Saturday, December 3, 2011

The Black Hole at the Center of Society: In Praise of Inefficient Markets

I've been finding it difficult to reconcile living in the modern economy with living a moral life.

Just by existing in society, I'm complicit in thousands of acts of waste, greed, and exorbitance.  I live in one of America's original sparse suburbias, with one of the longest commute times in the country.  I buy food from markets that trash hundreds of pounds of edible produce a week.  I work in a building that burns megawatt-hours a year on unused lights and computers.  And I teach my students that this is progress.  These are the things that lacerate my heart with a thousand cuts every day.

My theory about the sweeping popularity of the Occupy movement is that it gives voice to this very same tension in society at large.  It's an opening skirmish between the two fundamentally incompatible moral frameworks that are violently colliding.

The market economy, especially financial markets, are premised on arms-length transactions based purely on the profit motive.  There are minor caveats to this, for example socially responsible investing and conscious consumerism.  But in terms of the financial markets that really drive the economy (currency markets, OTC derivatives, interbank lending), there's simply no room for doing good.  Every financial scholar I've read (see Chapter 6 of Rajan's Fault Lines) and every financial reform that's ever been proposed, has taken as a given that the unmitigated greed of the financial sector cannot be changed.


Wall Street argues that greed is necessary for life as we know it - necessary for economic growth, for global trade, for the jobs and products we all depend on.  The protesters attack Wall Street for violating the moral norms most of us still believe in - honesty, fairness, and respect, to name a few.

The challenge is that both Wall Street and Occupy Wall Street are correct.  Greed is a fundamental part of society as we know it.  Anyone who has ever bought things from a store or worked for a business is a part of the system.  But greed also undermines the very society it enables.

The problem with finance runs much deeper than the crisis, and deeper than any legislation can address.  The problem is that finance is a gaping black hole in society where the normal rules of morality don't apply.


The horizon of unfettered self-interest has lately breached the borders of our personal lives, waging war with our better natures.  All of us now act like bankers when making financial decisions.  Which waffle iron to buy?  The one that's on sale!  How to invest for retirement?  To maximize return!  What is Groupon but a way to turn us all into rapacious arbitrageurs of the cupcake market?

We are Wall Street, and we've started believing not just in self-interest, but self-interest for any reason, at any cost.  The force of absolute self-interest will disfigure any law, institution, or incentive system that seeks to contain it, making me pessimistic that any reform can succeed without individual and fundamental reckoning.

To recover the gravitational balance, the logic of finance must loosen, our devotion to self-interest made less complete.  Not every arbitrage opportunity needs to be taken.  Some dollar bills, muddied and hidden down dark alleys, should be left on the ground.  Let us forgo Groupons and frequent flyer miles, when they cheapen our conscience.  Let our investments earn suboptimal returns, when placed in honest hands.

We'll pay a price for this - it may be the end of the world as we know it - but it will ease the dissonance in our hearts.

Long live inefficient markets.

3 comments:

James said...

Cool post.

All financial markets do is optimize. But we, the people (and our governments), control what they optimize.

I think we're at a crossroad in economic history where technology now affords the ability to pursue both price and preference (for more "righteous" stuff/processes, etc.) more than before.

Whether we're high-frequency traders or OWS protesters, we all live in different cultural bubbles that sway our econo-moral heuristics and biases.

Most people want to do good, but to inject more preference, they'll need awareness, and -- far more importantly -- to see conscious capitalist behaviors as cool and socially acceptable. Most people don't move until the masses do.

In abstraction, I have nothing against going for the cheapest price if that's the only variable. That force drives progress, efficiency, and innovation. Maybe thrift becomes greed when price trumps preference -- assuming preference even makes it into consideration.

The government is also involved in both setting our options through regulating at least the very worst things away and, arguably, influencing our level of individuality and feelings of causality in acting on our beliefs (e.g., Americans give way more to charity than Europeans do individually, but European governments dole out a greater % than the US' does, IIRC), but that's probably another post.

"Absolute self-interest" has a time dimension, too, that people, and therefore markets, struggle with. A person studying for a better future and another taking drugs are both pursuing perceived self-interest, or at least pleasure, but the time variable is baked well into one decision, poorly into another. By the numbers, CEOs and investors alike have minimal incentive to "optimize in" environmental damage that will occur 70 years later, unless either the gov't restricts it or the public just thinks being eco is cool and wants to "pay" for that forward-thinking decision or action now.

Information challenges make it harder still. Buy online for UPS delivery or go to the mall? Depends on your housing density, for one [and if you can stomach the mall, in my case...] Should I save $150 by shopping at Wal-Mart instead of less-efficient local merchants, and then donate that to save lives in a country with an unsustainable birth rate? I don't know.

Changing preferences are causing good momentum, too. McDonald's has improved the quality of life of the chickens it buys. Wal-Mart is trying, only b/c buyers respond to it. SRI is actually becoming huge in the investing world, hard as it is to define.

But with all things economic, we're forever trying to pound our irrational minds into a unfeeling market. Something's got to give, and any variable we don't pound in will be the one the market chooses to "give".

But I agree -- we are Wall Street, so it's good to spread the word.

Anonymous said...

Since capitalist systems are essentially Darwinian for corporations, I can't imagine that a "maladaptive" morality would be able to persist for very long?

What do you think of the idea that people who disagree with the way the system works should act to capture the profits in the system and spend them in positive ways? e.g. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/banking-as-an-ethical-career/


-Justin K.

Anonymous said...

(Possibly better written: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/make-money.html)