5 ms·

A market correction is not bad for the market. Think of it like the symptoms of a cold - your body is fighting an infection, so you'll feel unwell for a while,

A market correction is not bad for the market. Think of it like the symptoms of a cold - your body is fighting an infection, so you'll feel unwell for a while, but ultimately you'll be healthier for it. This is one of the many reasons that interfering in an economy to prevent "recessions" is a bad idea. It prolongs the problem and worsens the inevitable side effects.

muninn_ 9y ago
Adjustment is probably a better word to use here - correction implies that the previous state of a naturally fluctuating system was "right".
wpasc 9y ago
Tell that to Larry Page (in regards to having a cold); not trying to be snide, just never been a fan of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" argument
wffurr 9y ago
Yeah except that "feeling unwell" is code for a ton of human misery as people lose jobs, lose healthcare, go broke, some even die. And it's disproportionately the working class that feels the effect of recessions. "Market corrections" might be less of a tragedy if societies like the USA could muster the moral courage to pick up the slack for the market and make people's lives not literally depend on it.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  All a market for is to determine the price of a resource, so that people can choose where to spend their money. Looking after people who can't look after themselves - be it for reasons of market correction, injury or infirmity - is an entirely orthogonal concern. In other words yes, I agree with you - but think that picking up the slack is the job of charity, and shouldn't involve interference with the market just because it's giving you prices you don't like.
  - mcny 9y ago
    > In other words yes, I agree with you - but think that picking up the slack is the job of charity, and shouldn't involve interference with the market just because it's giving you prices you don't like. This is fundamentally the reason I (cynically) cannot trust charities (especially religious charities) long-term. The charity machinery requires people to be poor and miserable. Poor and miserable people are the products a charity sells (to donors)! We are the product. A charity is a band-aid. It cannot be as long-term infrastructure. I agree that we should not prop up failing industries for fear of layoffs. That's just kicking the can down the road. However, I strongly believe a charity has no place in a functioning society.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      I don't understand your position here. If you're opposed to charity but also opposed to market manipulation, how do you propose to support people who can't support themselves? The only alternative is forcing people to do it.
      - wutbrodo 9y ago
        > The only alternative is forcing people to do it. Yes, this is a pretty common position: govt charity funded by taxes is precisely forced charity, which many people are in favor of (myself included).
        duncan_bayne 9y ago
        Forced charity is an oxymoron. What you're talking about is socialism, which is not charity (at least, when practised at a scale above that of a family or voluntary commune).
        wutbrodo 9y ago
        > Forced charity is an oxymoron Yes, I know. I thought my meaning was obvious, but I'll be clearer: "Forcing" people to provide an alternative to charity is simply called "taxation" (to the extent that taxes are spent on things whose benefits are not distributed in proportion to taxation). My point was that I don't understand your claim that you don't follow the GP comment's point, since you're surely aware that taxation and gov't spending are well within the Overton Window.

muninn_ 9y ago

Adjustment is probably a better word to use here - correction implies that the previous state of a naturally fluctuating system was "right".

wpasc 9y ago

Tell that to Larry Page (in regards to having a cold); not trying to be snide, just never been a fan of the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" argument

wffurr 9y ago

Yeah except that "feeling unwell" is code for a ton of human misery as people lose jobs, lose healthcare, go broke, some even die. And it's disproportionately the working class that feels the effect of recessions. "Market corrections" might be less of a tragedy if societies like the USA could muster the moral courage to pick up the slack for the market and make people's lives not literally depend on it.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
All a market for is to determine the price of a resource, so that people can choose where to spend their money. Looking after people who can't look after themselves - be it for reasons of market correction, injury or infirmity - is an entirely orthogonal concern. In other words yes, I agree with you - but think that picking up the slack is the job of charity, and shouldn't involve interference with the market just because it's giving you prices you don't like.
- mcny 9y ago
  > In other words yes, I agree with you - but think that picking up the slack is the job of charity, and shouldn't involve interference with the market just because it's giving you prices you don't like. This is fundamentally the reason I (cynically) cannot trust charities (especially religious charities) long-term. The charity machinery requires people to be poor and miserable. Poor and miserable people are the products a charity sells (to donors)! We are the product. A charity is a band-aid. It cannot be as long-term infrastructure. I agree that we should not prop up failing industries for fear of layoffs. That's just kicking the can down the road. However, I strongly believe a charity has no place in a functioning society.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    I don't understand your position here. If you're opposed to charity but also opposed to market manipulation, how do you propose to support people who can't support themselves? The only alternative is forcing people to do it.
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      > The only alternative is forcing people to do it. Yes, this is a pretty common position: govt charity funded by taxes is precisely forced charity, which many people are in favor of (myself included).
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        Forced charity is an oxymoron. What you're talking about is socialism, which is not charity (at least, when practised at a scale above that of a family or voluntary commune).
        wutbrodo 9y ago
        > Forced charity is an oxymoron Yes, I know. I thought my meaning was obvious, but I'll be clearer: "Forcing" people to provide an alternative to charity is simply called "taxation" (to the extent that taxes are spent on things whose benefits are not distributed in proportion to taxation). My point was that I don't understand your claim that you don't follow the GP comment's point, since you're surely aware that taxation and gov't spending are well within the Overton Window.