5 ms·

> But this isn't what the whole US system is built around. That's (at least part of) the problem. As others have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, many

> But this isn't what the whole US system is built around. That's (at least part of) the problem. As others have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, many of the things Andreessen says he thinks we need to build are thinks that the free market would like to build, but can't because of legal and regulatory barriers. Really? Which thing? I haven't really been sold a narrative that "regulatory barriers" are in the way of securing domestic manufacturing capacity or building high speed rail. It's securing the initial and sustained capital to build the systems. > That said, it is true that free markets are a tool, not an end in themselves. Free markets can help you to provide goods and services as efficiently as possible, but they can't tell you which goods and services should be provided and which should not. So free markets on their own are not enough to have a good society. Folks misinterpret the literature around free markets all the time. They do not make guarantees of efficiency. Neither does centrally planned economies. The idea that either one is inherently more efficient is the legacy of various propaganda campaigns. > So free markets on their own are not enough to have a good society. All that said, I do agree strongly that this is true. To some extent, no system inherently promises this. It's just that some systems guarantee equity cannot be sustained (e.g., capitalism or despotism). As long as American society implicitly believes in the Hayek-ian notion that freedom exists to empower the hypothetical Galt's that they dream exist and imagine that America's moneyed aristocracy serves an important function of assigning value simply by virtue of their spending, no among of free marketspace will fix our problem. Folks have been duped into buying into a scheme where they think they need aristocracy to survive.

pdonis 6y ago
> I haven't really been sold a narrative that "regulatory barriers" are in the way of securing domestic manufacturing capacity or building high speed rail. You don't need to be "sold a narrative". You just need to go read the reams and reams of Federal and State regulations that any new manufacturing plant or high speed rail system (not to mention any other business) needs to satisfy. > It's securing the initial and sustained capital to build the systems. But in order for that capital to be used for a new venture, the people who have it need to see a reasonable prospect of a return. If you don't think regulatory barriers are the reason why people with lots of capital don't see a reasonable prospect of return in ventures that, on the face of it, would seem to have an obvious potential for good returns, what do you think is the reason? > They do not make guarantees of efficiency. More precisely, the conditions under which a free market is maximally efficient are very often not satisfied in the real world. But I did not claim that free markets were always maximally efficient. I said they are as efficient as possible; in other words, under whatever conditions you have, free markets are more efficient than any other alternatives. Under conditions where free markets are not maximally efficient, central planning is even worse. > Folks have been duped into buying into a scheme where they think they need aristocracy to survive. I think there is a sense in which this is true, but it's not the one you describe. The problem I see is that people think they need to be governed by experts--an intellectual "aristocracy", not a financial one. The manipulation of the financial system by the government printing money and skewing the incentives of financial institutions is certainly part of that, but not all of it.

pdonis 6y ago

> I haven't really been sold a narrative that "regulatory barriers" are in the way of securing domestic manufacturing capacity or building high speed rail. You don't need to be "sold a narrative". You just need to go read the reams and reams of Federal and State regulations that any new manufacturing plant or high speed rail system (not to mention any other business) needs to satisfy. > It's securing the initial and sustained capital to build the systems. But in order for that capital to be used for a new venture, the people who have it need to see a reasonable prospect of a return. If you don't think regulatory barriers are the reason why people with lots of capital don't see a reasonable prospect of return in ventures that, on the face of it, would seem to have an obvious potential for good returns, what do you think is the reason? > They do not make guarantees of efficiency. More precisely, the conditions under which a free market is maximally efficient are very often not satisfied in the real world. But I did not claim that free markets were always maximally efficient. I said they are as efficient as possible; in other words, under whatever conditions you have, free markets are more efficient than any other alternatives. Under conditions where free markets are not maximally efficient, central planning is even worse. > Folks have been duped into buying into a scheme where they think they need aristocracy to survive. I think there is a sense in which this is true, but it's not the one you describe. The problem I see is that people think they need to be governed by experts--an intellectual "aristocracy", not a financial one. The manipulation of the financial system by the government printing money and skewing the incentives of financial institutions is certainly part of that, but not all of it.