4 ms·

It's also the case that, in practice, we regulate and politicize much - maybe all - of the free market. So really, we're not having an argument about "Free mark

It's also the case that, in practice, we regulate and politicize much - maybe all - of the free market. So really, we're not having an argument about "Free market vs total centralized system", it's "how much centralization is appropriate". So maybe we don't today need to work with the Department of Widget creation, but we need to hire lobbyists for the Senate Committee on the Widget Sector. I'm not prepared to say that informing/influencing/steak-dinnering the Senators' aides is per se better than having a nasty political fight in the Company Of The People. The history of the US farm bill and food safety is a great example of how we don't have a genuine free market in the US. I don't argue for a free market, by the way. Regulation has done a great deal of good. It's just very important to speak with care about topics, and use words that are true to the reality.

rstuart4133 6y ago
> It's also the case that, in practice, we regulate and politicize much - maybe all - of the free market. Do we? Perhaps you do in the US. Where I live, Australia, it's true most of the noise from the echo chamber is about what sort of regulations to impose on markets. But if you stop and look, they are invariably markets that aren't functioning well. The classic things that we appear to be always arguing about are things like power, landline internet, and water. But that isn't a surprise - they are the things that tend towards monopoly, so the market for those things is always broken or teetering on the edge of broken. We are now seeing the same effect for internet search and social media, where again network effects drive the markets towards monopoly. At the other end of the scale, here in Australia we've toyed with creating market's to solve political problems. One perennial problem in the driest continent on the planet is water. So they created a market based on virtual water, so rather go and haggling with your local pollie for water access right you have to buy it. It's been pretty successful from what I can tell, but now there are political stouches over how much virtual water there is. I guess that the water market could be viewed as yet more rules imposed by a central authority, as indeed could rules about regulating monopolies, and rules about truth in advertising and honouring warranties and the like. But I think that's miss leading. Rules about truth in advertising are really about setting up the conditions a market needs to flourish - equal access to information from the buyer and seller. While politicking on those rules is indeed a discussion about rules being imposed by a central authority, the purpose of those rules is to enable efficient decentralised decision making, not about "how much centralization is appropriate"
- pnathan 6y ago
  AU has slightly different framing and expectations. I've had a few conversations with people from AU, or who spent significant time there. It is different there in certain base assumptions about the role of government. I don't want to say you're wrong, and I don't want to admit I might be wrong. ;-)

rstuart4133 6y ago

> It's also the case that, in practice, we regulate and politicize much - maybe all - of the free market. Do we? Perhaps you do in the US. Where I live, Australia, it's true most of the noise from the echo chamber is about what sort of regulations to impose on markets. But if you stop and look, they are invariably markets that aren't functioning well. The classic things that we appear to be always arguing about are things like power, landline internet, and water. But that isn't a surprise - they are the things that tend towards monopoly, so the market for those things is always broken or teetering on the edge of broken. We are now seeing the same effect for internet search and social media, where again network effects drive the markets towards monopoly. At the other end of the scale, here in Australia we've toyed with creating market's to solve political problems. One perennial problem in the driest continent on the planet is water. So they created a market based on virtual water, so rather go and haggling with your local pollie for water access right you have to buy it. It's been pretty successful from what I can tell, but now there are political stouches over how much virtual water there is. I guess that the water market could be viewed as yet more rules imposed by a central authority, as indeed could rules about regulating monopolies, and rules about truth in advertising and honouring warranties and the like. But I think that's miss leading. Rules about truth in advertising are really about setting up the conditions a market needs to flourish - equal access to information from the buyer and seller. While politicking on those rules is indeed a discussion about rules being imposed by a central authority, the purpose of those rules is to enable efficient decentralised decision making, not about "how much centralization is appropriate"

pnathan 6y ago
AU has slightly different framing and expectations. I've had a few conversations with people from AU, or who spent significant time there. It is different there in certain base assumptions about the role of government. I don't want to say you're wrong, and I don't want to admit I might be wrong. ;-)