2 ms·

>you can only externalize the costs onto other people. For a marketeer this seems quite a lot like zero-sum thinking. Besides you absolutely can escape the ma

>you can only externalize the costs onto other people. For a marketeer this seems quite a lot like zero-sum thinking. Besides you absolutely can escape the market. Not everything has to be a market, for example healthcare can be provided using market or non-market logic. You can also shrink the impact of markets, for example look at this [1] example of food-banks run using a market-ish system. They removed the parts of the market that they didn't want ie. everyone starts from a level playing field and cash is distributed regularly based on need but then they kept the price discovery system. We have this same power over markets, we can just get rid of the parts we don't want through laws. In homeownership we want to get rid of most of the frictions of the market that rub up against long-time asset holders. In investment securities we don't mind a structure that compels people to sell to produce market liquidity because most people don't have an attachment to their shares of $VTI. In home ownership people have as strong an attachment as you can have to a physical commodity so we don't want a structure which compels people to sell. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/11/22/565736836/episode-665-the-free-food-market https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/11/22/565736836/epis...

ThrustVectoring 8y ago
>Not everything has to be a market, for example healthcare can be provided using market or non-market logic. There's still physical limitations on resources available; picking a different distribution doesn't lift the limit of how much stuff we have. >we can just get rid of the parts we don't want through laws Successful market design is quite a bit more complex than that. Every market intervention has all sorts of second-order effects. >In homeownership we want to get rid of most of the frictions of the market that rub up against long-time asset holders. I'm still quite aggrieved that homeowners in 1978 decided to vote themselves a structure that enriches themselves at the expense of newcomers to the area. More generally, it's a mistake to focus on the benefits of a policy without considering the costs - prop 13 does good for long-time homeowners in the region, but at the expense of literally everyone else. I don't think that's a tradeoff worth making, especially given the dead-weight losses from restricting sales and price communication.

ThrustVectoring 8y ago

>Not everything has to be a market, for example healthcare can be provided using market or non-market logic. There's still physical limitations on resources available; picking a different distribution doesn't lift the limit of how much stuff we have. >we can just get rid of the parts we don't want through laws Successful market design is quite a bit more complex than that. Every market intervention has all sorts of second-order effects. >In homeownership we want to get rid of most of the frictions of the market that rub up against long-time asset holders. I'm still quite aggrieved that homeowners in 1978 decided to vote themselves a structure that enriches themselves at the expense of newcomers to the area. More generally, it's a mistake to focus on the benefits of a policy without considering the costs - prop 13 does good for long-time homeowners in the region, but at the expense of literally everyone else. I don't think that's a tradeoff worth making, especially given the dead-weight losses from restricting sales and price communication.