4 ms·

Which is a fair expectation to have. Free markets are nearly optimal for commodities, restaurants, and similar sorts of goods, as well as many competing small

Which is a fair expectation to have. Free markets are nearly optimal for commodities, restaurants, and similar sorts of goods, as well as many competing small businesses. They grind along for IP, utilities, and some sectors of education, as well as large businesses. They break down almost completely for large-scale finance, real estate, medicine, and other sectors of education. Curiously, much of this was predicted by Adams in Wealth of Nations (read his sections on real estate; they sound downright dystopian). Even more curiously, China has privatized all the sectors where free markets work, kept public all the ones where they don't, and their economy exploded. The US economy exploded with free markets when it was driven by essentially commodity manufacturing. As IP, finance, and real estate became more important, it began to fall behind.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>They break down almost completely for large-scale finance, real estate, medicine, and other sectors of education. You just rattled off a list of sectors where the free market is the least free (though in the case of finance I think they more than earned it). Of the four things you mentioned I would deregulate two, regulate the crap out of one and get the federal government out of the business of backing loans on another.
- low_poly_shiba 7y ago
  hmmm you elsewhere, on a topic about the harrowing conditions of FB moderators, claim that "there's a lot of variance between individuals ... I'm not the kind of person that's particularly bothered by graphic violence. My opinion of humanity is dark enough to accommodate it" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20223267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20223267 maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are not what others have in mind, what with your "dark views of humanity" and all? cause it sounds to me like you deeply believe in naturalistic hierarchies
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are not what others have in mind, what with your "dark views of humanity" and all? Many people (dare I say the overwhelming majority) on HN agrees that real estate needs a heck of a lot less regulation so supply can do better meeting demand and costs can drop. We may argue about the minutia but pretty much everyone on HN also agrees that medical (in the US) is nowhere near a free market and substantial de-regulation (so the "race to the bottom" can control costs) and/or (but probably "and") a government option (to provide a cost and quality controlled baseline of care) could/would improve the situation. "Ideal" or not a heck of a lot of people believe that deregulation (within reason) of some/all of the things you listed as free market failures would result in a large improvement from the status quo. >hmmm you elsewhere, on a topic about the harrowing conditions of FB moderators, claim that "there's a lot of variance between individuals ... I'm not the kind of person that's particularly bothered by graphic violence. My opinion of humanity is dark enough to accommodate it" How is my opinion of a particular workplace at all relevant to a macroeconomic discussion? If you think you can "win" an argument by saying "hurr durr, this guy I'm arguing with has opinions other people don't like" then you are sorely wrong. That is how Reddit works but thankfully HN has still not stopped that low and FYI the comment below the one you linked where I expanded on and clarified my point is highly up-voted. ;) >cause it sounds to me like you deeply believe in naturalistic hierarchies I'm not sure I'd say that. It greatly depends on the issue but regardless, what is wrong with that?
    - pnutjam 7y ago
      Interestingly, I've come to the opposite conclusion. More regulation is the only answer to many of these problems. It would help if there wasn't a party trying to self-destruct our country every time they get power.
      - woofie11 7y ago
        A hint as to how that happened: Regulation isn't about more or less, so much as about good regulation versus bad regulation.
- woofie11 7y ago
  There's a difference like night-and-day between regulated markets and government-provided services. If I had my druthers, finance, real estate, and health care would be run by the government. If I couldn't get that, I'd have at least real estate and health care almost completely deregulated -- some transparency and truth-in-advertising laws, but not much more. It's often painted as a scale from free markets to regulated markets to government-run, but I'm not sure that's a fair model. In many cases, the so-called mid-point of regulated markets works the worst.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>They break down almost completely for large-scale finance, real estate, medicine, and other sectors of education. You just rattled off a list of sectors where the free market is the least free (though in the case of finance I think they more than earned it). Of the four things you mentioned I would deregulate two, regulate the crap out of one and get the federal government out of the business of backing loans on another.

low_poly_shiba 7y ago
hmmm you elsewhere, on a topic about the harrowing conditions of FB moderators, claim that "there's a lot of variance between individuals ... I'm not the kind of person that's particularly bothered by graphic violence. My opinion of humanity is dark enough to accommodate it" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20223267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20223267 maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are not what others have in mind, what with your "dark views of humanity" and all? cause it sounds to me like you deeply believe in naturalistic hierarchies
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are not what others have in mind, what with your "dark views of humanity" and all? Many people (dare I say the overwhelming majority) on HN agrees that real estate needs a heck of a lot less regulation so supply can do better meeting demand and costs can drop. We may argue about the minutia but pretty much everyone on HN also agrees that medical (in the US) is nowhere near a free market and substantial de-regulation (so the "race to the bottom" can control costs) and/or (but probably "and") a government option (to provide a cost and quality controlled baseline of care) could/would improve the situation. "Ideal" or not a heck of a lot of people believe that deregulation (within reason) of some/all of the things you listed as free market failures would result in a large improvement from the status quo. >hmmm you elsewhere, on a topic about the harrowing conditions of FB moderators, claim that "there's a lot of variance between individuals ... I'm not the kind of person that's particularly bothered by graphic violence. My opinion of humanity is dark enough to accommodate it" How is my opinion of a particular workplace at all relevant to a macroeconomic discussion? If you think you can "win" an argument by saying "hurr durr, this guy I'm arguing with has opinions other people don't like" then you are sorely wrong. That is how Reddit works but thankfully HN has still not stopped that low and FYI the comment below the one you linked where I expanded on and clarified my point is highly up-voted. ;) >cause it sounds to me like you deeply believe in naturalistic hierarchies I'm not sure I'd say that. It greatly depends on the issue but regardless, what is wrong with that?
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    Interestingly, I've come to the opposite conclusion. More regulation is the only answer to many of these problems. It would help if there wasn't a party trying to self-destruct our country every time they get power.
    - woofie11 7y ago
      A hint as to how that happened: Regulation isn't about more or less, so much as about good regulation versus bad regulation.
woofie11 7y ago
There's a difference like night-and-day between regulated markets and government-provided services. If I had my druthers, finance, real estate, and health care would be run by the government. If I couldn't get that, I'd have at least real estate and health care almost completely deregulated -- some transparency and truth-in-advertising laws, but not much more. It's often painted as a scale from free markets to regulated markets to government-run, but I'm not sure that's a fair model. In many cases, the so-called mid-point of regulated markets works the worst.