3 ms·
>What is the argument for that in general again? Free-market types used to have some assumptions about how free markets are expected to work, then they would d
by SantalBlush 3y ago
>What is the argument for that in general again?
Free-market types used to have some assumptions about how free markets are expected to work, then they would derive the result that a free market yields a net benefit to society from those assumptions.
Now it is glaringly obvious that a free market can cause a net loss to society, but they still need to believe free markets are good. So they ignore the evidence, and instead of deriving the result from assumptions, they treat it as an axiom instead.
- Jgrubb 3y agoOr, blame meddlesome government regulation as the problem, blocking a free market and instead having winners and losers chosen by the state. It’s an effective argument because it’s got some truth to it.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoIsn’t the whole argument in this thread that the government meddled in the economy by printing tons of money that then was used for questionable investments? How is that “free market”? IME 80% of criticisms of “free market” is actually a criticism of government policy (and then the same critics think that more of those policies are called for!)
- SantalBlush 3y agoGovernment regulation and the Fed will continue to exist in some form, at least to some small degree, so you will always be able to claim markets weren't "free" enough to properly implement a free market system. But if that's true, then it's moot; if a free-market system requires absolute purity from government to perform as intended, then it's worthless, because that will never happen. In other words, its proponents admit it's a fantasy that will only exist in their heads. As such, I have no reason to care about it or about how great some people think it is. Fortunately, most economists already agree that market failures exist, and that free-market economics is bunk.