4 ms·
We should be worried about Keynesianism and Crony Capitalism. A free and fair market is not bad per se... Too bad we don't have that kind of market anymore.
by joeyspn 11y ago
We should be worried about Keynesianism and Crony Capitalism. A free and fair market is not bad per se... Too bad we don't have that kind of market anymore.
- sethd 11y agoDid we ever actually have that kind of market? Perhaps what we should say is "too bad we haven't tried this kind of market yet".
- amalcon 11y agoToo bad that kind of market is, as far as we can tell, impossible.
- hwstar 11y agoWe should be worried about Supply Side (Chicago) economics and Crony Capitalism.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- fwn 11y agoI never understood how inverting a statement and adding the "fixed that for you" meme is adding any value to other readers.
- dang 11y ago> There. Fixed that for you. Please don't do this here.
- hwstar 11y agoRemoved. Sorry. I should have known better.
- dang 11y agoNot to worry. We're all figuring this stuff out together.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoQuestion out of curiosity - do you read all the HN threads and spot things like this, or do you have a script that finds the most common transgressions? ("I refuse to comment" is also a valid answer.)
- dang 11y agoIt's a combination of reading the threads, reviewing user flags, and software.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- loup-vaillant 11y ago> A free and fair market is not bad per se… Such a market is not obvious to set up. Take the internet for instance. There are several ways to get a free markets, some of which lead to healthy competition between many many providers, and some of which lead to near-monopoly. Basically, it all starts at the handling of the last mile. There are many last miles to cover, and it doesn't make technical sense to duplicate them. So, one solution is have the state build the lines, then lease them to providers at regulated rates that allow small providers (10-100 subscribers) to use them at rates no worse than the big boys. That solution tends to lead to the "free and fair" market you seek. Another solution would be to minimise state intervention (because "free market"), and thus let providers build their own last miles —and lease them if they want to. The result? A local monopoly at worst, and an oligopoly at best. Free markets require a proper set-up. That means prior intervention —by the state if need be.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago"Free market" is a really complex idea and as such I think it requires dynamic maintenance, not just a good set up (compare: open and closed systems in control theory). So in this case, solution #2, so it happened that because of people shouting "free market!" we have last-mile lines owned by companies and a bad oligopoly has appeared. The solution should be to adjust - the government should come and say, "thank you for all your service, but the balance of force needs to be restored", take over the line and put everyone in order. Yes, there are (recursive) problems with that particular solution, but still, if we want to implement a perfect theoretical "free market", we need to embrace the constant adjustments that are required to keep it.
- lkjhgfd 11y ago>Another solution would be to minimise state intervention (because "free market"), and thus let providers build their own last miles —and lease them if they want to. The result? A local monopoly at worst, and an oligopoly at best. Is there actually any evidence of this? Here in the US, we often have on cable company providing cable internet, plus another company offering DSL (high speed land phone line) internet, several offering cell mobile internet (4G & HSPA+), plus satellite internet (not great, but it's there).