6 ms·

> So, you don't believe in innovation on demand. Innovation isn't guaranteed to happen "on demand". Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they

> So, you don't believe in innovation on demand. Innovation isn't guaranteed to happen "on demand". Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. "Everything will be OK in a free market" is just that - an article of faith.

gaius 15y ago
Historically, it's more probably correct than "The Party's 5-year-plan will make everything OK".
- davidw 15y ago
  Presumably there's some middle ground between communism and "fuck it, innovation will save us no matter how bad we screw up the environment!".
- Tichy 15y ago
  This discussion is seriously flawed. What free market proponents miss is that ALL markets are free markets. Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost for doing something not allowed by the government was incredibly high (like death penalty). The free market then would go on to produce the things, according to prices and demand. The black market is simply a part of the general "free market". So there is not really any information contained in "let the free market regulate things". The environment (including politics) determines the actual prize of things. The free market then does the rest, but we still have to set up the environment in the proper way. For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics.
  - ckuehne 15y ago
    "Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).
    - Tichy 15y ago
      They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
      - ckuehne 15y ago
        Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off). [1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
        Tichy 15y ago
        Yes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics. Food prices are an example that is infested with politics. The US spends a lot of money "supporting" various food prices, including wheat. Some other countries spend resources on depressing prices by means which reliably result in shortages.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      I am aware of that. But there are also physical realities in food production. What is the point of your nitpicking?
      - anamax 15y ago
        > But there are also physical realities in food production. There are physical realities in producing pretty much everything. > What is the point of your nitpicking? I'm pointing out that food is among the worst possible examples for whatever your point is. (I'm assuming that you've got more than "must charge more than cost of production".)
        Tichy 15y ago
        No I meant must charge more than cost of production.
- zeemonkee 15y ago
  Well, the Soviet Union was certainly innovative in certain areas - they did, after all, get the first satellite and human into space. The point isn't whether "the free market" or the "will of the proletariat" will solve all the world's problems through innovation. The universe does not care for our beliefs. Either the current environmental and energy crises are solvable through human ingenuity (by "solvable" I mean that we can continue world economic growth and rise in living standards indefinitely) or they are not; if they are not it really doesn't make any difference whether you follow Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.
anamax 15y ago
> Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. Correct. My point is that that applies to govt/social mandates as well as the free market.

gaius 15y ago

Historically, it's more probably correct than "The Party's 5-year-plan will make everything OK".

davidw 15y ago
Presumably there's some middle ground between communism and "fuck it, innovation will save us no matter how bad we screw up the environment!".
Tichy 15y ago
This discussion is seriously flawed. What free market proponents miss is that ALL markets are free markets. Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost for doing something not allowed by the government was incredibly high (like death penalty). The free market then would go on to produce the things, according to prices and demand. The black market is simply a part of the general "free market". So there is not really any information contained in "let the free market regulate things". The environment (including politics) determines the actual prize of things. The free market then does the rest, but we still have to set up the environment in the proper way. For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics.
- ckuehne 15y ago
  "Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).
  - Tichy 15y ago
    They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
    - ckuehne 15y ago
      Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough. That does not mean that they are not useful. Fare from it. Usually, there is some common understanding what words mean. For example, if I say “forest” most people will know what I mean, without arguing that there are no real forests only single trees [1]. Just as most people will agree, that markets in the western world are free (or more free) when compared to markets in Soviet Russia (the term “black market” should have tipped you off). [1] In the same manner one could argue that fossil oils really are renewable resources if the time frame under consideration is chosen to be long enough.
      - Tichy 15y ago
        Yes, but I challenge you to come up with a proper definition, if you think the "free market" will save us. Those wishy washy discussions are what get us into trouble. And fossil fuels would be sustainable if their rate of production was greater than or equal to our rate of consumption.
- anamax 15y ago
  > For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics. Food prices are an example that is infested with politics. The US spends a lot of money "supporting" various food prices, including wheat. Some other countries spend resources on depressing prices by means which reliably result in shortages.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I am aware of that. But there are also physical realities in food production. What is the point of your nitpicking?
    - anamax 15y ago
      > But there are also physical realities in food production. There are physical realities in producing pretty much everything. > What is the point of your nitpicking? I'm pointing out that food is among the worst possible examples for whatever your point is. (I'm assuming that you've got more than "must charge more than cost of production".)
      - Tichy 15y ago
        No I meant must charge more than cost of production.
zeemonkee 15y ago
Well, the Soviet Union was certainly innovative in certain areas - they did, after all, get the first satellite and human into space. The point isn't whether "the free market" or the "will of the proletariat" will solve all the world's problems through innovation. The universe does not care for our beliefs. Either the current environmental and energy crises are solvable through human ingenuity (by "solvable" I mean that we can continue world economic growth and rise in living standards indefinitely) or they are not; if they are not it really doesn't make any difference whether you follow Ayn Rand or Karl Marx.

anamax 15y ago

> Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. Correct. My point is that that applies to govt/social mandates as well as the free market.