3 ms·

It's kind of amusing, because you are somewhat in line with what Bruenig writes, apparently without realizing it. If you think that Bruenig is arguing for pric

It's kind of amusing, because you are somewhat in line with what Bruenig writes, apparently without realizing it. If you think that Bruenig is arguing for price controls without any qualifiers, you read the article wrong. He is arguing for equality, because equality is a necessary precondition if you actually want to get the full benefits of a price system (among other reasons). I have yet to see a convincing counterargument to that point. You may have been misled by the part about the theory of the second best (which is a common point in economics): since the best solution (eliminating inequality) is off the table for political reasons, you have to turn to second-best solutions. Under certain circumstances, that can mean price controls. But yes, the best solution is to eliminate (or at least reduce, as a first step) inequality. For example, taxing the rich and giving to the poor, as you point out yourself (which is where we're back at you agreeing with Bruenig ;-)).

SilasX 11y ago
His article didn't distinguish what conditions would justify price controls instead of subsidies, which is kind of critical, and they still "prove" that the poor would be better off if we just price-controlled all food, "since there's inequality, which makes them value a chance at the allocation a lot more". And I never said (nor was given reason to think that) the best solution is to eliminate inequality, so I don't see how I'm agreeing with that. And I take that seriously because I mine every article for information that would force me to switch to a worldmodel with more explanatory power; this one (like most clumsy attempts to prove the pointlessness of prices) fails at that. Taxing the rich for foodstamps is not eliminating inequality, and is not rightly regarded as a "first step" towards a policy that does; only a tiny fraction of foodstamp advocates want anything like the radical equality required for his model of this problem to apply.

SilasX 11y ago

His article didn't distinguish what conditions would justify price controls instead of subsidies, which is kind of critical, and they still "prove" that the poor would be better off if we just price-controlled all food, "since there's inequality, which makes them value a chance at the allocation a lot more". And I never said (nor was given reason to think that) the best solution is to eliminate inequality, so I don't see how I'm agreeing with that. And I take that seriously because I mine every article for information that would force me to switch to a worldmodel with more explanatory power; this one (like most clumsy attempts to prove the pointlessness of prices) fails at that. Taxing the rich for foodstamps is not eliminating inequality, and is not rightly regarded as a "first step" towards a policy that does; only a tiny fraction of foodstamp advocates want anything like the radical equality required for his model of this problem to apply.