Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Education > Homework Help > Finance & Accounting   »   economic markets

 
Question Tools Search this Question Display Modes
Question
 
 
#1  
Old Sep 30, 2006, 04:28 PM
student007
Junior Member
student007 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 67
student007 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
economic markets

What do you think this statement means: "economic markets are immoral" Here's what I think:

They are objective, and driven only by market forces. That means that they put things like efficiency and profits ahead of humanitarian needs or personal comfort and happiness. In other words, market forces function in a kind of "bubble" where morality doesn't even exist.

What do you think the statement means?

Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old Sep 30, 2006, 05:45 PM   #2  
Dr D
Senior Member
Dr D is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 687
Dr D See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Dr D See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
That statement had to be made by a dyed in the wool Marxist, who clings to the disproved theories of Karl. Economic Market Forces are dispassionate and allocate resources to their highest and best use. In the short run, individuals are hurt by the movements of the market. In the long term, society as a whole, is better off.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Sep 30, 2006, 06:02 PM   #3  
student007
Junior Member
student007 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 67
student007 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
I'm kinda confused. How would the economy or people in it be worse off in the short run and then better in the long run? Can you give me some type of example to clear this idea up?
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Sep 30, 2006, 06:57 PM   #4  
CaptainForest
Finance & Accounting Expert
CaptainForest is offline
 
CaptainForest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,665
CaptainForest See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainForest See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainForest See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.CaptainForest See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
I agree with your assessment on how economic markets don’t take humanitarian needs into account, but rather efficiency and profits.

If companies were judged on humanitarian needs, would NIKE be doing as well as they are? With their 3rd world shoe operations, NIKE is the only one that quickly comes to mind, but unfortunately so many companies do it.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Sep 30, 2006, 07:57 PM   #5  
Dr D
Senior Member
Dr D is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 687
Dr D See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Dr D See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
A classic example of short term harm would be the demise of the horseshoe manufacturer during the advent of the auto age. Captain Forest's excellent example of Nike, shows that thirld world countries are more able to make tennis shoes at a profit than the US. The loss of jobs in the US tennis shoe business forces displaced workers to seek employment in a more technologicaly advanced sector of the economy, that should benefit societyas a whole. The loss of a lifelong job by a breadwinner can be devastating to that family, but that is the way of life.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Oct 1, 2006, 04:53 AM   #6  
student007
Junior Member
student007 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 67
student007 See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Ohh...I think I get it.
How's this for an example? let's say wal-mart moves into a small town. short-term losses are unemployment resulting from the closing of small nearby businesses. long term benefits are:
- greater tax revenue for gov'ts (can spend on social services)
- need to seek more advanced jobs by the newly unemployed
- leads to greater investment and ultimately consumption
- leads to improved standard of living.

I think I'm in the same general boat as you guys. Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors

Similar Questions
Question Asker Topic Answers Last Post
Best Short Story Sci Fi Markets Starman Science Fiction & Fantasy 2 May 30, 2007 05:43 PM
How can i make the Economic class more fun? ellenlllv Economics 3 May 29, 2006 05:28 PM
product markets tsmith86 Economics 0 Mar 3, 2006 08:40 PM
Digital Art markets. Starman Art 3 Jan 10, 2005 12:19 PM
Investment strategies during economic depressions hararou Investing 0 Sep 10, 2003 11:52 AM




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:57 PM.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.