3 ms·

Exactly, which is why any non-free market solution will eventually accrue capital (or other benefits) to those in power, rather than to those who produce. See

by fleitz 15y ago

Exactly, which is why any non-free market solution will eventually accrue capital (or other benefits) to those in power, rather than to those who produce. See regulatory capture and moral hazard for why our system is screwed.

JabavuAdams 15y ago
Ok, but who has the power to enforce this mythical free market against the powerful people who benefit from the current system? Power means never having to say you're sorry. If you're not part of the elite, your only realistic options are to become part of the elite, or to change the game (i.e. create a new elite including you and those you care about) in some way not easily anticipated / countered by the current elite.
barrkel 15y ago
Well, free markets don't accrue capital to "those who produce" either; there's a lot of problems in completely free markets. Efficiency can't be achieved without complete information; since nobody is omniscient (never mind everybody), there will be plenty of inefficient allocation of capital not in proportion to production. Moreover, free markets have no moral content. Quite apart from unrestricted transactions creating injustice, free markets reward scarce resources in high demand. But something being in high demand does not make it virtuous - fashions change with the wind - and nor is there necessarily virtue in rewarding the owners of those scarce resources, which may be sheer luck. As a collective, we only want markets that are free to the degree that they are not also unjust; and that's a much harder problem.
inthewoods 15y ago
Doesn't that assume that a free market solution won't eventually accrue capital to those in power? I fail see the connection - what stops someone, via the free market, from making a lot of money and then using it to promote what they want via the influence that money can buy?

3 ms·

Exactly, which is why any non-free market solution will eventually accrue capital (or other benefits) to those in power, rather than to those who produce. See

by fleitz 15y ago

JabavuAdams 15y ago
Ok, but who has the power to enforce this mythical free market against the powerful people who benefit from the current system? Power means never having to say you're sorry. If you're not part of the elite, your only realistic options are to become part of the elite, or to change the game (i.e. create a new elite including you and those you care about) in some way not easily anticipated / countered by the current elite.
barrkel 15y ago
Well, free markets don't accrue capital to "those who produce" either; there's a lot of problems in completely free markets. Efficiency can't be achieved without complete information; since nobody is omniscient (never mind everybody), there will be plenty of inefficient allocation of capital not in proportion to production. Moreover, free markets have no moral content. Quite apart from unrestricted transactions creating injustice, free markets reward scarce resources in high demand. But something being in high demand does not make it virtuous - fashions change with the wind - and nor is there necessarily virtue in rewarding the owners of those scarce resources, which may be sheer luck. As a collective, we only want markets that are free to the degree that they are not also unjust; and that's a much harder problem.
inthewoods 15y ago
Doesn't that assume that a free market solution won't eventually accrue capital to those in power? I fail see the connection - what stops someone, via the free market, from making a lot of money and then using it to promote what they want via the influence that money can buy?