Relieve Suffering
I have been fascinated for some time with complexity theory. Complex systems, such as a free market economy, have both local uncertainty and global certainty. In other words, there needs to be structure and certain bounds to the market, but then individuals should have the right to act independently to be creative and add value. This makes the system more resilient to shocks, because solutions to problems can take multiple paths. Socialism by definition reduces complexity, because it seeks to plan outcomes centrally, reducing creativity and efficiency.
A key aspect of successful markets that many people ignore and fight against is the need for structure. They believe most rules only limit freedom and create red tape, and the market is all knowing and will solve all problems. Unfortunately that is not the case. Without limits and rules to foster structure, market failure can ensue.
One example of an earlier market failure is in the mining industry. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to enhance shareholder wealth. Hence, in order to maximize profit when a corporation mines it needs to extract minerals as cheaply as possible, sell the product for as high as it can, and when the mine has been exhausted to move the equipment and workers out quickly. Corporations do not have a fiduciary duty to do good, just to maximize shareholder wealth. Hence for years, miners left the sludge and other byproducts of their mines sitting exposed so it could leach into rivers and streams, poisoning the environment. This is a market failure, because many of the costs of the mine were not incurred by the corporation, but were incurred by the citizens who lived downstream from the mine. Hence, the government had to step in and set environmental laws and standards to protect the public good. One of government’s roles is to provide rules and structure where the motivations of some market participants lead to market failures.
More controversial are market failures that deal with inequality of opportunity for individuals. There is a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity. There will always be inequality of outcomes because of differences in talent and motivation. The challenge is to make sure individuals have equality of opportunity.
For many years, African Americans in this country had inequality of opportunity because of discrimination. This market failure had to be corrected by government intervention, because some individuals and corporations were motivated in a way that was detrimental to the public good. Before the civil rights movement, society and markets were much less efficient because the talents and the innovation that African Americans could have contributed was disrupted.
Inequality of opportunity also occurs when personal and property rights are only selectively enforced, when government funds mainly benefit the politically influenced or when the distribution of public services favor only the wealthy.
We have a public school system in this country. One of the longstanding controversies in education has involved correcting inequality of educational opportunities for the poor. Some of the solutions that have been enacted have not worked. Some have done harm. This is not my area of expertise. The question is, can the free market or individuals acting on their own and through charities have the motivation and the ability to ensure that each child born today in this country has the opportunity to use their talents and contribute to society? Or are their market failures that need to be corrected in this arena by other means. Is there an inequality trap that is preventing children who are born into poverty from learning and improving? Ultimately, we all pay the price because capital will not be efficiently allocated in the free market if there are individuals who because of systematic failures don’t have the opportunity to develop their talents.
These are not simple issues.
I believe there are individuals on both sides of the political spectrum who ultimately thrive on exploiting market failures. Some favor socialism. Others favor a complete lack of government intervention. Both views are wrong.
I also believe individuals should freely share their excess wealth to relieve suffering. But except in the most dire cases, solutions to relieve suffering should be growth inducing, creativity inspiring, and sustainable. Education is growth inducing and creativity inspiring. Reducing inequality of opportunity is growth inducing, because it leads to more creative seekers. Reducing inequality of outcomes is a growth detractor, because it distorts motivations, reduces creativity, leading to less wealth and more suffering.
William Easterly said, “You don’t have to immediately eliminate world poverty, bring world peace, or save the environment. You just have to do whatever you discover works with your modest resources to make a difference in the lives of poor people.”





