4 ms·

I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. When thinking about longer term ideas such as climate change it is ultimately up to th

I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. When thinking about longer term ideas such as climate change it is ultimately up to the average desire of the population of comsumers as a whole. Even though this has shortcomings I think it is a more "fair" system because it is just a reflection of the psyche and desire of the people and not a controlling party or politburo. When thinking about things like unsustainable growth rate and ghost cities in China I think that is the negative side of the top down model of central control. The ability to change policy quickly might be a benefit but I don't think we will know the true result in terms of benefit to civilization or country until we can look back and compare systems in the future.

omegaworks 8y ago
>I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. This is not borne out by the examples we've seen thus far of deregulated markets. It's important to distinguish between a free market and a deregulated market, as pundits often conflate the two so regularly. The benefits you state, a system aligned with "the psyche and desire of the people" does not, in fact, naturally emerge from deregulated markets. Every entity participating in a market would benefit by being the only participant in that market, so they do things like externalize costs, acquire competitors and leverage network effects to grow their share of that market. Once that state is achieved, the people hoping to have their various desires met by various participants in the market will have but a single option. A deregulated market devolves into central control.
profalseidol 8y ago
> I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. When thinking about longer term ideas such as climate change it is ultimately up to the average desire of the population of comsumers as a whole. Even though this has shortcomings I think it is a more "fair" system because it is just a reflection of the psyche and desire of the people and not a controlling party or politburo. Not when capital is not spread out evenly enough. And even then, larger capital will eventually eat smaller ones and then influence gov't and risk invoking a demagog like Trump (oh we already did huh). These mega corp that are controlled by groups of people called executives will do everything to influence the opinion and desire of the people into their favor. The people barely able to feed themselves will have no time to think about climate change. This is _practically_ the same as a controlling party. The idea of owning a piece of the earth to yourself (and inherited by your descendant) is ridiculous anyway. Resources of our planet is limited. Usable land is limited. Our population grow by the day exponentially. What happens to those who don't have access to these resources and barely have a livable life? Do you expect them to care about climate change? Now you might call me some labels since this idea is not compatible with capitalism and free market, but I would appreciate a thoughtful reply to my questions in this paragraph.

omegaworks 8y ago

>I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. This is not borne out by the examples we've seen thus far of deregulated markets. It's important to distinguish between a free market and a deregulated market, as pundits often conflate the two so regularly. The benefits you state, a system aligned with "the psyche and desire of the people" does not, in fact, naturally emerge from deregulated markets. Every entity participating in a market would benefit by being the only participant in that market, so they do things like externalize costs, acquire competitors and leverage network effects to grow their share of that market. Once that state is achieved, the people hoping to have their various desires met by various participants in the market will have but a single option. A deregulated market devolves into central control.

profalseidol 8y ago

> I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. When thinking about longer term ideas such as climate change it is ultimately up to the average desire of the population of comsumers as a whole. Even though this has shortcomings I think it is a more "fair" system because it is just a reflection of the psyche and desire of the people and not a controlling party or politburo. Not when capital is not spread out evenly enough. And even then, larger capital will eventually eat smaller ones and then influence gov't and risk invoking a demagog like Trump (oh we already did huh). These mega corp that are controlled by groups of people called executives will do everything to influence the opinion and desire of the people into their favor. The people barely able to feed themselves will have no time to think about climate change. This is _practically_ the same as a controlling party. The idea of owning a piece of the earth to yourself (and inherited by your descendant) is ridiculous anyway. Resources of our planet is limited. Usable land is limited. Our population grow by the day exponentially. What happens to those who don't have access to these resources and barely have a livable life? Do you expect them to care about climate change? Now you might call me some labels since this idea is not compatible with capitalism and free market, but I would appreciate a thoughtful reply to my questions in this paragraph.