patrick.net

Hmmm. Let me think about this notion. A “market” is somehow a contrived, artificial concoction; markets wouldn’t exist “naturally” except but for all this human greed and consumption. The extension is that in the “pre-market” dawn of human civilization people lived some kind of gentle, noble utopian existence.

The second idea is so preposterous it need not be countered thoughtfully. Archaeological evidence is to the contrary. Early human societies — at least any you might label “pre-markets” — were marked by short, and often intensely violent lifespans. I posit that anyone today prognosticating about the virtues of ancient existences would not survive themselves in such an environment for more than 2 weeks.

I was being tongue-in-cheek, really, but I would contest some of those assertions. Anthropologists find that people in simpler societies try to tend towards reduction of uncertainty and keeping relations fairly stable. I doubt you will find much evidence that Hobbes' savage lead a life that was 'solitary, nasty, brutish and short', e.g. see Sahlins 'The Original Affluent Society'. Later critiques of Hobbes' formulation were that he had simply extrapolated 17th C. man's more individualistic outlook and warfare patterns into the palaeolithic in what amounted to simply a philosophical thought experiment not backed by any real ethnographic research or data.

Recent contemporary examples of these lifestyles could be found in Australia, Polynesia, Micronesia, South America, Africa, and so on. Clearly these peoples had not wiped themselves out, nor did they lead lives which were nasty, brutish and short, although disease processes were more of a problem and inter-tribal warfare is/was always a threat. However, I don't see that things are much different in the West. Modern medicine as a science is almost a 20th C. phenomenon only, and the last century also saw WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq, not to mention the nuclear standoff. A % of the population has always been called to war or enlist, and that % has actually increased in the last century. America is one of the more militaristic of Western countries, and I note it also has a lower average life expectancy than many other comparable countries.

Most of the squabbles in Africa now stem from Western interests in mineral resources 'distorting' the way of life of the local peoples.

Some of the biggest life-threatening wars etc started only with the advent of civilisation, once metal working was discovered, people got organised into bigger and bigger groups, and more complex hierarchical social structures started to form. You then have the rise of kingdoms and empires, where conquest was the order of the day. The justifying discourses of people like Alexander or the Caesars simply wouldn't have occurred to simpler peoples.

The first idea is just a misunderstanding of what a “market” is. Markets exist whenever there are more than one person competing for the same scarce resource. Many primate species exhibit distinct market making behaviors. There are also aspects of market making that occur in organized collective hive insect colonies.

The notion of 'scarcity' can be contested, of course, it's just a word, and a rather odd economic convention. There is in fact an abundance of goods to be found in the environment. After all, we don't seem to want for much.

I think if you want to study the history of markets you really need to look at a timeline of human evolution and cultural organisation, where you will find that man did very little for 100,000 years, then the dawn of civilisaton 10,000 years ago lead to more and more complex interactions between groups. The first thing you would see is the concept of value exchange and inter-village trading of goods -- barter, followed by the creation of local currencies as a more convenient value holder. Pretty recent history, really...

Looking for markets in hives I think is a little contrived. To call animal behaviours a market I think is fitting the data to the theory. I suppose there are plenty of animals who sing, dance, communicate with words and gestures, make tools and clothes, write books and construct 100 storey buildings as well, if we look hard enough. Well, beavers and termites make reasonable structures, there's clearly a connection... Chimps do a bit of drumming sometimes... Anyway, I think it's a stretch to look for complex cognitive human-style behaviours in other species to that extent.

I thought these Hobbesian and neoclassical economic formulations had been adandoned years ago??

Archaeological evidence is to the contrary.

Is it? hmm, I would like to see that evidence...

Sorry to thoughtfully defend those preposterous ideas... :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

The "Original affluent society" is a theory postulating that hunter-gatherers were the original affluent society. This theory was first articulated by Marshall Sahlins at a symposium entitled "Man the Hunter" held in Chicago in 1966. The significance of the theory stems from its role in shifting anthropological thought away from seeing hunter-gatherer societies as primitive, to seeing them as practitioners of a refined mode of subsistence from which much can be learned.

At the time of the symposium new research by anthropologists, such as Richard B. Lee’s work on the !Kung of southern Africa, was challenging popular notions that hunter-gatherer societies were always near the brink of starvation and continuously engaged in a struggle for survival (Barnard, 197). Sahlins gathered the data from these studies and used it to support a comprehensive argument that states that hunter-gatherers did not suffer from deprivation, but instead lived in a society in which "all the people’s wants are easily satisfied" (Sahlins, Man, 85).

cajun,

Thanks for writing and I hope we'll see more of you here in the future. I think you're getting on a very important point that patrick.net's blog crowd usually only touch on, which is the utility function for someone like you (money relatively not a concern, settled) is quite different from the utility function of young people (still have their fortune to make, unsettled, can move easily). Although financially it might make sense for folks like you to move elsewhere, that extra money isn't necessarily worth the hassle and the severing of old friendships.

Still, maybe sell and then go renting in the BA for a couple years could work for you. You might lose a low tax basis (could be important, especially if you're on fixed income or have kids you like to pass the house to) but you could gain a lot more money to spend in the BA and take some money off the table.

SHTF and Harm:

I have already gone before you and came to the same conclustion fall 05. I even took more of a risk I took a temporary assignment to see if I would like the south. I'm in SC it's got it's own kind of charm but like you said lacking alot of the amenities of LA. I think if you can find a job to support the kind of lifestyle you want you'll do fine. I too got tired of the "waiting game". Am I homesick? god yes. I don't think it's the place but more it's your adaptability.

I until my divorce six years ago I was never mobile I see alot of you have traveled and lived in different parts of the US and abroad. My SO and I have decided this will suffice in the short term until a better job situation presents itself for either of us. The good thing about renting is you can pick up takes until you find that perfect fit. I'm still searching for mine. It's cheap to live here for now.

Cajun is right I'm 48 and that california is gone forever. Globalization killed the middle class there as did illegal immigration. Only in my fantasy will it ever become affordable, uncrowded, commuter friendly. I don't know if I'll ever return but I'll always miss my friends and family. Good luck and godspeed.