An earner

Was walking at dusk in Reading watching the cow herd settling down for the night on the flood plain when a man scurried around the corner, like a wild eddy of wind scruffling leaves, his head low as a bull ploughing through difficulties, his purpose earnest. He gathers a chain from the ground and pulls his bike around to mount it and cycle past. As he passes he stops with the words "you wanna do an earner?". I have no idea what this means and queried him. He looked solidly at me, the eddy stopped for a second studying me in the darkness. His hair was wild and wind blown, his eyes small but eager, dark as the night; Dickensian. He saw what he needed and the whirlwind started up again, he turned to mount his bike again with the dismissive words, "You don't do earners do you". "What are earners?" I asked again. "Thieving" came back the faded reply from the darkness.

Was fascinated by the world that I was briefly revealed. This Dickensian world of thieves sneaking around after dark still exists, it is not all guns and bank robberies as the movies would make us believe and the people who do it really are a different species of people, not with a grudge against the world, but simply living in a different niche. There was no fear or malice in this man's demeanour this was just what he did. It was also interesting how thieving was understood as they way to make money "an earner". This is such a far cry from Adam Smith and the view that wealth is created by labour... but then I suppose the physical reappropriation of goods from ones property to another creates a lot of wealth. There is the exchange value of stolen goods. The salaries of the crime prevention system, police, judges, the lock smiths etc. There is the insurance industry. There is a lot of money changing hands due to this man's "labour". This highlights how markets are not intelligent. It is crime which is ironically the main lynch pin of the establishment as the reason the establishment most often gives to justify itself is the fear that crime would increase without it... maybe only because the crime that the establishment commits like rent isn't called crime!

Was reading recently that Adam Smith only envisaged his economic system working within a legal system and amongst moral agents. He never saw the markets as creators of morality or I will add rationality. So it seems that the "invisible hand of the markets" is not so invisible at all but is actually the presumed intelligence, morality and rationality of the agents who make up the market. Once there is no sense but personal gain then what is wrong with thieving? it is actually very good for the economy, for people's livelihoods, for GDP and growth!

Adam Smiths argument, as is so often the case, ends with what is presumes - rational agents. The markets are only rational if the people who make them up are rational. The market doesn't actually do anything - it is another modern smoke screen to avoid the truth! Good people make good economies and bad people make bad economies - it's as simple as that. It is not the economy itself which makes any difference. Well that is my conjecture here. So why has UK done so well and Argentina for example done so badly? Can it really be down to the people, the customs and culture? Shall consider.