A total of 380 shoppers (who are able to read and write Thai language and have indicated to the research assistants that they share market information with friends) were surveyed from three strategic cities across Thailand; to respond to the instrument of survey (questionnaire) that was tested and deemed to be reliable. Reliability testing of the scale originally yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.82. A strong association (r = .609, p < .0001, n = 380) is evident between the number of respondents that considered themselves outgoing and will share information about their experiences in the marketplac

Economic archetypes and market participants in Steinbeck's East of Eden

John Steinbeck is considered to be one of the quintessential American writers of the early 20th century. His characters and narratives are known for their accessibility and relatability, and the religious and political allegories found in his works have captured the imaginations of millions for nearly a hundred years. This is especially true in the case of the masterpiece East of Eden. Stories of nature versus nurture, agriculture versus industry, and, ultimately, good versus evil are all present in this account of flawed individuals living in a society obsessed with duality. The analysis of one of these dualistic frameworks, that of capitalism versus its alternatives, is used to explain why certain characters in Salinas Valley interact with the free market in the way they do, and what their interactions say about their own morality. Cathy, Adam, and Cal all enter the market for different reasons to achieve different aims, and the market is used to facilitate these goals, regardless of their lawfulness, intentions, or ethical qualms. I have used these specific characters and their actions to create three categories of market participant archetypes, demonstrating that the market is nothing more than what we make of it.Thesis (B.?)Honors Colleg

The Market as a Legal Concept

In the wake of the recent financial crisis of 2008, and in the run-up to what some are calling a perfect fiscal storm, there is no shortage of commentary on the need for fundamental market reform. Though there are certainly disagreements about where the real problems are and what to do, almost all the commentary remains wedded to an old and entirely false image of “free competition.” Of course, there is hardly consensus about whether markets require the heavy hand of regulative control, or are better left to regulate themselves, but a belief in the distinction between these two images — competition and control — is common ground. Unfortunately for all of us, this ground is a mirage. The idea of a pre-legal, “self-regulating” market has always been, and still is, a deep and abiding fiction. This Article argues that our continued commitments to the legal distinctions between competitive and controlled markets are far more dangerous than they are pedantic. If there is serious interest in avoiding the circular pitfalls of market society, which no doubt there is, attention must be paid to the manner in which the market is legally constructed from the bottom up, and the fact that there is nothing natural or necessary about that construction. In order to understand the dominant characterization of market society, we must map the basic legal postures that populate our conversations about free markets and the interventionist state — postures that have been built in the fields of classic and modern liberalism. This Article endeavors to stylize these liberalisms through an analysis of representative texts from John Locke, Henry Carter Adams, and Frank Knight. Though important, the awareness provided by this intellectual history of liberal legalism is insufficient for serious thinking about market reform — what is also needed is a critique of that history, a critique that reminds us that while liberalism provides legal rules for the creation and maintenance of the market, these rules are never neutral with respect to the distribution of wealth and resources among market players. In service of that recollection, the Article surveys three moments in a critical history of economic liberalism through a sample of texts from Karl Marx, Robert Hale, Morris Cohen, and Duncan Kennedy. To be sure, a successful strategy of market reform requires a great deal more than a familiarity with the legal styles of classic and modern liberalism, and leftist critiques of the liberal market’s legal structure. But that’s hardly the point. The point is that a successful strategy of market reform can’t do without them

THE AUSTRALIA-CHINA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Intellectual property is not usually the first thing that people think of when they talk about the Australia-China Free Trade Agreement1 (FTA) – an FTA is about ‘trade’: market access for agricultural products and manufactured goods, banking and educational services, easier access for Chinese investors and workers into Australia – the significance of intellectual property to trade is not foremost in most peoples’ minds. But when you ask Australian business people what they think about doing business in China, a great number in many fields are concerned about whether their innovative work will be protected – this is true for architects, manufacturers and educational software designers. And for innovative Chinese companies, whether they are domestically or internationally focussed, intellectual property is an increasingly important issue. Perhaps the first thing to say about this topic is that we don’t know what the actual implications of the FTA on intellectual property regulation will be. The FTA negotiations are concluded as a single undertaking – one whole agreement – and a key principle of that, is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Therefore in this regard it can be confidently said at this point, that nothing has yet been agreed, and that certainly applies to the intellectual property component of the negotiations. The following chapter will examine the implications of the proposed Australia-China FTA on intellectual property law. In particular, the chapter will consider key issues, such as why Australia believes it is important to include a separate chapter on intellectual property in the Australia-China FTA. Finally, the chapter will conclude by drawing some conclusions on what implications the Australia-China FTA might have on intellectual property regulation

THE AUSTRALIA-CHINA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Intellectual property is not usually the first thing that people think of when they talk about the Australia-China Free Trade Agreement1 (FTA) – an FTA is about ‘trade’: market access for agricultural products and manufactured goods, banking and educational services, easier access for Chinese investors and workers into Australia – the significance of intellectual property to trade is not foremost in most peoples’ minds. But when you ask Australian business people what they think about doing business in China, a great number in many fields are concerned about whether their innovative work will be protected – this is true for architects, manufacturers and educational software designers. And for innovative Chinese companies, whether they are domestically or internationally focussed, intellectual property is an increasingly important issue. Perhaps the first thing to say about this topic is that we don’t know what the actual implications of the FTA on intellectual property regulation will be. The FTA negotiations are concluded as a single undertaking – one whole agreement – and a key principle of that, is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Therefore in this regard it can be confidently said at this point, that nothing has yet been agreed, and that certainly applies to the intellectual property component of the negotiations. The following chapter will examine the implications of the proposed Australia-China FTA on intellectual property law. In particular, the chapter will consider key issues, such as why Australia believes it is important to include a separate chapter on intellectual property in the Australia-China FTA. Finally, the chapter will conclude by drawing some conclusions on what implications the Australia-China FTA might have on intellectual property regulation