3 ms·

> The problem is that government regulations almost always create perverse incentives. Remove almost from there: always

Spivak 4y ago
And it’s the same with markets this isn’t a gotcha. Unless you define whatever the market does to be good and correct in which case well, not much to argue there then. But there are examples far and wide where the the natural incentives markets lay out misalign the interests of buyer and seller and corruption abound that has no involvement at all with government. Like it would be insulting to you to even list examples, I’m sure you could name 20 off the top of your head just from your daily life.
- germandiago 4y ago
  Ok. I will define why the market is perfect or nearly perfect: it is a free interchange between parts. No coercion exists in an exchange. As for buyer and seller. Buying is the action of purchasing a product of service. Trying to get a service cheaper under coercion is a bad thing. Trying to sell it more expensive... will not work in the presence of alternatives. If no alternatives exist and no regulation is artificially shrinking the market, how can u go set a price for the seller? that would be coercitive and clearly baf, after all if they r the only ones able to produce the service (in absence of absurd regulations) and people buy it it is bc they give it the same or more value of the purchase price Third parties putting conditions (a triangular relationship where it should be binary, the third party does not pay cost just sets a rule because yes wothout paying any cost). Given these premises, in order to satisfy your need you have two options: choose an alternative or produce it yourself. After all, if you want something in the first place it is bc there is value in it. How come you want someone go to pint guns at them? No way! Regulations usually shrink the market and create artificial monopolies. Those people who force monopolies are interventors who also have incentives, and sometimes way more perverse than the producers, which create some wellness for the others. So you create a system where the person produces something has to play under the rules of the ones who produce things for others and where the regulators (persons not producing goods or services) pay no cost for it! That is absurd under any sensible view!!! That is why you cannot just say that the market is bad. The only limit to the market should be negative externalities. And even those create a market incentive from the seller to not do things that afe negative. The buyer could choose an alternative. But if they do not and noone claims damage, after all people maybe do not care as much for that as those third party interventionists continuously claim, right? Otherwise you would hear them...

And it’s the same with markets this isn’t a gotcha. Unless you define whatever the market does to be good and correct in which case well, not much to argue there then. But there are examples far and wide where the the natural incentives markets lay out misalign the interests of buyer and seller and corruption abound that has no involvement at all with government. Like it would be insulting to you to even list examples, I’m sure you could name 20 off the top of your head just from your daily life.

germandiago 4y ago
Ok. I will define why the market is perfect or nearly perfect: it is a free interchange between parts. No coercion exists in an exchange. As for buyer and seller. Buying is the action of purchasing a product of service. Trying to get a service cheaper under coercion is a bad thing. Trying to sell it more expensive... will not work in the presence of alternatives. If no alternatives exist and no regulation is artificially shrinking the market, how can u go set a price for the seller? that would be coercitive and clearly baf, after all if they r the only ones able to produce the service (in absence of absurd regulations) and people buy it it is bc they give it the same or more value of the purchase price Third parties putting conditions (a triangular relationship where it should be binary, the third party does not pay cost just sets a rule because yes wothout paying any cost). Given these premises, in order to satisfy your need you have two options: choose an alternative or produce it yourself. After all, if you want something in the first place it is bc there is value in it. How come you want someone go to pint guns at them? No way! Regulations usually shrink the market and create artificial monopolies. Those people who force monopolies are interventors who also have incentives, and sometimes way more perverse than the producers, which create some wellness for the others. So you create a system where the person produces something has to play under the rules of the ones who produce things for others and where the regulators (persons not producing goods or services) pay no cost for it! That is absurd under any sensible view!!! That is why you cannot just say that the market is bad. The only limit to the market should be negative externalities. And even those create a market incentive from the seller to not do things that afe negative. The buyer could choose an alternative. But if they do not and noone claims damage, after all people maybe do not care as much for that as those third party interventionists continuously claim, right? Otherwise you would hear them...