5 ms·

Your argument in the second paragraph seems to be that arbitrary discrimination, for instance racial discrimination, is economically irrational; discriminatory

Your argument in the second paragraph seems to be that arbitrary discrimination, for instance racial discrimination, is economically irrational; discriminatory companies will be out-competed by non-discriminatory companies. But this ignores the historic reality of racial discrimination, which is that in some areas of the US, at some points in time, a significant number of white people were bigoted, and strongly (for no good reason) disliked black people. If you opened a restaurant that served people of all colors, your white customers would disappear. If your bank made loans to black people who wanted to buy homes in traditionally white neighborhoods, your white depositors would take their business elsewhere. The civil rights laws of the 1960s made it economically feasible for businesses in these regions to stop discriminating; there were no longer any "white only" businesses for white bigots to patronize. If you want to argue that in our more "enlightened" times, such anti-discrimination laws are no longer necessary, that's fine, but you will need to provide a certain amount of proof that things have changed.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
You are missing a very important part of historic reality - pro-discrimination laws. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, we had a lot of local/state level economic regulation designed to prevent a race to the bottom (e.g. whites being forced to compete economically with colored folk) and to prevent greedy businessmen from acting against the public interest.
- my_first_acct 10y ago
  I don't doubt that such laws existed, though I know very little about them. I might surmise that the "public interest" upheld by these laws was based on a rather restrictive definition of "public". But I don't quite understand your point. My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Sometimes legislation is needed to level the playing field and make non-discriminatory businesses economically viable. Does your post relate to that, and I am just missing something? Or are you heading in a different direction?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I think the point is that we don't know if free-market forces are sufficient, because there wasn't a point in which they acted; there was always legislation pushing to one side or the other. Many of the Jim Crow[1] laws were only overturned after the Civil Rights Act, so the market went from mandatory discrimination to prohibition of discrimination without ever having a free phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Your point - or at least the argument you justify it with - doesn't really make any sense. Lets consider a result of the same argument applied somewhere different: "...a significant number of people were environmentalists, and strongly favor clean air. If you opened a factory that polluted or purchased supplies from one, your customers would disappear. If your bank made loans to polluters who wanted to finance new machinery, your depositors would take their business elsewhere." Suddenly your mechanism for enforcing racism seems implausible, right? After all, if it worked, virtually every popular left wing economic regulation would be superfluous.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

You are missing a very important part of historic reality - pro-discrimination laws. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, we had a lot of local/state level economic regulation designed to prevent a race to the bottom (e.g. whites being forced to compete economically with colored folk) and to prevent greedy businessmen from acting against the public interest.

my_first_acct 10y ago
I don't doubt that such laws existed, though I know very little about them. I might surmise that the "public interest" upheld by these laws was based on a rather restrictive definition of "public". But I don't quite understand your point. My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Sometimes legislation is needed to level the playing field and make non-discriminatory businesses economically viable. Does your post relate to that, and I am just missing something? Or are you heading in a different direction?
- icebraining 10y ago
  I think the point is that we don't know if free-market forces are sufficient, because there wasn't a point in which they acted; there was always legislation pushing to one side or the other. Many of the Jim Crow[1] laws were only overturned after the Civil Rights Act, so the market went from mandatory discrimination to prohibition of discrimination without ever having a free phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  My point was that if your goal is to end racial discrimination, free-market forces left to themselves are not sufficient. Your point - or at least the argument you justify it with - doesn't really make any sense. Lets consider a result of the same argument applied somewhere different: "...a significant number of people were environmentalists, and strongly favor clean air. If you opened a factory that polluted or purchased supplies from one, your customers would disappear. If your bank made loans to polluters who wanted to finance new machinery, your depositors would take their business elsewhere." Suddenly your mechanism for enforcing racism seems implausible, right? After all, if it worked, virtually every popular left wing economic regulation would be superfluous.