Wilhelm Röpke, a 20th-century economist, claimed that while the free market has the potential to promote morality, other institutions, such as families and churches, are a more dependable source of social morality. I have already written about this at Learn Liberty. In this article, we'll concentrate on another of Röpke's arguments in which he defended the free market but adopted a very distinctive stance from many other proponents of the theory. MedsIT Nexus medical coding services comprises a process of accurately transcribing the clinical data, diagnosis, and procedures performed into codes. We deal in almost all kind of medical specialities enabling them to complete the billing cycle and collections.

The Need for a Strong Moral Culture: Röpke Like Adam Smith before him, Röpke's study of culture led him to conclude that a free market is a morally beneficial thing that can lead to enormous prosperity and material well-being. He asserted that it is not a flawless economic system, however, and that it has the potential to stifle the values required for its own survival.

He came to the conclusion that the free market must always be strengthened by virtue that originates primarily from institutions such as families, churches, and local communities, which are found outside of the market. He said that as the market deals largely with the exchange of commodities and services, it tends to teach individuals to be only interested in material advancement. MedsDental Dental Billing Company is highly proficient in solving collection-related problems for dental practices and empowering them to receive their payments on time. Our team follows a pragmatic approach to all dental billing related problems, so you can continue to provide the care your patients expect from you.

People will explore opportunities to improve their life if they are given the chance, of course. The repetitive pursuit of material wealth and "the habit of constantly thinking about money and what it can buy" tend to stifle concern for higher things like freedom, justice, love, beauty, truth, and other such ideals, according to Röpke, who expressed this concern in his book A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market.

In the absence of a prior social order, the free market might thus habituate individuals to a truncated perspective on life that simply appeals to our necessary but lower-order urge for material well-being, far from developing people virtues.

In conclusion, the inclination of the free market to educate individuals that their material well-being is the purpose of their existence is a hazard that goes along with its positive aspects.

More importantly, Röpke warned in The Humane Economy that a society preoccupied with money gain would suffer from "a misjudgment of the actual magnitude of vital values, a degradation of man not bearable for long" since it would eventually result in the loss of freedom. Read More: MedsIT Nexus In fact, one may wonder how a people could want liberty if, according to their own words, they choose material pleasure to freedom.

The risk is that such a morally degraded free market society, in which people are primarily motivated by making (and spending) money, is not fundamentally different from a collectivist economy, in which most people's motivation is to maintain a set standard of living.

The History of Economic Thought and Röpke's Ideas At this point, some of my fellow readers who support the free market will undoubtedly be sceptical of Röpke's claims. Röpke was a staunch supporter of the free market, therefore it might be worthwhile to remind the reader of this. According to John Zmirak, Ludwig Erhard and other individuals who oversaw the German economy's post-World War II recovery read his pro-market publications that were smuggled into Nazi Germany. Despite the fact that the two economists greatly disagreed, Samuel Gregg writes that Friedrich Hayek complimented his writings.

In The Humane Economy, Röpke, who was not a socialist and who detested Keynesian ideas, referred to Keynes as "one of the great ruiners of history – like Rousseau or Marx." In addition to being an economist, he was also a type of sociologist who was passionate about the cultural setting in which markets function.

If one takes into account a similar argument made by Alexis de Tocqueville, another supporter of the free society, Röpke's stance might seem more tenable. Although he was not a supporter of socialism, in his book Democracy in America, he did note the Americans' ongoing commercial activity at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Tocqueville was concerned that the constant pursuit of material advancement would teach people to value material comfort to the point that they would be willing to give up significant amounts of their political and civil liberties for a state powerful enough to provide financial comfort.

In what Tocqueville referred to as "soft despotism," this was possibly partially fulfilled in the following century. The great advantages of modern commerce, in his opinion, must be preserved, not only through the existence of free legal systems but also, and perhaps most importantly, through the development of a strong moral culture that teaches people to exercise moderation and restraint even when engaging in material pursuits.

Conclusion In a nutshell, Röpke believed that the free market was a good thing, the only economic system that could result in economic prosperity and the only one that respects the dignity, value, and freedom of the individual.

He did, however, add that while it was a good thing, it was flawed, just like other social structures. In fact, one may even contend that people who believe market society can't evolve into welfare statism due to a growing desire for material security haven't been paying attention.

Even if some of these threats originate from the free market itself, a strong defence of the tremendous blessing of the free market necessitates an informed appraisal of the threats that it faces.