3 ms·

Free markets are not a fair system of resource allocation and were never intended to be such, they are about efficient resource allocation. Having eg. a governm

by zwirbl 4y ago

Free markets are not a fair system of resource allocation and were never intended to be such, they are about efficient resource allocation. Having eg. a government involved might lead to a fairer outcome but efficiency will take a hit

ixtli 4y ago
I would go further and define “efficient.” They are, in western society, efficient at accumulating private capital in the hands of capitalists. No claim is made by anyone to the contrary.
- zwirbl 4y ago
  This is exactly the type of efficiency I had in mind. > No claim is made by anyone to the contrary The comment I replied to stated "fair" resource distribution and I claim it is most definitely not about fairness Edit: Line break
imapeopleperson 4y ago
Free markets have always been innately fair. If you own something, how would it be fair for the government to have any direct say on what you should do with it?
- zwirbl 4y ago
  I guess you will have to give an explanation what you think constitutes a free market and what kind of fairness you have in mind. It depends on the kind of property, as there might be very legitimate reasons for the government (representing the people in democratic nations) to have a direct say what you are allowed do with it. You might own a lake or a spring that's important for the population. You might own a factory where government dictates how clean the sewer runoff needs to be. Would that be unfair? I stated below that it is all about balancing interests, as I view every kind of extremism (that includes free market maximalism) as at least counterproductive, if not outright harmful
G3rn0ti 4y ago
> a government involved might lead to a fairer outcome Fairer for the supporters of a government that is. Even in a modern democracy a government is really just supported by a small majority ruling over a large minority. That does not mean that democracy has failed but it heavily implies the government power needs to be limited to a minimum in order for a free society to thrive. _That's why_ the lesson learned and applied by "neoliberalism" has always been meddling with economic forces is a sure road to serfdom (to quote the young F.A. Hayek which Thatcher's politics was always inspired by). It's never been about suppressing the poor. To the contrary. (Even Hayek argued in favor of small social security net.)
- lupire 4y ago
  OK, so let's remove thing like corporations and private land ownership and IP, all government inventions that interfere with non-aggressive freedom.
- zwirbl 4y ago
  Limiting government power to a minimum and let the market do its magic? I'm pretty sure that's a really bad idea, just thinking of leaded gasoline, tobacco advertising, chemical softeners in food packaging etc. one could get the impression that free market maximalism is an extreme that is as bad as communism, just like any extreme stance/opinion is. In the end it is all about balancing interests of different groups with (hopefully) a bias towards the people, not toward capital
  - coffeecat 4y ago
    The free market should be thought of as an optimization algorithm. Ideally, the government's role should be to set up a constrained optimization problem, which attempts to align profitability with human well-being (e.g., "provide people with whatever material comforts they want to pay for, under the constraint of not poisoning them and not polluting the environment"). The market's role is to solve the constrained optimization problem, and if the incentives set up by the government are good, the optimal point of profitability should reasonably approximate an optimal point of human well-being. The error of so-called free market proponents, is that they want the government to set up an unconstrained optimization problem. The market will find some kind of optimum, but without intelligently designed constraints (i.e., regulations), there's no guarantee that optimal profitability should correspond to optimal human well-being.

by zwirbl 4y ago

ixtli 4y ago

I would go further and define “efficient.” They are, in western society, efficient at accumulating private capital in the hands of capitalists. No claim is made by anyone to the contrary.

zwirbl 4y ago
This is exactly the type of efficiency I had in mind. > No claim is made by anyone to the contrary The comment I replied to stated "fair" resource distribution and I claim it is most definitely not about fairness Edit: Line break

imapeopleperson 4y ago

Free markets have always been innately fair. If you own something, how would it be fair for the government to have any direct say on what you should do with it?

zwirbl 4y ago
I guess you will have to give an explanation what you think constitutes a free market and what kind of fairness you have in mind. It depends on the kind of property, as there might be very legitimate reasons for the government (representing the people in democratic nations) to have a direct say what you are allowed do with it. You might own a lake or a spring that's important for the population. You might own a factory where government dictates how clean the sewer runoff needs to be. Would that be unfair? I stated below that it is all about balancing interests, as I view every kind of extremism (that includes free market maximalism) as at least counterproductive, if not outright harmful

G3rn0ti 4y ago

> a government involved might lead to a fairer outcome Fairer for the supporters of a government that is. Even in a modern democracy a government is really just supported by a small majority ruling over a large minority. That does not mean that democracy has failed but it heavily implies the government power needs to be limited to a minimum in order for a free society to thrive. _That's why_ the lesson learned and applied by "neoliberalism" has always been meddling with economic forces is a sure road to serfdom (to quote the young F.A. Hayek which Thatcher's politics was always inspired by). It's never been about suppressing the poor. To the contrary. (Even Hayek argued in favor of small social security net.)

lupire 4y ago
OK, so let's remove thing like corporations and private land ownership and IP, all government inventions that interfere with non-aggressive freedom.
zwirbl 4y ago
Limiting government power to a minimum and let the market do its magic? I'm pretty sure that's a really bad idea, just thinking of leaded gasoline, tobacco advertising, chemical softeners in food packaging etc. one could get the impression that free market maximalism is an extreme that is as bad as communism, just like any extreme stance/opinion is. In the end it is all about balancing interests of different groups with (hopefully) a bias towards the people, not toward capital
- coffeecat 4y ago
  The free market should be thought of as an optimization algorithm. Ideally, the government's role should be to set up a constrained optimization problem, which attempts to align profitability with human well-being (e.g., "provide people with whatever material comforts they want to pay for, under the constraint of not poisoning them and not polluting the environment"). The market's role is to solve the constrained optimization problem, and if the incentives set up by the government are good, the optimal point of profitability should reasonably approximate an optimal point of human well-being. The error of so-called free market proponents, is that they want the government to set up an unconstrained optimization problem. The market will find some kind of optimum, but without intelligently designed constraints (i.e., regulations), there's no guarantee that optimal profitability should correspond to optimal human well-being.