4 ms·

Not the OP, but I think belief in free markets is not arrogant. In a free market, decisions are made on an individual level with actors affected that know their

by bko 10y ago

Not the OP, but I think belief in free markets is not arrogant. In a free market, decisions are made on an individual level with actors affected that know their preferences and needs much better than a central body. I think its more arrogant to suggest that some planning committee would be able to make better decisions for that individual. Of course there are instances where there exists knowledge imbalances and sub-optimal decisions can be made. But the alternative is often no better due to the agency problem of having someone make decisions on your behalf

amelius 10y ago
> In a free market, decisions are made on an individual level with actors affected that know their preferences and needs much better than a central body. The free market is a lot like a mosh pit. Everybody is free to move (in principle), but in the end some may get seriously injured.
- bko 10y ago
  You have to compare that to the alternative. Yes, some people will make less than optimal decisions, but the alternative is not perfect
  - amelius 10y ago
    The alternative is that a regulator puts some safety measures in place, like some fences here and there, and emergency exits. The result may not be perfect, but overall it's a better place to find yourself in.
stymaar 10y ago
> I think its more arrogant to suggest that some planning committee would be able to make better decisions for that individual. Objecting against the free market illusion is not advocating for a planification entity. Free market is a fallacy because there is no such things in the real world. Studying economics with the perspective of free market is like studying mecanics assuming mass-less bodies. It might offer a nice framework (the math becomes really simple) in which most of the problem we face disapear (no inertia, flying cars \o/), but that gives you no help if you want to understand and fix the world we live in. In practice nobody is even really trying to make free market a thing, otherwise you would see politician advocating for bans on price discrimination and investor would stop asking founders what are the barrier that prevents their competitors to get in their market, because both price discrimination and barrier to entries are responsible for «market failures». Is communism/economic planning a good idea ? Of course not. Is free market salvation ? Nope. Hayek had a really good diagnostic of the drawbacks of communism, but he had a totally irrational faith in the free market and this vision is shared by too many people. Unfortunately irrational faith does more harm than good …
aleksei 10y ago
To be clear, I'm not trying to be for or against free markets, and you make valid points regarding the efficacy of relinquishing power to planning committees. However none of that pertains to my earlier comment. I'm simply making the observation that there can never be any ultimate solution, be it for economics, religion, or choice of wallpaper. There will always be edge cases, and there will always exist a better way, for any given definition of better (whether it be maximizing profits, freedom, well-being etc.). To claim otherwise is arrogant at best, and uninformed at worst.

by bko 10y ago

amelius 10y ago

> In a free market, decisions are made on an individual level with actors affected that know their preferences and needs much better than a central body. The free market is a lot like a mosh pit. Everybody is free to move (in principle), but in the end some may get seriously injured.

bko 10y ago
You have to compare that to the alternative. Yes, some people will make less than optimal decisions, but the alternative is not perfect
- amelius 10y ago
  The alternative is that a regulator puts some safety measures in place, like some fences here and there, and emergency exits. The result may not be perfect, but overall it's a better place to find yourself in.

stymaar 10y ago

> I think its more arrogant to suggest that some planning committee would be able to make better decisions for that individual. Objecting against the free market illusion is not advocating for a planification entity. Free market is a fallacy because there is no such things in the real world. Studying economics with the perspective of free market is like studying mecanics assuming mass-less bodies. It might offer a nice framework (the math becomes really simple) in which most of the problem we face disapear (no inertia, flying cars \o/), but that gives you no help if you want to understand and fix the world we live in. In practice nobody is even really trying to make free market a thing, otherwise you would see politician advocating for bans on price discrimination and investor would stop asking founders what are the barrier that prevents their competitors to get in their market, because both price discrimination and barrier to entries are responsible for «market failures». Is communism/economic planning a good idea ? Of course not. Is free market salvation ? Nope. Hayek had a really good diagnostic of the drawbacks of communism, but he had a totally irrational faith in the free market and this vision is shared by too many people. Unfortunately irrational faith does more harm than good …

aleksei 10y ago

To be clear, I'm not trying to be for or against free markets, and you make valid points regarding the efficacy of relinquishing power to planning committees. However none of that pertains to my earlier comment. I'm simply making the observation that there can never be any ultimate solution, be it for economics, religion, or choice of wallpaper. There will always be edge cases, and there will always exist a better way, for any given definition of better (whether it be maximizing profits, freedom, well-being etc.). To claim otherwise is arrogant at best, and uninformed at worst.