3 ms·

Saying the rise of ad blocking is a manifestation of the invisible hand doing its thing is like saying the rise of socialism or even looting is a manifestation

Saying the rise of ad blocking is a manifestation of the invisible hand doing its thing is like saying the rise of socialism or even looting is a manifestation of the invisible hand in response to rising inequality. See what I mean? So yes, if you define "invisible hand" in the broad way that you do, then as long as we have democracy, all social and political developments are invisible hand actions. I'm fine with that definition but libertarians and free-market worshipers would categorically reject that definition. They specifically mean the invisible hand of the market, i.e. of buying and selling decisions[1]. Not end-runs around the market such as voting for wealth redistribution, looting, ad blocking, or charging consumers for product A by "taxing" product B (which is what funding product A via advertising for product B is). ¡Viva la Revolución! (I'm serious.) - [1] http://www.factmonster.com/cig/economics/equilibrium-mr-demand-meet-mr-supply.html http://www.factmonster.com/cig/economics/equilibrium-mr-dema...

krrrh 10y ago
I'm only am amateur in economics, but I've read my share of Friedman, Rand, and Hayek, and I am pretty sure that pro-market thinkers, and economists in general, have a broader conception of the phrase 'invisible hand' than you think. They would understand the rise of ad-blocking as a rejection of a business model by large numbers of individuals. Thus, an 'invisible hand' is guiding businessmen like the author to look for opportunities that will lead to the survival or success of his own business (the same goes for the other examples I referenced) and in the end provide marginally less of what consumers don't want, and more of what they do. Consumers are signalling a preference to publications by choosing to not download some javascript, images, or video to their computers. It's really not that different from putting a 'no junk mail' sticker on your postbox or binning flyers without looking at them, but still enjoying cheaper postage so long as the postal service is subsidized by ad-mail. Hardly an end run around the market or an illegal act. The concept merely states that people like the author have a motivation to pay attention to what consumers want and try to deliver products that satisfy consumer desires (which are always changing). When Apple sees an opportunity to make their products more attractive to consumers by introducing an ad-blocking API they are absolutely led by the invisible hand of the market in this direction. Smith's point was that providing this option to consumers doesn't require Apple to be moral, or to be coerced, merely to respond to what consumers want and exploit the opportunity to their own profit.

krrrh 10y ago

I'm only am amateur in economics, but I've read my share of Friedman, Rand, and Hayek, and I am pretty sure that pro-market thinkers, and economists in general, have a broader conception of the phrase 'invisible hand' than you think. They would understand the rise of ad-blocking as a rejection of a business model by large numbers of individuals. Thus, an 'invisible hand' is guiding businessmen like the author to look for opportunities that will lead to the survival or success of his own business (the same goes for the other examples I referenced) and in the end provide marginally less of what consumers don't want, and more of what they do. Consumers are signalling a preference to publications by choosing to not download some javascript, images, or video to their computers. It's really not that different from putting a 'no junk mail' sticker on your postbox or binning flyers without looking at them, but still enjoying cheaper postage so long as the postal service is subsidized by ad-mail. Hardly an end run around the market or an illegal act. The concept merely states that people like the author have a motivation to pay attention to what consumers want and try to deliver products that satisfy consumer desires (which are always changing). When Apple sees an opportunity to make their products more attractive to consumers by introducing an ad-blocking API they are absolutely led by the invisible hand of the market in this direction. Smith's point was that providing this option to consumers doesn't require Apple to be moral, or to be coerced, merely to respond to what consumers want and exploit the opportunity to their own profit.