3 ms·

So long as the government can basically pick the winners/losers in the marketplace, there's an incentive for corruption. Whatever checks and balances and regula

So long as the government can basically pick the winners/losers in the marketplace, there's an incentive for corruption. Whatever checks and balances and regulations are instituted to defend against this just serve as a feedback mechanism to increase the price for crooked behavior. The only solution to this are systems like free markets, or as close to this as you can get. Winners and losers have to be freely chosen by quality and price in the marketplace. Corruption can't exist if there's no ability to buy anything of value.

maerF0x0 4y ago
But how can we have free markets if we have irrational actors? eg: first hit on google on the subject: https://innovationprotocol.com/2018/10/18/humans-arent-rational/#:~:text=There%20a%20concept%20in%20economic,in%20their%20best%20self%2Dinterest https://innovationprotocol.com/2018/10/18/humans-arent-ratio....
- gruez 4y ago
  > But how can we have free markets if we have irrational actors? 1. why can't we have free markets in the presence of irrational actors? A free market just means... a market free from government interference. Irrational actors don't prevent this. Maybe you talking about "efficient" markets? 2. I'm really tired of people using the "people aren't 100% rational" as some sort of checkmate against markets. Humans being sometimes irrational just means the markets aren't making the most optimal choices. It doesn't mean that we should throw out the idea of markets, or an government bureaucrat (also an irrational actor!) tasked with overriding the market is necessarily going to be better.
nescioquid 4y ago
I can't understand your comment any way other than: you can't have a corrupt government if you have no government. If, absent regulation, markets result in monopolies, you just have the situation in which the powerful do as they will and every one else must suffer it, but without the possibility of legislative redress. Uncertain how to distinguish this end result from the current situation.

maerF0x0 4y ago

But how can we have free markets if we have irrational actors? eg: first hit on google on the subject: https://innovationprotocol.com/2018/10/18/humans-arent-rational/#:~:text=There%20a%20concept%20in%20economic,in%20their%20best%20self%2Dinterest https://innovationprotocol.com/2018/10/18/humans-arent-ratio....

gruez 4y ago
> But how can we have free markets if we have irrational actors? 1. why can't we have free markets in the presence of irrational actors? A free market just means... a market free from government interference. Irrational actors don't prevent this. Maybe you talking about "efficient" markets? 2. I'm really tired of people using the "people aren't 100% rational" as some sort of checkmate against markets. Humans being sometimes irrational just means the markets aren't making the most optimal choices. It doesn't mean that we should throw out the idea of markets, or an government bureaucrat (also an irrational actor!) tasked with overriding the market is necessarily going to be better.

nescioquid 4y ago

I can't understand your comment any way other than: you can't have a corrupt government if you have no government. If, absent regulation, markets result in monopolies, you just have the situation in which the powerful do as they will and every one else must suffer it, but without the possibility of legislative redress. Uncertain how to distinguish this end result from the current situation.