7 ms·

It's sad how people just don't believe that markets are good at all.

eru 6y ago
And this is HN already. The attitude of the general population is often worse. I do remember early HN and even early reddit being much more pro-market. I wonder, assuming my perception mirrors a real change, whether that's down to changes in individuals' attitudes or to different people making up the bulk of the communities? Are we just going mainstream?
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > do remember early HN and even early reddit being much more pro-market It shows you have registered in 2007. Quite a lot of history has happened since then which may have altered people's opinion of the pro-market narrative. > Are we just going mainstream? Mainstream opinion is very pro-market. Calling for abolition of either markets or value itself is a highly niche position--you will typically only see people calling, to varying degrees, of smoothing rough edges.
  - eru 6y ago
    Interesting, from what I can tell the mainstream seems crazy far left and in favour of all kinds of interventions to 'smooth rough edges' and worse. Rhetoric against rich people is rather popular. But yes, from an even further left point of view, full on abolishing of markets ain't that popular. (A few countries tried going in that direction throughout history, it never ended well.) In the US the Republicans are against free trade, and the Democrats have their usually anti market stance. About stuff since 2007: the economic difficulties in the years after mostly showed that when central banks refuse to print enough money, nominal spending drops, and the economy tanks. (The Israeli and Australian central banks kept their countries' nominal GDP stable, and mostly avoided recession.) But you are right that the perception in the mainstream does not agree with that perspective (as I mentioned, the mainstream is by-and-large anti-market.)
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > Interesting, from what I can tell the mainstream seems crazy far left and in favour of all kinds of interventions to 'smooth rough edges' and worse. I'd like to see some examples. > In the US the Republicans are against free trade This isn't anti pro-market. This is anti market-as-totalizing-factor-in-life. These things aren't contradictory. > and the Democrats have their usually anti market stance. They gave us NAFTA. They passed a--i shit you not--market-mediated healthcare bill. As you speak, there is literally a power struggle happening wherein lobbyists are being stacked in Biden's future cabinet to ensure favorable market positions for their represented patrons. I think there's a lot of confusion on your part. I think you're mis-using "market," to refer to some "free-market," that could never exist. I might be wrong, but there's no other way that I could understand how you can refer to Democrats, as a whole, as "anti-market." Sure, AOC gets a lot of press, but you're missing the forest for the trees when this forms your world-view of what that party is and does.
      - eru 6y ago
        You are right that we are probably using different terminology. What I would have in mind is policy more guided by econ 101, or alternatively, whatever Estonian, Singapore and Hong Kong are doing. The latter only by-and-large and with big exceptions obviously, since they are complicated real world places. So called 'free trade agreements' are an interesting example: econ 101 tells us that free trade agreements are pretty silly. Adam Smith and Ricardo already showed that you should abolish your own trade barriers unilaterally regardless of what the other guy is doing, no need for any agreements. (But that's a digression. I agree that free trade agreements are largely seen as pro-market by the general public.) In any case, NAFTA stems from the bygone era of the Washington Consensus. It mostly predates the time I am talking about. Yes, there's a tiny bit of market in the American healthcare system. But it's a very small sliver. Have a look at https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost... and https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/17/highlights-from-the-comments-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/17/highlights-from-the-co... for a more in-depth and even-handed discussion than I could give you. Especially the 'certificate of need' is interesting. (Basically, existing hospitals in an area can veto any new hospital.) Yes, if you by "market" you mean "corporate welfare" and "crony capitalism", than what your comment makes total sense. A perfect free market might never have existed, but good enough approximations do; and it's useful to move more areas in that direction.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  As someone who joined in 2009, and was very pro market at the time, as time passed, my opinions changed. No idea how representative that is.
yiyus 6y ago
It happens with everything: markets, politicians, unions, revolutions... It's easy to find bad (really bad!) precedents which affect lots of people and this creates very strong opinions. Although I agree it is sad, it's also very understandable.
itsoktocry 6y ago
>It's sad how people just don't believe that markets are good at all. The problem is that the definition of "free markets" has been badly muddied. What we have in most of the real world are not free markets. It skews everyone's opinion.
- Jochim 6y ago
  Free markets would be so much worse than what we have right now. Without government intervention to guarantee worker protections and curtail corporate power, capital would concentrate in the hands of a few and the rest of us would be serfs in the neo-feudalist hellhole that arises. Enjoy your company scrip.
  - eru 6y ago
    What makes you think so? Do you have any countries in mind that have less government intervention and look more neo-feudalist? As a counter example, many places in Asia have gone more pro-market in the last decades and have benefitted enormously from it. It's all a matter of degree, of course. Eg South Korea isn't made up of only free markets. But it has noticeably freer markets than North Korea. Or China pre- and post Deng Xiaoping. Singapore is perhaps the closest to a free market place on earth, and is also one of the richest and safest.
    - Jochim 6y ago
      > As a counter example, many places in Asia have gone more pro-market in the last decades and have benefitted enormously from it. I don't think this is necessarily a counter example. Certainly some individuals in these countries are much better off than they were before. The economies of these countries may be doing better, but this growth has increasingly come at the expense of a vast number of individuals lower down the pole. The youth of China moved to the city from farming towns and villages, and now work to enrich the CEOs and executives of Foxconn. Children in Bangladesh and India are spending twelve hours a day making shoes for Nike. The well off in these countries are much more well-off than they were before, but the poor are potentially in a worse/more inescapable position than they started. > Singapore is perhaps the closest to a free market place on earth, and is also one of the richest and safest. Singapore is a heavily authoritarian country in which the state directly controls large sectors of the market[1] and daily life. Some quotes from the source that illustrate the extent to which the Singaporean government is directly involved in shaping and controlling the country's markets: > State monopolies provide all utilities, telephone and postal services, port and airport services, industrial estates, and radio and television. Government ministries provide a large part of medical and health services, all sanitation services, and all education for the population from primary to tertiary level. The state Housing and Development Board houses nearly three-quarters of the population in public housing estates. In the non-social sector they own and operate: > Singapore Airlines, ...A state trading company, a state shipping company, two state join-venture shipyards, ...The Development Bank of Singapore The government also owns "about 75% of all land in the country". The rest of the paper goes into detail explaining how the government routinely intervenes with subsidies and tax policy in order to force the market into whatever shape it deems fit. So I think the fact that people view Singapore at anything close to a free market is more a testament to just how effective the propaganda that has been pushing free market economic thought has been. [1] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2644389?seq=1 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2644389?seq=...
HarryHirsch 6y ago
We are being told that markets solve everything and yet the US have the most expensive healthcare in the West and the lousiest internet. The belief is empirically supported.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > markets solve everything and yet the US have the most expensive healthcare in the West and the lousiest internet Neither of which are anything close to free markets.
- dagw 6y ago
  We are being told that markets solve everything and yet the US have the most expensive healthcare in the West and the lousiest internet For which there are two possible conclusions. 1) Free markets are unable to supply reasonably priced, high quality health care and internet 2) The markets for healthcare and internet in the US aren't Free markets. You seem very sure that possibility 1 is the only correct conclusion, without examining possibility 2.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    The empirical evidence is that internet is cheaper in countries with local-loop unbundling, and that countries that have price controls for medical care have cheaper healthcare. You can't argue with observable facts.
    - dagw 6y ago
      I'll happy accept that at face value (even if I think the truth of the first statement is slightly more complex that you make it out to be). Just not sure that leads to the conclusions you seem to be drawing from those facts.

eru 6y ago

And this is HN already. The attitude of the general population is often worse. I do remember early HN and even early reddit being much more pro-market. I wonder, assuming my perception mirrors a real change, whether that's down to changes in individuals' attitudes or to different people making up the bulk of the communities? Are we just going mainstream?

ianleeclark 6y ago
> do remember early HN and even early reddit being much more pro-market It shows you have registered in 2007. Quite a lot of history has happened since then which may have altered people's opinion of the pro-market narrative. > Are we just going mainstream? Mainstream opinion is very pro-market. Calling for abolition of either markets or value itself is a highly niche position--you will typically only see people calling, to varying degrees, of smoothing rough edges.
- eru 6y ago
  Interesting, from what I can tell the mainstream seems crazy far left and in favour of all kinds of interventions to 'smooth rough edges' and worse. Rhetoric against rich people is rather popular. But yes, from an even further left point of view, full on abolishing of markets ain't that popular. (A few countries tried going in that direction throughout history, it never ended well.) In the US the Republicans are against free trade, and the Democrats have their usually anti market stance. About stuff since 2007: the economic difficulties in the years after mostly showed that when central banks refuse to print enough money, nominal spending drops, and the economy tanks. (The Israeli and Australian central banks kept their countries' nominal GDP stable, and mostly avoided recession.) But you are right that the perception in the mainstream does not agree with that perspective (as I mentioned, the mainstream is by-and-large anti-market.)
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > Interesting, from what I can tell the mainstream seems crazy far left and in favour of all kinds of interventions to 'smooth rough edges' and worse. I'd like to see some examples. > In the US the Republicans are against free trade This isn't anti pro-market. This is anti market-as-totalizing-factor-in-life. These things aren't contradictory. > and the Democrats have their usually anti market stance. They gave us NAFTA. They passed a--i shit you not--market-mediated healthcare bill. As you speak, there is literally a power struggle happening wherein lobbyists are being stacked in Biden's future cabinet to ensure favorable market positions for their represented patrons. I think there's a lot of confusion on your part. I think you're mis-using "market," to refer to some "free-market," that could never exist. I might be wrong, but there's no other way that I could understand how you can refer to Democrats, as a whole, as "anti-market." Sure, AOC gets a lot of press, but you're missing the forest for the trees when this forms your world-view of what that party is and does.
    - eru 6y ago
      You are right that we are probably using different terminology. What I would have in mind is policy more guided by econ 101, or alternatively, whatever Estonian, Singapore and Hong Kong are doing. The latter only by-and-large and with big exceptions obviously, since they are complicated real world places. So called 'free trade agreements' are an interesting example: econ 101 tells us that free trade agreements are pretty silly. Adam Smith and Ricardo already showed that you should abolish your own trade barriers unilaterally regardless of what the other guy is doing, no need for any agreements. (But that's a digression. I agree that free trade agreements are largely seen as pro-market by the general public.) In any case, NAFTA stems from the bygone era of the Washington Consensus. It mostly predates the time I am talking about. Yes, there's a tiny bit of market in the American healthcare system. But it's a very small sliver. Have a look at https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost... and https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/17/highlights-from-the-comments-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/17/highlights-from-the-co... for a more in-depth and even-handed discussion than I could give you. Especially the 'certificate of need' is interesting. (Basically, existing hospitals in an area can veto any new hospital.) Yes, if you by "market" you mean "corporate welfare" and "crony capitalism", than what your comment makes total sense. A perfect free market might never have existed, but good enough approximations do; and it's useful to move more areas in that direction.
steveklabnik 6y ago
As someone who joined in 2009, and was very pro market at the time, as time passed, my opinions changed. No idea how representative that is.

yiyus 6y ago

It happens with everything: markets, politicians, unions, revolutions... It's easy to find bad (really bad!) precedents which affect lots of people and this creates very strong opinions. Although I agree it is sad, it's also very understandable.

itsoktocry 6y ago

>It's sad how people just don't believe that markets are good at all. The problem is that the definition of "free markets" has been badly muddied. What we have in most of the real world are not free markets. It skews everyone's opinion.

Jochim 6y ago
Free markets would be so much worse than what we have right now. Without government intervention to guarantee worker protections and curtail corporate power, capital would concentrate in the hands of a few and the rest of us would be serfs in the neo-feudalist hellhole that arises. Enjoy your company scrip.
- eru 6y ago
  What makes you think so? Do you have any countries in mind that have less government intervention and look more neo-feudalist? As a counter example, many places in Asia have gone more pro-market in the last decades and have benefitted enormously from it. It's all a matter of degree, of course. Eg South Korea isn't made up of only free markets. But it has noticeably freer markets than North Korea. Or China pre- and post Deng Xiaoping. Singapore is perhaps the closest to a free market place on earth, and is also one of the richest and safest.
  - Jochim 6y ago
    > As a counter example, many places in Asia have gone more pro-market in the last decades and have benefitted enormously from it. I don't think this is necessarily a counter example. Certainly some individuals in these countries are much better off than they were before. The economies of these countries may be doing better, but this growth has increasingly come at the expense of a vast number of individuals lower down the pole. The youth of China moved to the city from farming towns and villages, and now work to enrich the CEOs and executives of Foxconn. Children in Bangladesh and India are spending twelve hours a day making shoes for Nike. The well off in these countries are much more well-off than they were before, but the poor are potentially in a worse/more inescapable position than they started. > Singapore is perhaps the closest to a free market place on earth, and is also one of the richest and safest. Singapore is a heavily authoritarian country in which the state directly controls large sectors of the market[1] and daily life. Some quotes from the source that illustrate the extent to which the Singaporean government is directly involved in shaping and controlling the country's markets: > State monopolies provide all utilities, telephone and postal services, port and airport services, industrial estates, and radio and television. Government ministries provide a large part of medical and health services, all sanitation services, and all education for the population from primary to tertiary level. The state Housing and Development Board houses nearly three-quarters of the population in public housing estates. In the non-social sector they own and operate: > Singapore Airlines, ...A state trading company, a state shipping company, two state join-venture shipyards, ...The Development Bank of Singapore The government also owns "about 75% of all land in the country". The rest of the paper goes into detail explaining how the government routinely intervenes with subsidies and tax policy in order to force the market into whatever shape it deems fit. So I think the fact that people view Singapore at anything close to a free market is more a testament to just how effective the propaganda that has been pushing free market economic thought has been. [1] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2644389?seq=1 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2644389?seq=...

HarryHirsch 6y ago

We are being told that markets solve everything and yet the US have the most expensive healthcare in the West and the lousiest internet. The belief is empirically supported.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> markets solve everything and yet the US have the most expensive healthcare in the West and the lousiest internet Neither of which are anything close to free markets.
dagw 6y ago
We are being told that markets solve everything and yet the US have the most expensive healthcare in the West and the lousiest internet For which there are two possible conclusions. 1) Free markets are unable to supply reasonably priced, high quality health care and internet 2) The markets for healthcare and internet in the US aren't Free markets. You seem very sure that possibility 1 is the only correct conclusion, without examining possibility 2.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The empirical evidence is that internet is cheaper in countries with local-loop unbundling, and that countries that have price controls for medical care have cheaper healthcare. You can't argue with observable facts.
  - dagw 6y ago
    I'll happy accept that at face value (even if I think the truth of the first statement is slightly more complex that you make it out to be). Just not sure that leads to the conclusions you seem to be drawing from those facts.