TO MARKET OR NO

Adolphus A. Ward on:
TO MARKET OR NO
Trade works only when one has something to trade

Much talk is given to something that has been a fundamental activity in the cultural development of all human beings since, and probably before, the recording of history. In primitive groups raw power was use to force trade. Whoever had the more powerful weapons simply took what benefited them: to the victor went the spoils. There was some giving in all this mayhem but that giving usually ensured some greater return. Over time powerful groups devised a way to mask their barbarism by declaring war. War had a civilized appeal to it—it could be fought in the name of country, honor, and even God. Wars gave groups a certain defensible respectability to theft. Further along in history strong groups began to encounter other strong groups so war became more of a risk. It was soon apparent that one could lose and even have their stuff taken; in addition to the slaughter of citizens actually involved in the fighting, women and children could be open to horrific abuse. Moreover with the treat of being beaten in war an aggressor group ran the risk of having a stubborn victim destroy its valuables rather than have a victor benefit from the spoils. There is a certain irony in the civilized course groups take when faced with an actual or perceived threat to their own well being. Although force is never off the table as a means, most thinking groups tend now to arrive at consensus through the exchange of ideas and the stuff of value. Put another way, thinking groups tend now to arrive at consensus through the trading of ideas and stuff of value. In order to trade one must have stuff of value. What good would it do to go to market without having something to trade; to trade one must have stuff of value.

I remember a time when mother bought the family's produce from the farmers market a block down an alleyway from where we lived in the city of Milwaukee. Farmers, with their horse drawn wagons, would caravan to the marketplace with the sun and be ready for the traders when they arrived. Mother bought produce in bulk—canning allowed our family to have produce in the off season. Dad had rebuilt an old coaster wagon mainly to be used for transporting the valuable stuff mother traded her valuable dollars for. The marketplace was rimmed on three sides by living places, saloons, restaurants and brothels, all within the sound of several churches. Even with my young age and prying eyes I could see there was more than produce and money being traded here. The place was alive with the excitement that only face to face trading can give. This marketplace was buzzing with activity because each trader had something of value to exchange—trade—for something of value. The difference in the value of what was being traded was almost always in contention. Both traders had the often formidable task of having the other agree with a certain value. Each wanted to walk away having gained more value than they came with. Of course this market was much simpler than the global marketplace of today; but the basic principles still apply—something of value for something of value. There was and still is an unwritten code for a trader to leave a trade with more value than they traded.

Now look at this notion of value from an individual perspective. If one is to trade for something of value one must also have something of value to trade. Here's where things get tricky. What has value today may not have that same value tomorrow. What had value yesterday might not have any value today or tomorrow. Further, what one person sees as having value another might not hold that same view. So now, as in times passed, traders come to the marketplace determined to leave with a lot more value than they brought to trade. As in any game of chance one can't get in the game without having at least the required table stake. It follows then, if one is going to the marketplace expecting to get something of value they must have something of value to offer in trade.

At the top of the illustration on the left the HIGH WEALTH individual owns factories, equipment, and has the capability to invest in the training and hiring of labor. Clearly this individual is welcome in the marketplace. The MODERATE WEALTH individual, in the middle, has professional and technical skills and is able to invest in business enterprise. This individual is also welcome in the marketplace. The LOW WEALTH individual at the bottom may have had tradable skills in the pass but now has been relegated to low skill service work which the local as well as the global marketplace has more than enough of. There is of course human value but no value which can now be traded in today's marketplace.

In this country alone the group of individuals at the bottom is huge and growing. When one considers this group on a global scale the number is staggering; more than one can count without taking a breath—again, that number is growing. Clearly something has to happen in the way business is conducted in the local and global marketplace that will ensure LOW WEALTH individuals a way to participate in the activity and benefits of the marketplace. A clue as to what that something could be is the fact that LOW WEALTH individuals have and will continue to contribute to the overall productivity of this great nation. Their contribution takes form in coerced and voluntary labor, taxes, rent, interest on credit and contribution to the public good, e.g., military and civilian service, and voluntarism. That contribution has and will continue to have value. Presently that value is absorbed in benefits flowing to the two top groups. Some of that benefit ought to flow to the bottom group: they've earned it.

Adolphus A. Ward
Copyright October 2009