The market society also has a close reference to the term “commercial society.” Market society overrides a materialized system of trade. The system offers originality and an accessible means of integrating the modern market social thoughts with the aim of changing people’s concepts regarding trade.
The market system arguments trade through modern ideas with a strong basis on social actions, relations, and orders. These ideas focus on a variety of complex marketing ideas in a clear and comprehensive manner as a way of extending marketing in a clear and comprehensive way. Social marketing seeks conservatory of social-economic mainstream as a way of engaging social, political, and cultural theories in a broad manner.
This paper forms an analysis of the emergence of the modern market society by relating it to the historical forms of societies. It gives the major approaches used to achieve the market societies through analysis of the social theories, especially common modern economic theories. In the key arguments, the paper involves the rationality of the market and its relation to the cultures in a modern context.
History indicates that the market society has the view of a system forming a cordial relationship among those involved. However, the harmonization faced challenges such as an accusation of undermining moral foundations. According to the explanations provided by John (2000, 87), market society is a free system that promotes and defends feeble thoughts through liberated division of labor. The effects of markets on society include civilization, obliteration, encumbrance, or even the feeble outcomes.
Market or commercial society is a free means of engaging in competitive trade with the aim of gaining the best possible satisfaction on personal needs and ensuring efficient resource allocation. People address themselves through personal love as opposed to humanitarian efforts for others and thus the reason why every trader wishes to be involved in a profit-making business. As written by Smith, in the article “Wealth of the Nation,” nobody should expect free ethical measured awarded to them by others but should depend on their self-interests and love. (Smith, 1994, 15) Evidently, the individual hunger for profits often faces challenges by other individuals on a similar drive, thus making those involved to work together.
Punctuality and decency usually accompany any form of commerce introduced in a country. Today the world of business is full of capitalists who understand that the nation can have an unfavorable balance of trade and still achieve an economic gain. Unlike the Mercantilism style of commerce, capitalism encourages many people to involve in trade for a better and more productive nation. John illustrates this motivation of balance of trade in his writing of “The Rise of Political Economy and the Market.” (2000, 90)
The Mercantilists had an obsession in keeping the variable capital in surplus as a way of managing a favorable trade balance. This ancient method of trade has an implication of time wastage and a drain of economic growth. (John, 2000, 90)
The social markets not only produce a harmonized economy that satisfies the desires of all involved individuals but also provides an enhanced social harmony. The social markets encourage personal virtues besides the desirable public quality. Such markets nurture personal virtues such as integrity, enterprise, responsibility, and modesty. The market society presents the notion that civilization calls for trade. (Watson 2006, 45)
How Market Society differs from previous forms of society
Money is a useful means of exchange whereby its origin meant an overcome over labor involved in the barter trade system. It allowed people to have a better and quicker flow of goods. Money is a worthy cost for society because of the helps to drive the economy but lacks wealth. Labour is a better measure of price than money. The capitalists indicate that one is able to know how much something is worth assessing the labor involved. (John, 2000, 91)
Capitalism is a system of measuring market and social societies by performing the measure of productivity as the labor capacity provides. To maximize the productive capacity of a nation, more surpluses are only achievable if the labor costs decrease. The Mercantilists translated the theory of production in a very different way. Since the cost of labor ought to be subsidized, people in the nineteenth-century sort ways of keeping wages as low as possible.
The “market society” is a free sensitive instrument that provides chances for a free flow of capital to where it is required. The market responds naturally to their needs. Unlike capitalism, the merchants were pointing to situations that indicated market strategies, which caused restriction to the flow of capital. Evidently, such a market is the main source of inflation, causing bankruptcy. Today commerce and industry are an eminent part of governmental/national economy growth. Most of the modern ideas regarding economic growth emerge from mercantilism but faces a more expanded view or the industrial revolution. As indicated in John’s writing (2000, 92), the noble business ideas of expanding market societies emerge from mercantilism, whereby there is the inclusion of the manufacturing styles that allows free will and choice.
The free-market societies expanded further in the nineteenth century when the economics included the issue of supply and demand, but they had a similar problem like earlier financial experts who suggested increased production as a way of availing cheaper products to the society. For instance, this failure is evident if consideration is made over the “medieval and mercantilist world order in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.” (John, 2000, 82) Although smith advocated for supply and demand without restrictions or tolling to ensure economic growth, the balance of the free market failed to balance the demand and supply.
France has vast regions with different rules for governance and traditions. It is often to note a surplus of grain in one region while the other suffers from famine. The balance is not a reality at all. The free flow suggested met obstacles because it met a basis of traditions, interests, and commands rather than free operations. The government wanted to control the supplies while the landowners wished for better pricing, which caused them to protect or restrict transfer. The idea lacked market economic thought. (John, 2000, 85)
In line with John’s writing, “The balance of trade is what measures that separate the winners from the losers. National weakness is defined as spending more on your neighbor’s goods than they spend on yours”. (John, 2000, 90) The simplicity and elegance revolving these suggestions triggered more experts’ views. The twentieth-century economists had their view over the same aspect. (John, 2000, 92) The flapless of demand is a hot affliction among these experts who believe in the simulation of demand in a method that causes the supply to flow. Although “the Wealth of Nations” shows that Smith had the right idea with regard to supply and demand, he advocated for a free flow of both entities without intervening in the market. His foundation had a view mainly reflecting upon the competitiveness of the market to advocate for the balance between supply and demand.
On the other hand, the economics of the twentieth century advocated for simulation of demand in command of supply. The mercantilists never believed in free-market mercantilism. There were monopolies to lobby for the leaders in favor of their organized regulations. The feudalism is evident in the French nation build-up process where some limited companies had an offer from the monarchies to monopolize trade and production at their own jurisdiction. Other eighteenth-century monopolies included the “town governments and trade guilds with cartels for controlling the laboring and supply of goods.” (John, 2000, 92) Their governance was a monopolistic condemned because of the individualistic controls and sabotage of the law governing supply and demand.
Unlike the current democratic governance over trade, the monopolies inflate the prices artificially, thus preventing proper circulation of resources. It is a system that is still evident in some states, especially in developing countries where there are few wealthy men and millions of poor people. The wealthy get richer at the expense of the nation’s economy. They have a lot of power for governance, thus the ability to move the economic growth negatively to ultimate catastrophic death.
Concerns over the rise of market society
There were evident misunderstandings on the dynamics of capitalism among most economies, thus the different versions or sides of the stories. The main problem was his assumptions or ignorance over the ever-expanding markets.
Other concerns of the free market have been overexploitation. Free market is progressive within the national economy. It enables trade over countries, thus promoting international capitalization and, consequently, the global economy. Some economists have raised issues concerning capitalists who buy cheaply and sell in an exploitive approach to other weak world markets due to their financial strength. The matter of international competition, which requires proper orientation and monitoring, failed to address various human merchants thinking and Smith’s conniving theory over free trade. (John, 2000, 98)
Some countries, such as Canada, have experienced concerns over leadership styles in support of entrepreneurship and competition. The abundance of resources and human needs may work to the advantage of capitalism.
The free-market perspective by Smith advocated for a provision of fixed capital as well as circulating capital for industrialization, but his presented market system only articulates for circulation capital. This was on the assumption that the fixed capital would emerge once the businesses picked up. This was not the case because the system was the only advantage and completely effective for businesses with large capital investments at the initial stages.
Although providing some good opportunity for employment and advanced living standards, in some countries such as Canada, urgent circulation capital such as the bankers required importation from other countries such as the U.K. This was a high-risk loan because the basis reflected the higher dividends and well-defined risks. The delays over industrialization are due to some of the capital factors, in which case the requirements called for more long-term investments such as the situation in Canada.
Today, the free markets have risen steadily in proper support for competition due to the great advancement promoting electronic commerce, thus the low chances of economic collapse. Stronger global villages mean better and stronger bonds among global capitalist and lower need for priced labor forces.
John Dwyer, (2000) “Business History: Canada in the Global Community”, Second Edition, Captus Press, pp. 77-103.
Smith A. ‘(1994). “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”. New York: Modern Library.
Watson, M. (2006) “Civilizing Market Standards and the Moral Self”. Pp45-59 in Bowden B, Seabrooke L. (eds.) Global Standards of Market Civilization. London: Routledge (RIPE).