3 ms·

> First, if you look hard enough, you can see traces of the hand of government in almost anything on earth, including any market.... > In general, markets are

by ardy42 6y ago

> First, if you look hard enough, you can see traces of the hand of government in almost anything on earth, including any market.... > In general, markets are sustainable in the long run without government interference (and usually actually more stable this way). With the market, you don't even have to look very hard. Many people like to believe that the market is self-regulating and "natural," but that's not the case. It was created via government policy (hundreds of years ago), and depends on government in such fundamental ways that it's inseparable from it. The market would destroy itself (and much else) without government interference, and to claim otherwise is akin to denying the mountain because you're standing on top of it.

triangleman 6y ago
You seem to have made 2 claims: 1) The "market" (for what, you don't say) was created by government policy hundreds of years ago (but not thousands of yeas ago?) 2) The market needs constant interference in order to not destroy itself (and again you seem to be referring to a great range of economic activity, perhaps all of it, but not all of it because you're also saying it would destroy "much else") Do you have evidence to support either of these claims, other than begging the question? Would you like to modify them so that they are more specific?
- ardy42 6y ago
  > 1) The "market" (for what, you don't say) was created by government policy hundreds of years ago (but not thousands of yeas ago?) By market, I'm referring to what we refer to as the market today, which is a relatively modern invention. Sure, for thousands of years there have been things called "markets," but they were far more limited in scope and their role in society was not nearly the same. > 2) The market needs constant interference in order to not destroy itself (and again you seem to be referring to a great range of economic activity, perhaps all of it, but not all of it because you're also saying it would destroy "much else") I mean, isn't this obvious? The market itself is not going to enforce contracts, it's not going prevent a wealthy person from paying for a private army and making his own rules, it's not going to do anything about monopolies and cartels (at least not on a reasonable timescale), it's not going to manage negative externalities, it's not going to address or mitigate socially destabilizing economic forces, etc. The market is like a car: it some ways it may be a modern marvel, effortlessly regulating the timing of its complicated internal workings in a way no person could, but without a driver it will run out of gas and as happily drive into a wall than not.
  - eru 6y ago
    > I mean, isn't this obvious? The market itself is not going to enforce contracts, [...] Contrast and compare 'Legal Systems Very Different from Ours' at eg http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsCo...

by ardy42 6y ago

triangleman 6y ago

You seem to have made 2 claims: 1) The "market" (for what, you don't say) was created by government policy hundreds of years ago (but not thousands of yeas ago?) 2) The market needs constant interference in order to not destroy itself (and again you seem to be referring to a great range of economic activity, perhaps all of it, but not all of it because you're also saying it would destroy "much else") Do you have evidence to support either of these claims, other than begging the question? Would you like to modify them so that they are more specific?

ardy42 6y ago
> 1) The "market" (for what, you don't say) was created by government policy hundreds of years ago (but not thousands of yeas ago?) By market, I'm referring to what we refer to as the market today, which is a relatively modern invention. Sure, for thousands of years there have been things called "markets," but they were far more limited in scope and their role in society was not nearly the same. > 2) The market needs constant interference in order to not destroy itself (and again you seem to be referring to a great range of economic activity, perhaps all of it, but not all of it because you're also saying it would destroy "much else") I mean, isn't this obvious? The market itself is not going to enforce contracts, it's not going prevent a wealthy person from paying for a private army and making his own rules, it's not going to do anything about monopolies and cartels (at least not on a reasonable timescale), it's not going to manage negative externalities, it's not going to address or mitigate socially destabilizing economic forces, etc. The market is like a car: it some ways it may be a modern marvel, effortlessly regulating the timing of its complicated internal workings in a way no person could, but without a driver it will run out of gas and as happily drive into a wall than not.
- eru 6y ago
  > I mean, isn't this obvious? The market itself is not going to enforce contracts, [...] Contrast and compare 'Legal Systems Very Different from Ours' at eg http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsCo...