4 ms·

And still, against all your strongly held beliefs and preconceived notions, free markets not only work, but they created all the useful stuff we use every day w

by nickpp 6y ago

And still, against all your strongly held beliefs and preconceived notions, free markets not only work, but they created all the useful stuff we use every day while lifting the whole of humankind out of abject poverty. So, watch out for those religious zealots indeed.

kristopolous 6y ago
But they don't exist and they never have because of all the things I pointed out. The premise of your argument is incorrect because they are not real. The free market is an impossible theoretical intellectual exercise and nothing more. Show me where all participants instantaneously knows the utility maximization function of all potential transactions and exercises individual maximization with friction free transfers based on perfect infinite information and we can more forward with your argument. Otherwise you're simply attributing unspecific generalities to a fiction.
- nickpp 6y ago
  Yeah, communists had all the theoretical reasons their system was better than capitalism, still in the end, they were the ones starving.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Now you've changed the topic. Free Market and Capitalism aren't the same thing. Capitalism exists, free markets do not. We're talking about a specific theory in the Austrian School. The task is still on you to demonstrate how the free market isn't a fiction.
    - nickpp 6y ago
      No, the task is still on you to defend your strange belief in the nonexistence of free markets. I went into a small one this very morning, to buy some apples and eggs. Looked very real to me. And free: nobody told the sellers at which price to sell and nobody made me buy if I didn’t like it.
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        That's just a market. Markets have existed forever - that's just a transaction of goods or services. Free markets are a specific definition with specific conditions.
        nickpp 6y ago
        Yeah, I am using the generally accepted and recognized meaning in conversations around the world. I am not interested in the current trend of twisting the definition of a word until it fits your preconceived notions.
        kristopolous 6y ago
        The existence of markets isn't being contested. If that's what you mean then sure. Markets exist. We can both move on with our days now.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Because no one is starving in capitalist societies?
    - nickpp 6y ago
      Are you seriously asking that question? Do you really think the two even compare?!
      - NeutronStar 6y ago
        Did I say the two compared? You implied that they were starving while we were not. That's simply not true.
gwd 6y ago
> And still, against all your strongly held beliefs and preconceived notions, free markets not only work, but they created all the useful stuff we use every day while lifting the whole of humankind out of abject poverty. And they did that because they weren't 100% "free", but were regulated. Imagine someone who said this: "Fire is good. It heats our homes, it cooks our food, it runs our cars and our industry and lets us travel quickly from one place to another. So let's get rid of all fire departments and all forest control services, and let fire be as efficient as it can be." That's obviously a stupid position to take. Fire is neither good nor bad; it's a force that can be incredibly powerful when harnessed for good, and incredibly destructive when allowed to run rampant. And there are times when it's simply not the right tool for the job. Markets are the same way. Talking about the "free market" is a bit silly: All markets have constraints, either natural or artificial, and they optimize based on those constraints. When appropriately channeled, they can be a powerful force for allocation of resources and experimentation. When not appropriately controlled, they can destroy environments and harm society. And sometimes it's simply not the right tool for the job.
- nickpp 6y ago
  Price controls is not regulating markets, is completely closing them. Putting out the fire, not harnessing it. During Soviet times, everybody could afford toilet paper but nobody could buy it...
  - gwd 6y ago
    > Price controls is not regulating markets, is completely closing them. Putting out the fire, not harnessing it. Well, no. People manufacturing masks still have a choice as to whether to make masks at the price-controlled price or not. If it's not cost-effective, they won't make any. If it's adequately cost-effective, they'll make the normal amount. If the price controls are still fairly lucrative, they'll be encouraged to make more product. On the other hand, the knowledge that there will be no limits on "surge pricing" might encourage people to build up stockpiles to smooth out shocks in supply or demand; whereas, the knowledge that there will be limits on "surge pricing" might discourage people from building up stockpiles, thus making shocks in supply or demand worse. In both cases, "the market" is still doing what the market does: optimizing for the particular inputs it's given. The question is, which outcome do we prefer? EDIT: And, is the market actually the right tool for this particular job? For instance, in the case of vital medical equipment such as N95 masks, maybe it makes sense to have the government stockpile reserves, rather than relying on the market to do it.

by nickpp 6y ago

kristopolous 6y ago

But they don't exist and they never have because of all the things I pointed out. The premise of your argument is incorrect because they are not real. The free market is an impossible theoretical intellectual exercise and nothing more. Show me where all participants instantaneously knows the utility maximization function of all potential transactions and exercises individual maximization with friction free transfers based on perfect infinite information and we can more forward with your argument. Otherwise you're simply attributing unspecific generalities to a fiction.

nickpp 6y ago
Yeah, communists had all the theoretical reasons their system was better than capitalism, still in the end, they were the ones starving.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Now you've changed the topic. Free Market and Capitalism aren't the same thing. Capitalism exists, free markets do not. We're talking about a specific theory in the Austrian School. The task is still on you to demonstrate how the free market isn't a fiction.
  - nickpp 6y ago
    No, the task is still on you to defend your strange belief in the nonexistence of free markets. I went into a small one this very morning, to buy some apples and eggs. Looked very real to me. And free: nobody told the sellers at which price to sell and nobody made me buy if I didn’t like it.
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      That's just a market. Markets have existed forever - that's just a transaction of goods or services. Free markets are a specific definition with specific conditions.
      - nickpp 6y ago
        Yeah, I am using the generally accepted and recognized meaning in conversations around the world. I am not interested in the current trend of twisting the definition of a word until it fits your preconceived notions.
        kristopolous 6y ago
        The existence of markets isn't being contested. If that's what you mean then sure. Markets exist. We can both move on with our days now.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Because no one is starving in capitalist societies?
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Are you seriously asking that question? Do you really think the two even compare?!
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      Did I say the two compared? You implied that they were starving while we were not. That's simply not true.

gwd 6y ago

> And still, against all your strongly held beliefs and preconceived notions, free markets not only work, but they created all the useful stuff we use every day while lifting the whole of humankind out of abject poverty. And they did that because they weren't 100% "free", but were regulated. Imagine someone who said this: "Fire is good. It heats our homes, it cooks our food, it runs our cars and our industry and lets us travel quickly from one place to another. So let's get rid of all fire departments and all forest control services, and let fire be as efficient as it can be." That's obviously a stupid position to take. Fire is neither good nor bad; it's a force that can be incredibly powerful when harnessed for good, and incredibly destructive when allowed to run rampant. And there are times when it's simply not the right tool for the job. Markets are the same way. Talking about the "free market" is a bit silly: All markets have constraints, either natural or artificial, and they optimize based on those constraints. When appropriately channeled, they can be a powerful force for allocation of resources and experimentation. When not appropriately controlled, they can destroy environments and harm society. And sometimes it's simply not the right tool for the job.

nickpp 6y ago
Price controls is not regulating markets, is completely closing them. Putting out the fire, not harnessing it. During Soviet times, everybody could afford toilet paper but nobody could buy it...
- gwd 6y ago
  > Price controls is not regulating markets, is completely closing them. Putting out the fire, not harnessing it. Well, no. People manufacturing masks still have a choice as to whether to make masks at the price-controlled price or not. If it's not cost-effective, they won't make any. If it's adequately cost-effective, they'll make the normal amount. If the price controls are still fairly lucrative, they'll be encouraged to make more product. On the other hand, the knowledge that there will be no limits on "surge pricing" might encourage people to build up stockpiles to smooth out shocks in supply or demand; whereas, the knowledge that there will be limits on "surge pricing" might discourage people from building up stockpiles, thus making shocks in supply or demand worse. In both cases, "the market" is still doing what the market does: optimizing for the particular inputs it's given. The question is, which outcome do we prefer? EDIT: And, is the market actually the right tool for this particular job? For instance, in the case of vital medical equipment such as N95 masks, maybe it makes sense to have the government stockpile reserves, rather than relying on the market to do it.