Julhelgen är som gjord för oss att tänka på de större sammanhangen i livet. En sådan möjlighet gavs i artikeln “The Church of Economism and Its Discontents” av Richard Norgaard där han skriver om vårt vardagsevangelium (ekonomismen) och hur det förhåller sig mellan helheten och delarna i ett ekonomiskt system:

It is easiest to think of systems as being made up of parts that are entirely independent of each other or the nature of the system as a whole: the whole is then simply the sum of the parts…..How fragile are the assumptions behind market economics? Consider the logic offered to support the intrinsic value of exchange:

* If two parties agree to enter into an exchange, both are fully informed, and the exchange is truly voluntary, then the exchange makes both of them better off.
* Therefore, government should not interfere with such exchanges, unless there are significant impacts on third parties.

When we are taught that this logic proves that markets support individual choice and thus should not be interfered with except under unusual conditions, we are being asked to assume that being fully informed is common and third-party impacts are rare. The divisibility of societies into individuals and nature into property has, for economists and increasingly for society as a whole, become a default assumption that merits no mention. These provisos, however, are rarely met: social and natural systems cannot be divided into separate parts, and few parties are ever sufficiently informed.

En mindre tänkare på området skrev nyligen något liknande men mindre sofistikerat (http://fourfact.se/images/uploads/ECEEE2015Nilsson.pdf). 

I båda fallen finns det dock anledning att ifrågasätta om vi i våra vardagsgärningar kommer på rätt spår när vi bara “antar”, mot vårt bättre vetande, att marknaden fungerar utan problem?!