Skip to main content

Neoliberal myths of a free market

Neoliberalism has been the dominant creed in recent times. In one form or another it has underlined economic strategies followed in the UK by both Labour and Tory governments. New Labour embraced and worked with it. It seemed that global capitalism had won the day in the post-war conflict of ideas, and despite the banking crisis, it continues as the dominant influence.

If measured by the accumulation of wealth and the developments of new technologies it might be regarded as a success. But the cost of that success has been a heavy price. Socially it has failed, and the cost of that failure has damaged the environment increased inequalities. But who benefits from it? Who is it for?

Some 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day whilst 86 percent of the world’s resources are consumed by the world’s wealthiest 20 percent. That is the success of the neoliberal myth.

When government chooses not to ‘intervene in the market’ it is making a political not an economic decision. The neoliberal view assumes there can be a ‘free market’ where there is no government or public intervention. It believes that aggregate individual good is social good. The ‘free market’, the argument goes, settles everything through price – if only it was left alone to ‘do its job’. This view has a simple underlying philosophy – that there is no ‘social need’, only private or individual need.

Society is regarded as an aggregate of individuals. Any expression of ‘social need’, as for example in health or education, becomes, in this view, a distortion of this ideal ‘free market’. Neoliberalism contends that the free movement of goods, resources and enterprises will always find cheaper resources and maximise profits and efficiency.

Neoliberalism specifically rules out the role of the state in regulating such markets. It is against Tariffs, Regulations, standards, laws, legislation and regulatory measures and restrictions on capital flows and investment.

This neoliberal view tends to ignore that individuals have little weight in determining ‘market price’ against big global corporations. The market is in that sense badly distorted between consumer and producer. Behind so many brands in food there are just 10 big global corporations with revenue of tens of billions of dollars. They dictate the market and have food producers under their thumb. Nestle had more than $100 billion in sales and more than $11 billion in profits in 2013.

These big giants create the needs or markets as much as respond to them. They are the largest media spenders in the world spending huge sums on branding and marketing - Mars Inc. for example spends over $2 bn on advertising; Unilever spends over $7.5 bn. Their ability to manipulate demand and ‘brand awareness’ outweighs that of their competitors. These big corporations are big lobbyists of government when it comes to food and health policies. Their activities have huge impact on environment, health and workers rights.

Four giants dominate the raw materials of the global food system. These giants, big as they are, operate below the radar of the average consumer. Most will not have heard of the group known as the ABCD group for the alphabetic convenience of their initials - ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus – but they are estimated to account for between 75% and 90% of the global grain trade.

The neoliberal view has also another underlying assumption, that there will be some kind of equilibrium where the free market distribution will produce an optimum distribution of goods. It makes the assumption that the only distorting player could be the state, yet globally and nationally major corporations are players bigger than any state influencing the market. The market is not ‘free’ in the sense of being without big players.

Four giants dominate the raw materials of the global food system. These giants, big as they are, operate below the radar of the average consumer. Most will not have heard of the group known as the ABCD group for the alphabetic convenience of their initials - ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus – but they are estimated to account for between 75% and 90% of the global grain trade.

The rise of global capital controls markets in ways that individual states cannot. Economic policy is at the whim of global capital. Global capital is often expressed in terms of the ‘free movement of capital’, yet the movement of capital is not free of big corporate decisions. What ‘free movement of capital’ really means is that it is not controllable by any state or government.

A handful of players dominate, not just in primary agriculture but in food manufacturing and retailing. The result, according to Oxfam, is that "they extract much of the value along the chain, while costs and risks cascade down on to the weakest participants, generally the farmers and labourers at the bottom".

This is not a fair or free market. It is a market where a small group globally dominate and take action to determine the ‘market’. When health issues are raised about food, they are powerful lobby against change.

It is a market where the primary producers are suffering loss whilst the big fish gain. Think while we drink our cups tea and coffee of where and how it is produced. Cocoa growers now receive just 3.5% of the average retail value of a bar of chocolate. In the 1980s they would have received 18%. Here in the UK farmers are going out of business because the big supermarkets won’t pay them a fair price. The food giants rule the market.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha