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 soc

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.