3 ms·
Markets in general are quite good at routing resources and innovation. A perfectly free market, or at least free enough that you're arguing we should remove reg
by sudosysgen 5y ago
Markets in general are quite good at routing resources and innovation. A perfectly free market, or at least free enough that you're arguing we should remove regulators and social safety nets, is worse at all of those things, and only really great at controlling people, which as the point of those you were replying to.
Also, markets can't allow innovations from the ground up by themselves, the require a government to implement a fragile and inefficient intellectual property system, but that's just nitpicking.
- DarylZero 5y agoSure, but it has to be understood what resource is being allocated: the labor of the dispossessed. If you don't have dispossessed masses obligated to labor, there's nothing to allocate. Of course people don't have to face literal starvation to be under control, but the system fundamentally requires that the level of deprivation always be enough to meet the requirement of keeping labor under control.
- pydry 5y ago"A perfectly free market" is essentially a deliberately vague pseudoreligious concept. No true free market would [ insert as appropriate ].
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt's not really that vague. The less resource allocation is affected by non-market forces, the freer the market. Of course, a perfectly free market is not actually possible. My point is moreso that there are extremely good reasons to limit the autonomy of markets.
- pydry 5y agoWhat constitutes nonmarket forces is mostly a matter of opinion. Unions? Monopoly power? Government enforcing contracts? Government competing in the market? Natural disasters? Normal weather? Taxation? No taxation? Strong property rights? No property rights? A "perfectly free market" is a meaningless phrase dressed up to sound like "frictionless in a vacuum". It exists for the purposes of cynical lobbying.