3 ms·

Firms do not operate independent of the social institutions, norms, and beliefs which surround them. This includes the producers and the consumers. Trying to di

Firms do not operate independent of the social institutions, norms, and beliefs which surround them. This includes the producers and the consumers. Trying to divorce markets from society is like trying to separate a fish from water and still expect it to survive (even fish with lungs still need moisture). And as proof of my point look at every venture that tried to run counter to social norms like private busing firms in the 1930s which tried to fight back against Jim Crow laws. They were promptly outlawed or bought out by those friendly to racist ideologies. Similarly, movable type printing presses were closely regulated when Catholicism was the only lawful faith in the HRE. Get caught without your license even in a liberal free city in the HRE expect your press ceased and yourself in a prison or worse. Social norms and institutions always shape fashion not the other way round.

dlss 10y ago
Every example you've listed has to do with subverting the free market though legislation. You didn't list other subversive forces on the market, but there's also a pseudo-regulation through non-governmental force (death threats, other threats), and boycotting / consumer groups (large groups of consumers form a sort of monopsony, refusing to purchase from corporations without a given policy). If any of these three hold in the case of the market for women's pants pocket size, please let me know. In that case I would agree there is sexism in that market, and sign petitions etc to stop the market subversion. Examples of evidence: * A law on the books requiring ladies pants pockets to be under a certain size. (If such a law does exist, I've just verified Amazon is violating it btw) * A police report that (for example) a Macy's executive has been threatened over the pocket size of the pants they stocked at a store. * The website of a large consumer group, officially boycotting a retailer due to their women's pants pocket policy. If such evidence doesn't exist, then you should strongly consider the null hypothesis: that the overwhelming force governing the size of women's pants pockets is Adam Smith's invisible hand. This is the default assumption when looking at markets because covert coercion on such a vast scale (literally all retailers) would require considerable organizational effort, and would consume considerable cost to maintain. We're talking government scale action, sustained over hundreds of years (see OP's story), with no leaks. All to keep pocket sizes small. That's simply not plausible. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen in those cases you mention above -- which is to say I think you could provide such evidence as I'm requesting for your examples -- I'm saying you can't do that here because OP's theory is a conspiracy theory.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  None of what you've stated is true for the following reasons. 1. Markets are not value free as people compose markets. Thus their personal values and those social values which they subscribe to are part of their reasoning about the market regardless of how they try to assert rationality as their primary motivator for their actions in the market. 2. Legal norms which I mentioned are PREDICATED on SOCIAL NORMS. Jim Crow didn't happen before some mean senators wanted it. It happened because the majority of former slave owners were part of the voting population. And they were able to convince many non-slave-owning Southerners that Jim Crow was a swell idea (see the history of the drug war for details on this, it's quite interesting). 3. Social norms don't just change because legal norms change. Even though in the United States redlining is illegal in many cases it's still in effect despite best efforts of legislators, lawyers, and even private organizations. So no amount of market action will ever erase those norms unless the environmental impact of those norms make it impossible for a significant portion of the market to operate without subsidy. In short, you're confusing the issue as much as the person I was criticizing. Both of you expect people to act like homo economicus and that markets can overturn social norms just because. Also, Adam Smith didn't believe that social norms didn't affect markets otherwise why did he write Wealth of Nations as a criticism of Mercentalism which was a system of social and legal norms of his time? I think you really need to analyze my comments and come back with a better criticism that actually can apply to my points.

dlss 10y ago

Every example you've listed has to do with subverting the free market though legislation. You didn't list other subversive forces on the market, but there's also a pseudo-regulation through non-governmental force (death threats, other threats), and boycotting / consumer groups (large groups of consumers form a sort of monopsony, refusing to purchase from corporations without a given policy). If any of these three hold in the case of the market for women's pants pocket size, please let me know. In that case I would agree there is sexism in that market, and sign petitions etc to stop the market subversion. Examples of evidence: * A law on the books requiring ladies pants pockets to be under a certain size. (If such a law does exist, I've just verified Amazon is violating it btw) * A police report that (for example) a Macy's executive has been threatened over the pocket size of the pants they stocked at a store. * The website of a large consumer group, officially boycotting a retailer due to their women's pants pocket policy. If such evidence doesn't exist, then you should strongly consider the null hypothesis: that the overwhelming force governing the size of women's pants pockets is Adam Smith's invisible hand. This is the default assumption when looking at markets because covert coercion on such a vast scale (literally all retailers) would require considerable organizational effort, and would consume considerable cost to maintain. We're talking government scale action, sustained over hundreds of years (see OP's story), with no leaks. All to keep pocket sizes small. That's simply not plausible. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen in those cases you mention above -- which is to say I think you could provide such evidence as I'm requesting for your examples -- I'm saying you can't do that here because OP's theory is a conspiracy theory.

norea-armozel 10y ago
None of what you've stated is true for the following reasons. 1. Markets are not value free as people compose markets. Thus their personal values and those social values which they subscribe to are part of their reasoning about the market regardless of how they try to assert rationality as their primary motivator for their actions in the market. 2. Legal norms which I mentioned are PREDICATED on SOCIAL NORMS. Jim Crow didn't happen before some mean senators wanted it. It happened because the majority of former slave owners were part of the voting population. And they were able to convince many non-slave-owning Southerners that Jim Crow was a swell idea (see the history of the drug war for details on this, it's quite interesting). 3. Social norms don't just change because legal norms change. Even though in the United States redlining is illegal in many cases it's still in effect despite best efforts of legislators, lawyers, and even private organizations. So no amount of market action will ever erase those norms unless the environmental impact of those norms make it impossible for a significant portion of the market to operate without subsidy. In short, you're confusing the issue as much as the person I was criticizing. Both of you expect people to act like homo economicus and that markets can overturn social norms just because. Also, Adam Smith didn't believe that social norms didn't affect markets otherwise why did he write Wealth of Nations as a criticism of Mercentalism which was a system of social and legal norms of his time? I think you really need to analyze my comments and come back with a better criticism that actually can apply to my points.