Market Terminology Decoded

The definitions and explanations of the following terms are the resulting implications of the concepts of Free Market doctrine, seldom investigated beyond a surface level.

Freedom: What “freedom” really translates to is the unabated ability to use the marketplace to turn private money into more private money. (This definition of “freedom” ultimately comprises the basis of our “infinite growth” paradigm where exponentially more resources are consistently needed to meet this never-ending growth requirement – so, paradoxically, market “freedom” is inherently unsustainable.)

Market intervention: Following from the previous explanation, market intervention is any force (usually imposed by government – even though its influence can paradoxically originate from the private sector or private money seekers) that disrupts or inhibits the ability to turn private money into more private money.

Efficiency: When market economists refer to “efficiency”, they mean “cost efficiency”: the need for corporations (or any self-maximizing money seekers) to minimize costs in order to maximize profit. This invariably leads to reducing the quality of all products (often with planned obsolescence or perceived obsolescence) for the purpose of profit maximization, generating tremendous waste. So this type of efficiency, i.e. cost efficiency, is inverse to “resource efficiency” or “technical efficiency” (which, if to be evaluated without the barrier of cost, would be the aim of minimizing the usage of resources, building the highest quality, long-lasting products, with the ultimate goal of peak sustainability).

Value: “money value”, a presupposed concept that derives a socially contrived monetary value, where a good or service is theoretically based on its real (or perceived) scarcity, the money value of its component parts, and the labor utilized to create it – along with the largely publicly unnoticed distortion of social values where people are conditioned to perceive and uphold this “money value”. This definition of “value” is unrelated to the “life sequence of value” (as coined by John McMurtry), which recognizes value, or significance, only from that which directly relates to supporting improved health and life of people and the environment, which can objectively defined through the methods of science.

Voluntarism: the idea that participation in the marketplace is voluntary or of individuals’ free choices; that it does not impose any external pressure or manipulate one’s behavior and values to conform with what is necessary to obtain “money value” in order to survive. Ignoring the scientific cause-and-effect reality that debunks “free will” or “free choice” (i.e. voluntarism in the sense of human behavior), this concept assumes that employment and the exchange of goods and services are free from coercion. This is only with respect to their being an opportunity being presented to people – however, the poor generally remain poor and the rich generally remain rich. Studies repeatedly affirm this “structural classism” (or built-in inequality) inherent in the mechanics of the market, seriously challenging the notion that there is any “voluntarism” in this structure. And this coupled with the financial coercion, where we all¬ must submit to market activities simply to obtain “money value” to give us access to the necessities of life, further shatters this myth.

Invisible hand: a term in market theory, first coined by Adam Smith in his book, “The Wealth of Nations”, used to describe the assumed self-regulating nature of the marketplace. This is in essence a deistic concept, in which some unsightly and immaterial force guides the transactions of the marketplace to manifest into social betterment – no empirical explanation is ever given for how this occurs; it’s just assumed market doctrine.

Globalization: the now global context and global marketplace in which transactions occur solely for the purpose of maximizing private money sequences, cataclysmically multiplying the inefficiency of the marketplace with respect to resource management for the goal of peak sustainability on the planet.

Consumer: The market doctrine assumes the consumer to be one of three role-players in the marketplace (along with the employer and employee – both are also consumers), assuming this role to have considerable power with regard to influencing the activities in the marketplace. In reality, the consumer is nothing but a business / monetary unit to be exploited for the purpose of private money maximization. Influence can only be exerted proportional to an economic unit’s (whether individual, corporation or government) monetary value.

Economic growth: The constant need for more and more consumption, at exponentially accelerating rates, in order to maintain the market system, regardless of social and environmental costs.

Need vs. Want: In fact, there is no distinction between the two in the market structure. “Need” isn’t even in the Free Market lexicon; it’s implicitly dissolved into the definition of “Want”, which can be only be satisfied if the consumer has accumulated enough money value. And since the prime motivating force in the market is money value maximization, there can be no such concept as “too much” or “excessive” under this governing paradigm. In an objective, scientific sense, the difference between a “need” and “want” could be understood as follows: anything without life capacity is of reduced value – i.e. a “want”