What did these groups have in common during the Middle Ages?
They all opposed the market. But why?
Quite frankly, the answer is simple: the means for their power relied on products/ideas that were being replaced by newer and better ones.
Let us look more deeply into the situation of the button makers.
The button-makers guild opposed the invention of the cloth button. The cloth button did the same job a regular button did, except that the cloth button was cheaper. As a result, people started demanding cloth buttons. The people's reasoning was simple: the money they didn't spend on real buttons could now be used to purchase other, more important products. Everyone in that society then had more money to spend, thereby raising the overall wealth in that society.
But of course, the button-makers didn't see it that way. They were losing business and the only way for them to maintain their income was to demand the abolition of cloth buttons. They then used the government as a tool against the people and forced the cloth button industry to pay heavy fines. The button-maker guild knew their product was inferior and so they did all they could to close the market.
In the end the button-maker's guild failed - cloth buttons won the day - but it is not their failure that is important as much as their reasoning behind wanting to close the market for buttons.
The fact is that inferior products cannot compete in the free market. Cloth buttons are better than regular buttons, light-bulbs are better than torches and automobiles are better than horse-drawn carriages. The makers of the inferior products will always argue for more government intervention (after all, the only hope of salvaging their industry is to force people to buy their products) and oppose the opening of a market.
If we are truly interested in raising everyone's well-being, we should argue for open markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment