4 ms·
> supposedly efficient capitalistic market Unfortunately that's not what we have when dealing with regulations, red tape, unions, and somewhat unaccountable go
by thatswrong0 9y ago
> supposedly efficient capitalistic market
Unfortunately that's not what we have when dealing with regulations, red tape, unions, and somewhat unaccountable government agencies running the show.
- heurist 9y agoI don't think it's fair to call out unions/government without calling out large capital investors as well. We wouldn't have suburbs or massive shopping malls without huge real estate investors pumping money into major developments that exist to drain money out of a market. Large developments are a net drain on local economies and produce far less efficient markets than small incremental developments based on organic demand. There's a point where regulation and large capital investments are interlinked to prevent these markets from correcting, but the capital does plenty of damage on its own.
- rebuilder 9y agoIOW, if competition ensures efficient markets, i.e. low profit margins, then money spent on reducing competition is money well spent.
- closeparen 9y agoSince there is broad societal consensus* that capital should not be permitted to intensify urban environments, it had better build suburbs, or we’ll all be homeless. *with a little bit of scrappy opposition emerging in the last few years.
- wnevets 9y agoI forgot that Europe is known for its lack of regulations, red tape, unions, and somewhat unaccountable government agencies running the show.
- thatswrong0 9y agoMy point was that it's not a "supposedly efficient capitalistic market" that we're dealing with in the U.S. I didn't even mention Europe.
- wnevets 9y agobut the article does and compares the US to it, hence the peers part of the title.
- ajross 9y agoThe whole point of the limited article was a comparison to other developed nations. You can't be surprised when you jump in to "explain" the reason behind the difference to have people point out that it's disproven by the very article we are discussing!
- bsder 9y agoIronically, when things were MORE political, they cost less. Adding all the oversight in order to "prevent" political cronyism just made things worse by increasing the barrier to the small guy being able to compete. (Normally, I'm a big believer in oversight to avoid corruption and graft. However, I have a friend who tried to bring broadband to his little town. Between the open meeting laws, requirements for bid, big telecoms swinging in at the last minute when they couldn't care less until it looked like something might go through, etc.--he'd have received less grief if he just murdered everybody involved and went to prison ...)
- rectang 9y ago>> supposedly efficient capitalistic market > Unfortunately that's not what we have We're stuck because "invisible hand" zealots keep doubling down on deregulation when faced with the phenomenon of market failure, as if they stay willfully ignorant of "market failure" the market will magically start behaving.
- crocal 9y agoThis is a very important and valid point you are making. "Invisible hands" zealots are at the heart of the problem. Unregulated markets can and do screw up. This fact has been demonstrated and accepted by most economists now [1]. Yet, US policy makers (and apparently tax payers) seem stuck on a deregulation rampage [2]. The consequences of this have been predicted by Adam Smith. Some necessary maintenance tasks will not get done, because without regulations, they will have no immediate return on individual wealth [1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/06/18/7-Important-Examples-of-How-Markets-Can-Fail http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/06/18/7-Important... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivering-deregulation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do...