7 ms·

How would that happen? I'm curious because I've never seen markets as being specially good at enforcing policies that (some or most) parts of society see as mor

How would that happen? I'm curious because I've never seen markets as being specially good at enforcing policies that (some or most) parts of society see as morally good (as vague as these terms are). For example, markets never managed to prevent child labour (they still don't!), we had to pass laws to enforce them in Western countries. What are your specific thoughts on how would this process unfold? Edit: On a second read of the article and parent comment, I understand it now as an ironic take on a flawed justification for the law that tries to satisfy everyone ("We're doing this for the markets!").

darawk 4y ago
The part he quoted was about running a more efficient business (i.e. outcompeting the competition), not being morally better. Markets are generally pretty good at promoting that.
- hectorlorenzo 4y ago
  Get it, then I think disagreement runs deeper than I thought. As a sibling comment mentioned, I believe that markets are meant to serve humans, not the other way around. Edit: typo
  - olalonde 4y ago
    The question is: is it more desirable for society to have the most competent people running a business or to have a balanced representation of gender, sexual orientation, skin color or <insert other arbitrary way to classify people here> running it? Free market proponents would argue the former is more desirable.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      Free market proponents would be wrong. If you're excluding a significant proportion of your population from leadership roles - which is what happens predictably, almost as if by magic, when "markets" make decisions about leadership - your markets are anything but free.
      - olalonde 4y ago
        > your markets are anything but free I believe you are using a non standard definition of "free market" here? Also I am not sure I understand what you mean by "excluding a significant proportion of your population from leadership roles". Of course, competency/qualification requirements excludes a large proportion of the population.
    - hectorlorenzo 4y ago
      This question might be a binary over-simplification. We currently do not have the tools to measure who is "the most competent people running a business". Markets are never pure so I do not think that the current situation (predominantly white men in boards) is the outcome of rational optimisation over the years. If anything, free market proponents should welcome these laws as a way to experiment with different variables to empirically determine what's the best way to run a business. I also do not think that (most) proponents of a balanced representation favour diversity over competency. Speaking for myself, I do believe (from experience) that having diversity in a team results in more resilient, efficient, and "optimal" decision-making. Again, we do not have sufficient tools to prove that empirically, so we better A/B test the hell out of it :)
      - thrill 4y ago
        "free market proponents should welcome these laws as a way to experiment" Mandated experiments are not experiments.
        hectorlorenzo 4y ago
        As nice as this sounds, I do not think I follow. Can you elaborate?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - Proven 4y ago
88 4y ago
If it’s widely accepted that placing more women on corporate boards delivers better results for companies, then investors will push companies to do just that. Those that fail to do so will see their share price lag behind their competitors.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - thrill 4y ago
    People are supposed to seriously take your social policies as beneficial when you use derogatory terms like "old white dudes"?
    - ivan_gammel 4y ago
      Social policies are not mine and I personally do not have a goal to promote them among the privileged class to which I myself belong, so it should not matter what terms I use in this conversation. It’s just the matter of fact that certain class of people of certain ancestry and gender is often ignorant to the social progress and lives by the book of Ayn Rand, rather than by the book of Acemoglu and Robinson.
- hectorlorenzo 4y ago
  I understand now. However, I think it unfairly assumes that markets are run (or executed?) by rational actors that always make optimal decisions without getting bogged down by biases or passed down wisdom.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Sure, but then you’re replacing that with assuming the government is making the optimal decision and not being bogged down by biases or politically expedient self-serving moves. Given that the feedback loop for government actions is slow and often time indirect, I’m not sure the government is making the best decision either.
TheAceOfHearts 4y ago
My guess is that GP means that it's not actually a competitive advantage, otherwise the markets would already be including women on their boards in equal proportions to men? Markets don't tend to experiment that much when they have something that works unless further competition shows up, see electric cars for example. Markets are meant to serve humans, not the other way around.
himinlomax 4y ago
> How would that happen? How would that not happen? Businesses are always looking for an edge over the competition. If it was clear that women bosses outperformed men, any smart investor would insist on having them run the joint. The only counter argument would be that investors hate women more than they love money, which is just patently absurd on the face of it, since they obviously love nothing more than money.

darawk 4y ago

The part he quoted was about running a more efficient business (i.e. outcompeting the competition), not being morally better. Markets are generally pretty good at promoting that.

hectorlorenzo 4y ago
Get it, then I think disagreement runs deeper than I thought. As a sibling comment mentioned, I believe that markets are meant to serve humans, not the other way around. Edit: typo
- olalonde 4y ago
  The question is: is it more desirable for society to have the most competent people running a business or to have a balanced representation of gender, sexual orientation, skin color or <insert other arbitrary way to classify people here> running it? Free market proponents would argue the former is more desirable.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Free market proponents would be wrong. If you're excluding a significant proportion of your population from leadership roles - which is what happens predictably, almost as if by magic, when "markets" make decisions about leadership - your markets are anything but free.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      > your markets are anything but free I believe you are using a non standard definition of "free market" here? Also I am not sure I understand what you mean by "excluding a significant proportion of your population from leadership roles". Of course, competency/qualification requirements excludes a large proportion of the population.
  - hectorlorenzo 4y ago
    This question might be a binary over-simplification. We currently do not have the tools to measure who is "the most competent people running a business". Markets are never pure so I do not think that the current situation (predominantly white men in boards) is the outcome of rational optimisation over the years. If anything, free market proponents should welcome these laws as a way to experiment with different variables to empirically determine what's the best way to run a business. I also do not think that (most) proponents of a balanced representation favour diversity over competency. Speaking for myself, I do believe (from experience) that having diversity in a team results in more resilient, efficient, and "optimal" decision-making. Again, we do not have sufficient tools to prove that empirically, so we better A/B test the hell out of it :)
    - thrill 4y ago
      "free market proponents should welcome these laws as a way to experiment" Mandated experiments are not experiments.
      - hectorlorenzo 4y ago
        As nice as this sounds, I do not think I follow. Can you elaborate?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- Proven 4y ago

88 4y ago

If it’s widely accepted that placing more women on corporate boards delivers better results for companies, then investors will push companies to do just that. Those that fail to do so will see their share price lag behind their competitors.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
[flagged]
- thrill 4y ago
  People are supposed to seriously take your social policies as beneficial when you use derogatory terms like "old white dudes"?
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    Social policies are not mine and I personally do not have a goal to promote them among the privileged class to which I myself belong, so it should not matter what terms I use in this conversation. It’s just the matter of fact that certain class of people of certain ancestry and gender is often ignorant to the social progress and lives by the book of Ayn Rand, rather than by the book of Acemoglu and Robinson.
hectorlorenzo 4y ago
I understand now. However, I think it unfairly assumes that markets are run (or executed?) by rational actors that always make optimal decisions without getting bogged down by biases or passed down wisdom.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Sure, but then you’re replacing that with assuming the government is making the optimal decision and not being bogged down by biases or politically expedient self-serving moves. Given that the feedback loop for government actions is slow and often time indirect, I’m not sure the government is making the best decision either.

TheAceOfHearts 4y ago

My guess is that GP means that it's not actually a competitive advantage, otherwise the markets would already be including women on their boards in equal proportions to men? Markets don't tend to experiment that much when they have something that works unless further competition shows up, see electric cars for example. Markets are meant to serve humans, not the other way around.

himinlomax 4y ago

> How would that happen? How would that not happen? Businesses are always looking for an edge over the competition. If it was clear that women bosses outperformed men, any smart investor would insist on having them run the joint. The only counter argument would be that investors hate women more than they love money, which is just patently absurd on the face of it, since they obviously love nothing more than money.