4 ms·

What are you claiming is the market failure here?

harry8 7y ago
Market Failure [1] is the definition in economics for this situation. There is a non-price, non-market mechanism imposing a cost upon us. Just like if your neighbour at the restaurant lights up a cigarette and you hate that and it spoils your meal. You can't very well "give up smoking" to fix that. Just like any public good - eg national defence, it can't be done by a free market alone and so never is. Just like if a factory opens and pollutes a river killing all the fish, the fisherman can't stop transacting with the factory to get their livelihoods back. Just like any natural monopoly - eg piped drinking water supply and distribution to buildings in a city which is heavily regulated everywhere on earth, (often really badly, sure) because you can't change providers at will and you can't do a startup and get into that market. Proprety rights and enforcement - we don't do private courts and police as a rule and laws are not supposed to be for sale to the highest bidder. Facebook have my data, they use it, without my consent and I have no way of taking my business elsewhere to remedy that. This is one of the many costs facebook impose on all of us. These are costs that not all of us feel we want to bare or feel there is a benefit from it. Us stopping using facebook does not fix that cost, we continue to incur it. That meets the textbook definition of "market failure". Just by the by, this is not simply "my claim", this is the normal, definition of market failure in any economics textbook and regardless of political leaning. Whether you think that this market failure is an important one or not certainly can be debated. Eg it's market failure if I don't like the color my neigbor paints their front door - the response to which is usually "so what, get over it." You can, and facebook do, make that kind of argument here. Facebook PR will avoid "market failure" as it sounds somehow worse than a technical description of the situation to much of the public, as it does perhas to yourself. But there's not much doubt about it (at least as far as I'm aware), that it meets that usual, and well understood defininition among ecomomists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
- archie2 7y ago
  > Just like if your neighbour at the restaurant lights up a cigarette and you hate that and it spoils your meal. You can't very well "give up smoking" to fix that. But you can go to another restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. If enough people don't like having smokers around that those restaurants goes out of business, then eventually you will see a shift in the market of available restaurants with non-smoking sections.
  - calimac 7y ago
    Mastodon is a few years old now and in the marathon of social market share has what it takes to satisfy the users feature requirements and privacy concerns in a way that facebook never will. Join Mastodon https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/
- biblytens 7y ago
  I wasn't asking for the definition of market failure. I was asking what you claim is the market failure here. > Facebook have my data, they use it, without my consent and I have no way of taking my business elsewhere to remedy that. This is one of the many costs facebook impose on all of us. These are costs that not all of us feel we want to bare or feel there is a benefit from it. Us stopping using facebook does not fix that cost, we continue to incur it. That meets the textbook definition of "market failure". I cringed when I read this, because it's an egregious abuse of economic terminology. You're using the term "market failure" as a synonym for "something I don't like". That's not what market failure means. What you're describing is "people have information about me that I wish they didn't have". That's not a market failure. It's like when people misuse the terms "Dunning-Kruger effect" or "not even wrong" without understanding their real meaning. > Eg it's market failure if I don't like the color my neigbor paints their front door This confirms my suspicion that you don't understand what market failure means. Stop abusing economic terminology and read up on what Pareto efficiency means. Here's a hint: The scenario you described is perfectly compatible with Pareto efficiency. Market failure implies Pareto inefficiency. Therefore, the situation you described is not a market failure. Seriously, you should make an effort understand the terms you're using (especially technical ones) before throwing them around.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Market Failure [1] is the definition in economics for this situation. There is a non-price, non-market mechanism imposing a cost upon us. Just like if your neighbour at the restaurant lights up a cigarette and you hate that and it spoils your meal. You can't very well "give up smoking" to fix that. Just like any public good - eg national defence, it can't be done by a free market alone and so never is. Just like if a factory opens and pollutes a river killing all the fish, the fisherman can't stop transacting with the factory to get their livelihoods back. Just like any natural monopoly - eg piped drinking water supply and distribution to buildings in a city which is heavily regulated everywhere on earth, (often really badly, sure) because you can't change providers at will and you can't do a startup and get into that market. Proprety rights and enforcement - we don't do private courts and police as a rule and laws are not supposed to be for sale to the highest bidder. Facebook have my data, they use it, without my consent and I have no way of taking my business elsewhere to remedy that. This is one of the many costs facebook impose on all of us. These are costs that not all of us feel we want to bare or feel there is a benefit from it. Us stopping using facebook does not fix that cost, we continue to incur it. That meets the textbook definition of "market failure". Just by the by, this is not simply "my claim", this is the normal, definition of market failure in any economics textbook and regardless of political leaning. Whether you think that this market failure is an important one or not certainly can be debated. Eg it's market failure if I don't like the color my neigbor paints their front door - the response to which is usually "so what, get over it." You can, and facebook do, make that kind of argument here. Facebook PR will avoid "market failure" as it sounds somehow worse than a technical description of the situation to much of the public, as it does perhas to yourself. But there's not much doubt about it (at least as far as I'm aware), that it meets that usual, and well understood defininition among ecomomists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

archie2 7y ago
> Just like if your neighbour at the restaurant lights up a cigarette and you hate that and it spoils your meal. You can't very well "give up smoking" to fix that. But you can go to another restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. If enough people don't like having smokers around that those restaurants goes out of business, then eventually you will see a shift in the market of available restaurants with non-smoking sections.
- calimac 7y ago
  Mastodon is a few years old now and in the marathon of social market share has what it takes to satisfy the users feature requirements and privacy concerns in a way that facebook never will. Join Mastodon https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/
biblytens 7y ago
I wasn't asking for the definition of market failure. I was asking what you claim is the market failure here. > Facebook have my data, they use it, without my consent and I have no way of taking my business elsewhere to remedy that. This is one of the many costs facebook impose on all of us. These are costs that not all of us feel we want to bare or feel there is a benefit from it. Us stopping using facebook does not fix that cost, we continue to incur it. That meets the textbook definition of "market failure". I cringed when I read this, because it's an egregious abuse of economic terminology. You're using the term "market failure" as a synonym for "something I don't like". That's not what market failure means. What you're describing is "people have information about me that I wish they didn't have". That's not a market failure. It's like when people misuse the terms "Dunning-Kruger effect" or "not even wrong" without understanding their real meaning. > Eg it's market failure if I don't like the color my neigbor paints their front door This confirms my suspicion that you don't understand what market failure means. Stop abusing economic terminology and read up on what Pareto efficiency means. Here's a hint: The scenario you described is perfectly compatible with Pareto efficiency. Market failure implies Pareto inefficiency. Therefore, the situation you described is not a market failure. Seriously, you should make an effort understand the terms you're using (especially technical ones) before throwing them around.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]