Adam Smith recognised the reliance of Capitalism on growth and that infinite growth is not possible.
One of the many fields in which market mechanisms has failed is labour.
Polanyi pointed out that labour isn’t a natural market. Time to try something else?
I guess it’s surprising that market forces supported something that’s so outwardly altruistic (though it began as a cost-saver) for so long. With the failure of the private sector, is there scope for the public sector to step in? Given the increasing authoritarianism of Australian government, how might consumers be protected from bias, manipulation and propaganda?
Market failures are evident in increasingly exploitative employment practices. Those practices make employees vulnerable, so they’re less confident and less likely to spend. As has been said elsewhere, Capitalism doesn’t do economics very well.
What might be an effective public sector response?
This was written before the recent decision to return the Fiona Stanley Hospital to the public sector, but gives insights into why market forces fail, in some spheres pretty reliably.
A failed (for the immediate term) attempt at creeping commercialisation.
Does a degraded society favour over-reliance on market forces? Is over-reliance on market forces associated with eroded ethics?
https://itwire.com/it-industry/here-we-go-again-–-acs-court-case-over.html
https://www.itwire.com/it-industry/oppermann-elected-acs-president,-pledges-reconciliation.html
Glass half full or glass half empty and leaking out a big crack in the bottom?
Market forces have delivered nearly everything we take for granted in the world today. Both good and not so good.
Should this be considered a failure when a comparison is made with the plight of the Irish, the Scots and most Europeans at the start of the 19th century. Most Australians were either convict or master at that time which makes the comparisons more stark locally. Overall we all live longer, have healthier less demanding work lives, have high levels of literacy, and a form of representation. While there are still disadvantaged and poor in our own community, our community seeks not to condemn others to Victorian style workhouses and perpetual charity. We can always do more, and Australia has been at the forefront rather than the behind of improving social equity.
The assumption that market forces have failed is but one view.
That government has failed (Policy) is one of the observations.
There are some open ended conclusions to be had about what next. Do these prioritise the needs of the nation as consumers, or debate the options for policy and political change?
A more recent assessment of how things might progress.
This is very much about policy direction and political choices. Just one view point. I’m confident there are many more, with a glass half full outlook to the future.
I am not sure what your point is. Are you equating market forces with neoliberalism? Are you saying the problems of inequality are due to neoliberalism and not market forces in general? Something else?
The topic made some very simple observations on how government had left it to the market place (non intervention) for enterprise to deliver certain services. Services that deliver essential consumer needs?
Yes, would be a simple response.
Neoliberalism does not require, that the market places values on ethical, moral and social outcomes. If government were to do so this might be considered intervention. Consumers might, but only if we know and have adequate alternate choices.
Has the subsequent discussion in the topic moved on?
Notes:
The topic title is from the SMH article that headlined in this topic. It’s simply a statement, absolute and uncompromising in it’s position. It’s not asking a question. Although the discussion that followed in this topic has a wide range of views about what was intended.
The opening line from the author Ross Gittins,
How will the era of “neoliberalism” end – with a bang or a whimper? With a royal commission – or three. But don’t worry. Royal commissions always make a lot of noise.
Was the original discussion intended to look at whether certain institutions should or should not be exposed to market forces? The evidence of adverse outcomes related by Gittins pointed at Aged Care, Banking and Financial Services, and Electrical Utilities.
The majority of the posts that follow in many instances display a great interest in discussing the relationship between economic theory, competition outcomes and politics. This appears to have been a much broader discussion on the failings of economic theory or government policy.
Having re read the posts I was left wondering,
Are we saying that we need to deliberately move away from the “neoliberal” view of the relationship between government, the market place and enterprise?
I’ve linked two very different articles that offer other view points.
Do they? My reading is that they reinforce the message, albeit from different perspectives.
You say ‘different perspectives’,
I say ‘ other view points’.
Not sure that It needs to be put to music? 
If they all wind up at the same place …
P.S.
I’m not about to suggest otherwise.
My reading overall is that Totalitarian Capitalism (AKA neoliberalism) is doomed. As Smith pointed out, Capitalism in general always had a best-before date. Market forces have their place. Extremes rarely endure. Extreme Capitalism is no more stable than extreme Socialism.
Our problems stem from the dominance of those who would deny the line entirely.
Yes. The gains you mentioned in an earlier post in this thread were largely made before the 1980s and the dawn of neoliberal ideology. They were made in managed capitalist economies, in which governments had the final say on what would happen.
Of course, then we turn to countries like Japan, South Korea and China. All far better off than India - why? Well, I turned to The Lexus and the Olive Tree to answer this, but was unable to finish the first couple of chapters due to the hilarious ignorance displayed by the author regarding the role of the Japanese government in its country’s economic rise.
Russia is a counter-example - extreme capitalism was forced upon it, and the results became visible by the mid-90s - affecting the country even now.
I’d never heard of "human security", but it seems apposite. In times past, government was concerned with the security of individuals. The focus has drifted more and more to security of the nation and of business.
The latter are not unimportant, but the former should not be neglected - and that’s what has happened. If people felt secure would they be so inclined to panic buy and hoard, for example? To what extent have people been encouraged to feel insecure, for political purposes?
ABC’s “Insiders” this morning reported that nationalisation of failed businesses has been suggested. Virgin Australia was mentioned. Could our ideologically Totalitarian Capitalist government ever bite that bullet?
Much was said on “Insiders” this morning. Mostly positive concerning the Commonwealth Govt response, noting that the current crisis is unprecedented. The Shadow Treasurer was interviewed at length. The messaging was clear. We all need to work together on the current situation. He resisted attempts to be drawn into being critical, suggesting any political assessment can wait until the crisis has been managed.
Several of the panel made comments that the press does need to continue to ask questions and seek answers, if for no other reason than to ensure concerns and mistakes continue to be identified and responses sought.
The comment re future nationalisation of any industry sits as a hypothetical from one of the panel. No critical assessment offered in the program content. It drew no ongoing discussion.
Note:
Insiders is repeated this evening on ABC24 and available on iView. Hugh Parkinson has a great take on self isolation for politicians.
The issue was raised in the press conference before midday. The terminology was weasel-wordy. Something like “the government taking a financial position”.
This may be changing the perspective a little. Hopefully still close to topic.
A less hypothetical (not necessarily just this example) and real concern for some. The NRL was suggesting a $200M Government handout to save the game.
The NRL might hope to be at the front of any queue.
The professional sports operate in a special space as an extension through marketing and sponsorship of private enterprise. Major sporting venues are funded from the public purse, but all other expense is met from the private sector, ticket sales and memberships.
Should the NRL look to it’s major sponsors and voluntarily members to provide the support required? What ever code, it would appear to be in the best interests of the major sponsors and advertisers to have the sporting brands they invested in still there when play resumes.
P.S.
Would the professional sports have considered possible threats leading to major disruption in their past business plans? The executives and boards are experienced and remunerated professionals. 
a very different challenge.
Nationalising Virgin Australia was raised on the 20th of this month by Alan Joyce on Sky News. Naturally enough, he thinks it would be a terrible idea. The ABC ran with the story:
Given the prevailing “wisdom”, I’m amazed that the dreaded concept of nationalisation has surfaced.
In a crisis ideology is dispensable, otherwise we would currently be dealing with a much larger problem. Wait two weeks and let’s see what happens.
Karma?
Market forces are not always leaders, but sometimes …
Although this could be a careful what you wished for scenario before it is over.
