"Reinventing the Bazaar" by John McMillan Chapter 1

First off, I want to say that so far, I like how McMillan approaches the aspect of the market. It’s only been a chapter, but I already get the sense that I will continue to understand thoroughly just exactly what he means and the points he is trying to make. Now on to answering these questions. Each question raised some interesting points that made me think more about exactly what I was reading, so I hope that my answers make sense.

            As far as what McMillan finds to be defining characteristics, he starts out with the obvious: a market exists when people want to buy and people want to sell. That’s pretty much the simple, most point-blank way to put it. McMillan writes that, “A market exists for something if there are people who want to buy it and people who want to sell it” (McMillan 5). That’s pretty much exactly what I stated before, but it implies that markets can exist for virtually anything, provided there are buyers and there are sellers. As McMillan says though, this is only the start, and it goes much deeper.

            One of the defining features is decision-making. McMillan writes that decision-making autonomy is key, saying, “Participation in the exchange is voluntary; both buyer and seller are able to veto any deal” (McMillan 5). He goes on to say that both the buyer and the seller are not obliged to follow the orders of others, making them the sole factors in deciding on a good or service.

            Continuing on that point, McMillan points out that any deal where someone lacks autonomy is by definition, not an actual market dealing. Another feature is a sort of freedom that comes along with this autonomy and the power to bargain, which as McMillan writes, “…the opportunity to agree to an exchange or to decline it is a kind of freedom. Some choice, even if it is narrow, is usually better than none” (McMillan 6). Some of the other features include competition (which McMillan actually states isn’t an actual feature, but rather simply adds to the autonomy), and he also writes that markets are never ubiquitous. This means that nonmarket activity is very prevalent. Finally, and the last thing I’ll point out, is that McMillan writes, “No one is in charge of a market—or rather, everyone is in charge” (McMillan 7). That is easily my favorite thing about markets, the freedom to where everyone can make their choices.

            I can definitely see both sides of this aspect. On one hand, markets allow for the seller to distort prices if they so choose. Granted, they may lose sales, but for a good or a service that is increasingly rare, it allows the supplier to create more wealth for themselves, and shuts out the people who really need the product and can’t afford it. That’s a bad aspect of markets, but at the same time, it allows for the seller and the buyer to participate in a mutually beneficial agreement when both parties have good intentions. Personally, I’ve tended to lean towards the belief that competition and markets are generally good things. Even for those who may struggle within markets, I think that generally the economy is large enough to allow for other opportunities (this of course, is not a universal thought). I abhor the growing rate of inequality in the United States, and some might say that markets could potentially breed inequality.

            First let me say, I loved this analogy because of my interest in sports, so this made much more sense to me—another reason why I enjoyed this first chapter. Saying that,  I wouldn’t say that there are any particularly more important rules, but I would say that taken all together, the rules constitute something that needs to be respected and kept in mind in order for the market to function properly. One of the things that I would point out as a rule I would view as more important or something that I would like to see more of, is more regulation when dealing with new products. Let’s not forget that the housing market was absolutely ravaged by the mortgage-backed securities, which were hardly regulated. I don’t think that it’s necessary to infringe on big business too much, but definitely some of the newer products need to go through some more inspection.

Why Did Human History Unfold Differently On Different Continents For The Last 13,000 Years? by Jared Diamond

           The first thing that I think needs to be pointed out, is that the article might be better read starting with the body and ending with the introduction. To me, that made the most sense and I feel like had I read like that to start, I would’ve been much better off in my understanding of the article. Saying that, “Why Did Human History Unfold Differently On Different Continents For The Last 13,000 Years?” by Jared Diamond is a very interesting read. One of the initial points he makes, and he emphasizes this when he rephrases his original question, is that maybe human history is unfolding similar across continents, but are doing so at different rates. Especially economically, we can find this to be true! He goes on to describe that this question often remains unanswered because of the racist undertones it takes in answering such a question. He then goes through each and every continent and gives examples and reasoning as to why conquering occurred, and why cultural losses (in the case of those being conquered) occurred. The main focus of why this occurs, technology, leads us to the next question to answer.

            As I just stated, technology is the focus of Diamond’s argument on what society needs to succeed. In all the economics classes I’ve taken, technology has always been an important factor in what an economy can do, so reading this was no surprise whatsoever.

            The three factors pertaining to this technology, according to Diamond, are thus: first he states that technology has to be invented or adopted, meaning that societies have a better chance of invention with a higher population, or the more number of societies that a certain continent may contain. Second, the chances if invention go up substantially when there is connection to the outside world. Lastly, technology has to be maintained. We see it all the time with technology nowadays with constant updates on smart phones and computers, and so on and so forth.

            The way I think that’s it best to think about this article and the implications it has on the global economy is how the continents that tend be more in poverty (sadly) are the same ones who have gone through periods of occupation by a more formidable power. Unfortunately, it seems like there’s a long period of recovery after independence for the country to become more well off economically. This involves virtually all of Africa, South America, and other parts of the world. Consequently, these countries are also the ones struggling to recover from the effects of occupation. However, we can see that some previously poorer countries have begun to really use the ideas presented to become some of the world’s most formidable economies. For example, India was once under control by Great Britain, but today, due to its large population and diversity, has become one of the up and coming economies of the world.