Is the Market Our God? |

Is the Market Our God?

greek-gods_1Harvey Cox has had a remarkable career as a theologian. He became famous with The Secular City, published in 1965; and fifty years later — he is now eighty-seven — he is still writing. His latest book displays both the virtues and defects characteristic of his work. He has read widely and often makes insightful remarks; but he lacks depth and analytical rigor. The main thesis of The Market as God fails, but I do not propose to start with an account of that thesis and its problems. Rather, let us first consider something that will surprise supporters of the Mises Institute.

Cox says that he is not opposed to the capitalist market if kept in its proper place, but he contends that people wrongly worship the market as God. A rcapitalismo-piramidal2eligion, he says, needs a prophet, and for Cox it is Adam Smith that fills the bill for the market religion: “One has only to intone the name ‘Adam Smith’ in the vestibules of the Market God to see people fall on their knees in reverence. This is an exaggeration, but only just.” (p.142)

To counter this feature of what he views as an idolatrous religion, Cox says, “I suggest that Smith is not really the founder of modern economics, and that his standing as its saint, the patron of the unfettered free market, is also dubious.” (p.143)

Now for the surprise. Whom does Cox cite in support of his view of Smith? None other than Murray Rothbard who, Cox says, “speaks of the ‘enormous and unprecedented gap between Smith’s exalted reputation and the reality of his dubious contribution to economic thought.’” (p.143) Further, again like Rothbard, Cox stresses that Smith did not support an unlimited free market. “Can Adam Smith be considered a saint of the Market Faith, invoked as, say ‘Saint Andrew of Glasgow?”. . .To pass muster for sanctification, he would need to be free of any taint of heresy or deviation from the free-market creed. . .he just is not. He is a serial backslider.”(p.145)

Cox, it is evident, writes with verve and imagination; but how useful is his metaphor of the market as God? It is empty of cognitive content. The metaphor, along with its various extensions, such as Cox’s comparison of the efficient market hypothesis with the doctrine of Papal infallibility, serves rather as a tool enabling him to mock economic policies he dislikes.

His basic thesis, stripped of its theological window dressing, is this: “It has been my contention. . .that there is nothing essentially wrong with markets. But markets are not part of the natural order, like the changing of the seasons or gravity. They have been constructed by human beings to serve certain stipulated purposes, which in many cases they have done quite well. But in the past couple centuries markets have become bloated, and they have swelled into The Market. The result has been that they not only fail to serve their intended purpose, but they intrude on and distort other vital institutions such as the family, the arts, education, and religion.” (p.242)
In sum, the market has expanded beyond the limits Cox deems appropriate. As an example, he deplores the global uniformity of McDonald’s; though, to his credit, he does note that even this chain allows local variations of its menu. “Once the impulse to enforce uniformity sets in, it often establishes its own momentum. McDonald’s decided early on that not only should its every hamburger taste the same, its every restaurant should look the same. Searching for an appropriate iconic symbol, it introduced what are now the familiar golden arches.” (p.205)

Cox here substitutes his own preferences for the freely chosen preferences of consumers. As Mises again and again pointed out, capitalism is a system of mass production for the masses. If consumers did not desire to eat at McDonald’s, the chain would fail. Of course, Cox could reply that the matter is not one of mere preference; it is objectively wrong for the free market to be more centralized and uniform than he favors. But if Cox were to take this line, he would have to show by argument that it is right. Unfortunately, he displays in the book no capacity to make a philosophical argument. To the contrary, he simply quotes thinkers he admires, such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Are the views of these thinkers true? That is a question Cox never asks. Instead, he tells us that he likes pluralism and decentralization of authority. Away with a monotheistic God who rules over all!

greek-gods_3Cox does attempt to meet the claim of consumer sovereignty on its own ground. The consumers do not really desire the products urged on them by the rapacious market God. To the contrary, they are manipulated by advertisers to buy products of little intrinsic worth. The survival of capitalism depends on such artificially generated spending.

Cox has a remarkably strong aversion to advertisers: “But anyone who thinks twice about the ads that surround us and invade our space every day — the junk mail, the television spots, and the web displays — has come to recognize that much of what inundates us is a relentless effort to create desires where none existed before. Like the confessional of old, the process not only uncovers exiting cravings, but instills new ones.” (p.235)

Here the questionable premise is obvious. Why count only desires not influenced by persuasion as “real”? If I come to desire a product after watching a commercial, what is the matter with that? On this whole line of argument, F.A. Hayek’s “The Non Sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect’” is the classic discussion.

Cox asks, “But why does the market need to create desires. . . .The cultural studies scholar Raymond Williams traces the beginning of modern advertising to the late nineteenth century when, with the invention of new technologies and the formation of monopolies, the challenge corporations faced was no longer how to increase production, but how to cope with overproduction: how could they possibly sell all the stuff they were turning out?” (p.236) The view that capitalism leads to general overproduction is a long-exploded fallacy, demolished in the nineteenth century by John Stuart Mill, among others.

Cox sometimes presents interesting ideas. He suggests, for example, that St. Augustine’s triumph over Pelagius in part came about through the superior financial resources of Augustine’s patrons. This is hypothesis worth exploring; but, though Cox displays a facile ability to set forward the theological issues at stake, he once more offers no real analysis of the arguments. He is much more an intellectual magpie, skilled at arousing undergraduate students, than a serious thinker.


Source: Author David Gordon | Mises Institute |  David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review

The views expressed are not necessarily those of the publisher or Images accompanying posts are either owned by the author of said post or are in the public domain and included by the publisher of the blog on its initiative.
© 2012-2017 - Copyright - is not liable for the content of external web pages

© 2012-2017 - © Copyright / Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. / Derechos Reservados & CLÁUSULA DE EXENCIÓN DE RESPONSABILIDAD: (El BLOG), tiene un carácter divulgativo, informativo y de entretenimiento, poniendo a disposición de todos, informaciones, noticias, reportajes, material audio-visivo y gráfico de contenido variado y sugestivo con el único interés de provocar un sano debate entre amigos e interesados. De no ser especificado, los artículos, comentarios y/o introducciones son escritos y propiedad de Antonio-"Bambino" Maldonado-Boschetti (indistintamente con siglas AMB - ◊◊B◊◊). Además, en EL BLOG se evidencian vínculos y se divulga información originaria de numerosas fuentes por lo que ni El BlOG ni Antonio-"Bambino" Maldonado-Boschetti son particular y específicamente responsables del contenido de aquellas.-- USO JUSTO (Fair Use): Descargo de Responsabilidad: y/o Antonio-"Bambino" Maldonado-Boschetti (AMB/◊◊B◊◊) no es (son) propietario de la mayor parte de los audios-vídeos que forma parte de la Galería de Vídeos de los cuales pertenecen a numerosos autores, artistas y/o productores. Aviso y reclamo que los derechos de autor bajo la sección 107 del Copyright Act 1976 (USA) permiten el uso y divulgación de este material con “USO JUSTO” para propósitos tales como crítica, comentario, noticias, enseñanza, becas e investigación. El “USO JUSTO” (Fair Use) es un uso lícito y permitido por la Ley de Derechos de Autor, que de lo contrario podría constituir una violación. El uso sin fines de lucro, educativo, noticioso o informativo, o personal inclina la balanza a favor del “uso justo" por parte de La información y el contenido "multimedia" publicado por EL BLOG son de carácter público, libre y gratuito. Pueden ser reproducidos con la obligatoriedad de citar la fuente: y a cada autor en particular. -- Los comentarios y reacciones de los lectores publicados en los "posts" son de la entera responsabilidad de quien los emite; EL BLOG intenta implementar un mecanismo de auto regulación y/o puede decidir no publicar comentarios que constituyan abuso o que lesionen el buen gusto y los derechos de otros. -- Se pueden enviar colaboraciones gratis directamente a quien se reserva el derecho de publicación.
All photos accompanying posts are either owned by the author of said post or are in the public domain and included by the blog on its initiative.

Creative Commons Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. está disponible bajo una licencia “Creative Commons” Reconocimiento-No comercial 4.0. Cualquier reconocimiento debe ser a y a cada autor/publicación en particular.

WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien
Confrontando la información, - el pasado y el presente...
"Estudia el pasado si quieres pronosticar el futuro" (Confucio)
“La historia es en realidad el registro de crímenes, locuras y adversidades de la humanidad” (E. Gibbon)