Anyone who champions the well-being of society should especially celebrate commercial centers, stock markets, international trade, and every sector in which money changes hands in exchange for assets, goods, and services. FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey Tucker
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12792/a-society-of-mutual-benefactors/
A Society of Mutual Benefactors
Previous post: Remember Emerson’s Legacy of Liberty
Next post: Federal Trade Commission v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
{ 15 comments }
I was thinking about exactly this when USPS came to my door and handed me a package. I said “Thank You” and the mailman said “You’re Welcome”. My reaction was, “how perfectly representative of a federal employee, thinking he has done me a favor without me doing him one.” Sorry to see this happened in a grocery store too.
I wouldn’t take too much offense to it. We’re socially conditioned to say “you’re welcome” when thanked. After all, I rarely hear anyone say thanks to the cashier at the grocery store. One of the reasons I even bother to say thanks is the fact that I do understand the concept of a trade. Few people grasp this idea. They think that the rolls are “worth” $2 and possibly thinks that the store gets “more” than them because the store picked up the package for $1.90. Most people think they’re on the raw end of the deal by giving away $0.10 more than the store had to despite considering that the “profit” was just the cost of the convenience of location and not having to buy 1,000 units to enjoy the savings.
Also, by being the first to fling thanks, you take the cashier off-guard, which is why you get the reflexive “you’re welcome”. Let them thank you first, then reply with a thanks of your own. That way, you’ll get them thinking as to why they were thanked and maybe lead to the revelation that the process was mutually beneficial.
Sorry I don’t agree. There is just to much unsolicited politeness being expressed because people are unconscious of what is really happening. A transaction of any type is a (relatively fare exchange) financial one where people agree by the act of doing it. But when people are being paid to do a job to do a task to better the public relations of a business entity they are thanked when they get their paycheck (sort of, because it might not be a fare exchange).
But no one needs to thank the trash man to haul off his trash and the trash man shouldn’t feel obliged to say “You are welcome”. The trash man would rather hear an expression of empathy or compassion than to be reminded he’s a trash man hauling off garbage.
I mean even computer prompted phone connections are expressing politeness (as if the computer genuinely has any feelings), like thank you saying “please”, and “we appreciate you business”. Here there is no “Connection” with human dignity at all. Yet is seems people are responding like Pavlov’ dog! There for unconsciously “RE-Acting” a script that they’ve been prompted to re-sight.
People have to start listening to not only what they are saying but to whom and why they are saying it. Otherwise, the people are no different that the ATM machines or computer generated bill paying systems phone scripts. Their just computers talking to computers. Their is no humanity in that at all.
Eric,What gift did you give the postman in exchange for the package he carried to your door? Did you tip him, or give him a cookie or refreshment? Probably not. While you might think that you gifted him his wages through your taxation, in reality this is not the case. You did not pay the postage on the package he delivered and hence did not necessarily contribute to his wage. His proper response according to the rules of etiquite layed forth in this article was “Your welcome”.
The commentary says:
“As with many postulates of economics, this seems very obvious once you see it but it is evidently not obvious at all. In fact, I’ve observed that many people’s underappreciation of the contribution of the market order is rooted in the perception that buying and selling stuff really amounts to nothing wonderful at all. It is just a swirl of churning and burning for the sake of nothing in particular. Society could easily do away with it and be no worse off.
“I have a hard time figuring out what people who believe this are thinking.”
Of course it doesn’t seem to be obvious to most people who haven’t been exposed to the concept. They certainly aren’t taught about it (with man-bites-dog exceptions) in the government and government-accredited K–12 schools. (That something is obvious following exposure doesn’t mean many will think of it on their own. For example, for all their mathematical sophistication, the classic Greeks and Romans never conceived of making nothing into an actual number — zero, as we say now — though, once in use, its great practical utility is self-evident.)
For all his genius, it wasn’t even apparent (apparently, that is, assuming he was being sincere; which could be a lot of assuming, given Aristotle’s connections to the political world) to Aristotle: But then, he probably wouldn’t have been exposed to economic logic — there’s no evidence such a path of reasoning had yet been invented in the Western or Mideastern worlds to which he’d had exposure. (Presumably he would have no knowledge of the proto-economic reasoning of the early Taoists.)
But we do know that many intellectuals, including professional economists, have been exposed to the concept of mutually beneficial exchange, but they will either not admit its truth at all or, if they do, pointedly fail to integrate the concept into any broader thinking about economics or anything else.
Why is this? Borrowing from the jargon of psychotherapy, we can assign a name to it: “denial”. Many dislike the freedom exercised by others in the marketplace, and admitting that it’s a mutually beneficial arrangement undermines the resentments they have toward it and the authritarian designs they wish to impose on others.
Strangely enough, more than a few of these same deniers are quite comfortable with the concept of mutually beneficial interchange when it suits their agenda, e.g. gay marriage or recreational drug use. But, somehow, when it comes to everyday monetary exchange, such a consideration flies out the window, the implicit — and sometimes explicit — premise being that such exchanges constitute extortion and slavery (while turning a blind eye to the very real extortion and slavery pervasively imposed by government).
I recall my elementary school studies which required that I memorize various explorer names and their contributions. Columbus was easy, he was looking for new trade routes. Except for that, I don’t recall ever being taught WHY he was looking for trade routes. What’s the big deal about trade?
Well, some 40 years later I finally got part of my answer – I read about the division of labor in Adam Smith’s Wealth of nations. But it wasn’t until I checked out a little footnote in a Harry Browne book that led me to the writings of Murray Rothbard. I recall when the light bulb went on. It was when Murray pointed out what now seems obvious: why do people trade voluntarily? After all, nobody is pointing a gun at the traders. No government decree requires trading.
I used to think it was because one side uses money and that money is what everyone wants. But then if that were true, why would I voluntarily give up some money every time I buy something. Clearly that couldn’t be the answer.
Finally I found my answer from Rothbard. Trade occurs voluntarily because both sides want what the other has more than what he gives up. What a simple concept. But what a powerful one. It seems to me that it could be the most important concept of an economic science. And to think, I spent all those years in school and never heard this concept.
Now should both sides thank the other? That’s a matter of courtesy. But clearly both sides should feel they came out better for the deal. And that, I think, is the true point of the article.
Such a simple and self-evident concept. Which is why I cannot fathom how professional economists can argue in favor of protectionist trade policies and not feel embarrassed.
Two people living within a country engaged in voluntary exchange makes them both better off, but the same two people making the same exchange across an artificially drawn border nullifies the benefit? I don’t think so. These “economists” must obscure this reality by resorting to chatter about “stealing jobs,” currency manipulation, or other such nonsense.
The Language Of The Market Is At The Heart Of Social Justice.
In reality issues of social justice cannot be fathomed by anyone without the language of the market!!!
The communication that takes place in the market is a universal language that every human being is fluent in and yet the ego-driven interpreters and the ego-driven interventionists oppressively exclude it causing all of us to live in the Dark Ages of economics which means that we are living in a world devoid of the concept of true justice.
>Bruce Koerber: ego-driven interventionists
Ego is the source of trade, to better one’s situation, to gain values. A selfless person would give his property away and die. Interventionists explicitly justify their politics w/selflessness. They have motives but motives are not necessarily morality. Every living organism has motives, even you in posting here. The attack on ego is an attack on life, ie, on morality. See Rand’s _The Fountainhead_. Capitalism is the politics of egoism. See Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_ and _Capitalism_.
Ego-Driven Interpreters and Interventionists Exhibit Lower Human Nature.
As we move forward all understandings become more refined. Ego-driven interpretation and ego-driven intervention are not in the same category as the life impulse. Humans exhibit a dual nature and it is true that the lower nature is still connected to the ego, not as a life impulse but as a corruptible self. One of the depravities of these Dark Ages of economics is the general ignorance about this human dual nature and the subsequent absence of measures taken to control the manifestations of this lower nature.
Human action as the life impulse nobly can be an expression of the higher nature, simply subjective and based upon one’s knowledge, and since it is of the higher nature it aspires towards more knowledge which then affects the subjective decisions, and this process is a process of perfecting and advancing.
Can you see the difference between the higher and the lower? The higher nature is knowledge-seeking and perfecting whereas the lower nature is shallow and corruptible. All intervention into the economy is ego-driven (referring to the lower nature) and all ego-driven interpretation {interpretation that has no authority other than a selfish (lower nature) desire} is detrimental to the advancement of civilization.
Back to the ones who exclude the market: these are the ego-driven (interventionists and interpreters) who try to deprive humanity of its most universal language!
What a beautifully written piece, Mr. Tucker. Keep them coming!
I understand the intent of the article and in no way disagree. Many of the comments above expand on the idea of voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. But…in “real life” things are not so simple.
If you are forced into the monetary system, you get taxed either directly or by inflation. If you try to opt out of the system you will either starve or be shot for violating legal tender laws. Any exchange that involves money is tainted with this and involves an element of coercive force at some level. Look and you will always find it.
Government is successful because it can conscript citizens to help enforce is laws as tax police.
Example: Try finding a job where your employer does not take your money and send it to the government. You either sign a form “agreeing” to it or you starve.
Brilliant article, Mr. Tucker. To those who disagree, may I suggest you purchase a grain of salt from your friendly local grocer – yes, the “you’re welcome” may easily be excused, but then Jeff would need a new premise for the article, postponing the delivery of these excellent points.
One interesting addition here from personal experience – I worked as a waiter back in my youth, and the interesting thing is that this protocol is ONLY employed at the point of the transaction, and rightfully so. I bring a customer his beer, he thanks me, and I say he’s welcome. I bring a lady her salad, she thanks me and is welcome. But when I bring the check, I thank the customer, they pay and thank me, I thank them again, and then everyone else employed by the restaurant thanks them on their way out. Observe that little ritual when you dine out.
So what’s the deal there? I am purely serving someone during the meal, and they’ve done nothing but tacitly presumed to pay me later, so they are welcome for my service. But when it comes time to break out the old wallet, expect the thank you’s to flow in both directions.
The only thing annoying here – watch for this and ye shall observe – is when you tell a waiter “thank you” and they respond, “you’re very welcome.” now that’s some ugly conditioning. Only say that when the customer says, “thank you very much,” if at all.
Has anybody read Atlas Shrugged or Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand?
My wife and I were discussing this topic a few days ago. I say consider yourself lucky, Jeff. The only response we seem to ever get to our thank you’s during retail transactions is, “No problem”. Maybe it’s a generational thing.
Comments on this entry are closed.