4 ms·

It's still 100% free market.

by Navarr 11y ago

iaw 11y ago
There's a lot of crappy things that are 100% free market. Oligopolies come to mind. Just because it's a free market solution doesn't mitigate the negative experiences this person created for the other bidders.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Well the problem is self correcting. People will stop giving quality bids if they don't think that there is any profit to be made because a bunch of volunteers have destroyed the market. There is no problem here. Only that anyone bidding should be aware that they won't get properly compensated for their work and time.
  - giaour 11y ago
    Too bad we're all supposed to benefit from what this market produces. Having worked in a government agency before, I guess I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a needed project would be delayed indefinitely while we waited for market dynamics to correct themselves.
  - zardo 11y ago
    How is the market being destroyed correcting the problem? If people can't be compensated and work doesn't get done, the market is a failure.
    - iaw 11y ago
      The market isn't destroyed, it's just driven to zero. You can't force market participants to behave in the fashion you want. The market being driven to zero is one solution for the market, it optimizes for the people selling services and the people buying them, it just doesn't optimize for the profitability of those trying to make money off of selling their services.
  - iaw 11y ago
    Yep. Fully agreed. I think it sucks for the other participants because it wasn't the "intent" of the market. At the end of the day the market is going to yield a solution, intent doesn't matter.
- jerf 11y ago
  Just because someone said "free market" doesn't mean you are obligated to recite the generic Litany Against Free Markets. The specific point here is that in a free market you are welcome to decide to volunteer to do something. Nothing about "free markets" prevents it. If you judge yourself to receive more utility from volunteering, then go ahead and do it. No central organization will stop you. The idea that free markets "obligates greed", in a particular cartoon-villain sense of greed, is propaganda, not what the theory actually says. (Now, we can have a very profitable discussion about whether and where it enables greed, or perhaps structurally encourages it, and some interesting conversations on whether "encourages greed" is even necessarily always bad. But there is no way in which one is obligated to greed, such that you are somehow betraying some sort of ideal if you decide for your own reasons to act altruistically.) I'm sort of amused at the number of people getting peeved about this. This person is volunteering to work for nearly-free for government civil service... if you are anti-capitalism or anti-free market and think people should be doing more for and with government... isn't that exactly what this is? Are we really going to try to spin "someone volunteered to help the government with something" into "free markets are evil"? It seems to get rather into the "doth protest too much, methinks" domain.
  - iaw 11y ago
    This individual didn't volunteer to help the government. He undercut all competition in a competitive bidding process because his costs are $0 for the project. This is one of the known failures of free markets, regardless of the actors intent the effect of his behavior is negative for those trying to participate in the market as a means of sustenance. I'm not mad at the guy, he can do whatever he wants. It's just kind of a crappy thing to do knowingly to other people and, if widespread, could have some strange externalities.
    - jerf 11y ago
      Yes... a project for government. Are we really going to play the "privilege" card for someone volunteering for civic service? Yes... he has the wherewithal to do the work for free, and instead of lounging around or buying an XBox, he provided free government work. If that's "privilege" wouldn't you like to see more of it? There's no shortage of work, and no realistic chance that the government is going to be able to get all of its software tasks done via donations, so worrying about what happens if everybody or even a lot of people do this is really looking the gift horse in the mouth.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Even if the winning bid had been $3000, it wouldn't have changed the situation for everyone who lost the bid. By bidding $1, he only caused one person to lose the bid, which is whomever bid second lowest.
  - iaw 11y ago
    I understand where you're coming from but I disagree. Ignoring the emotional impact on the losing bidders I think that reducing the net payout of the market has a negative effect on all market participants. If he won at a bid based on cost it would have kept the market at a price level comparable for all participants. He won the bid by ignoring all cost which has the effect of lowering the entire marketplace by pushing prices down.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      He only pushed prices down compared to what the potential second lowest bidder would've bid. If the second lowest bidder was $1 (or even sometime withing a few dozen dollars of that), then there is basically no effect by his decision.

It's still 100% free market.

by Navarr 11y ago

It's still 100% free market.

iaw 11y ago

There's a lot of crappy things that are 100% free market. Oligopolies come to mind. Just because it's a free market solution doesn't mitigate the negative experiences this person created for the other bidders.

x5n1 11y ago
Well the problem is self correcting. People will stop giving quality bids if they don't think that there is any profit to be made because a bunch of volunteers have destroyed the market. There is no problem here. Only that anyone bidding should be aware that they won't get properly compensated for their work and time.
- giaour 11y ago
  Too bad we're all supposed to benefit from what this market produces. Having worked in a government agency before, I guess I wouldn't be surprised to hear that a needed project would be delayed indefinitely while we waited for market dynamics to correct themselves.
- zardo 11y ago
  How is the market being destroyed correcting the problem? If people can't be compensated and work doesn't get done, the market is a failure.
  - iaw 11y ago
    The market isn't destroyed, it's just driven to zero. You can't force market participants to behave in the fashion you want. The market being driven to zero is one solution for the market, it optimizes for the people selling services and the people buying them, it just doesn't optimize for the profitability of those trying to make money off of selling their services.
- iaw 11y ago
  Yep. Fully agreed. I think it sucks for the other participants because it wasn't the "intent" of the market. At the end of the day the market is going to yield a solution, intent doesn't matter.
jerf 11y ago
Just because someone said "free market" doesn't mean you are obligated to recite the generic Litany Against Free Markets. The specific point here is that in a free market you are welcome to decide to volunteer to do something. Nothing about "free markets" prevents it. If you judge yourself to receive more utility from volunteering, then go ahead and do it. No central organization will stop you. The idea that free markets "obligates greed", in a particular cartoon-villain sense of greed, is propaganda, not what the theory actually says. (Now, we can have a very profitable discussion about whether and where it enables greed, or perhaps structurally encourages it, and some interesting conversations on whether "encourages greed" is even necessarily always bad. But there is no way in which one is obligated to greed, such that you are somehow betraying some sort of ideal if you decide for your own reasons to act altruistically.) I'm sort of amused at the number of people getting peeved about this. This person is volunteering to work for nearly-free for government civil service... if you are anti-capitalism or anti-free market and think people should be doing more for and with government... isn't that exactly what this is? Are we really going to try to spin "someone volunteered to help the government with something" into "free markets are evil"? It seems to get rather into the "doth protest too much, methinks" domain.
- iaw 11y ago
  This individual didn't volunteer to help the government. He undercut all competition in a competitive bidding process because his costs are $0 for the project. This is one of the known failures of free markets, regardless of the actors intent the effect of his behavior is negative for those trying to participate in the market as a means of sustenance. I'm not mad at the guy, he can do whatever he wants. It's just kind of a crappy thing to do knowingly to other people and, if widespread, could have some strange externalities.
  - jerf 11y ago
    Yes... a project for government. Are we really going to play the "privilege" card for someone volunteering for civic service? Yes... he has the wherewithal to do the work for free, and instead of lounging around or buying an XBox, he provided free government work. If that's "privilege" wouldn't you like to see more of it? There's no shortage of work, and no realistic chance that the government is going to be able to get all of its software tasks done via donations, so worrying about what happens if everybody or even a lot of people do this is really looking the gift horse in the mouth.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Even if the winning bid had been $3000, it wouldn't have changed the situation for everyone who lost the bid. By bidding $1, he only caused one person to lose the bid, which is whomever bid second lowest.
- iaw 11y ago
  I understand where you're coming from but I disagree. Ignoring the emotional impact on the losing bidders I think that reducing the net payout of the market has a negative effect on all market participants. If he won at a bid based on cost it would have kept the market at a price level comparable for all participants. He won the bid by ignoring all cost which has the effect of lowering the entire marketplace by pushing prices down.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    He only pushed prices down compared to what the potential second lowest bidder would've bid. If the second lowest bidder was $1 (or even sometime withing a few dozen dollars of that), then there is basically no effect by his decision.