4 ms·

A century of scholarship says markets are good. This isn't some ideological narrative. It's an evidenced based conclusion, and the consensus position of the soc

A century of scholarship says markets are good. This isn't some ideological narrative. It's an evidenced based conclusion, and the consensus position of the social scientists who study this.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Sure. But you can't just see any economic theory that has the word 'market' in it and automatically say they are equal and good. Which is the current 'ideology'. I'd also question a 'century' of 'proving it is great' since 100 years is 1923, so any proof at that point was just leading into Depression. And, YES, in the modern American dialog, 'Free Market' is definitely an ideology. People believe in it without any knowledge about what it means, similarly to the bible.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  I never implied any term with the word "market" is good. And of course most people are going to only have a simplistic understanding of most concepts. But the reason the free market was popularized in the first place is that people who study economics found that it produced prosperity, and then actively popularized the idea of a free market. Of course, they were massively out-propagandized by special interests who benefit from government restrictions on voluntary interactions, and so the free market is extremely unpopular, with all trends — e.g. the rising degree of regulatory of centralization as measured by per capita regulatory compliance costs, the rapid rise in social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP since 1950, etc — demonstrating that. >>since 100 years is 1923, so any proof at that point was just leading into Depression. The Federal Reserve, i.e. the central bank, created the Crash of 1929, and it was Hoover and FDR's government "cures" that turned what would have been a short downturn and quick recovery into a Depression. Hoover's role: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842709 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842709 FDR's: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolon... At one point, the FDR administration was paying farmers a sum equal to $500 million today, to kill and bury five million baby pigs: https://footnote.wordpress.ncsu.edu/2020/08/14/plowing-under-cotton-and-killing-pigs-8-14-2020/ https://footnote.wordpress.ncsu.edu/2020/08/14/plowing-under... This while people were going hungry. The FDR administration, economically illiterate ideologues as they were, believed that the problem was low prices, and that by reducing the supply of agricultural products, they could push up the price, and end the depression. In reality, the money supply had contracted due to cascading loan defaults, and what needed to happen is for prices to adjust downward to come in line with wages. The FDR administration instituted a number of measures to try to control prices, to horrible effect on millions.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I didn't know about the pigs. That was interesting. I've never understood paying farmers to not produce. But, it still happens today. Through decades of Republican and Democratic administrations, we still pay farmers to not produce. And we pay oil companies welfare, not sure why we pay them anything. The government is always trying to balance the economy and subsidize some industries more than others (again, the gray area on which is the right thing to subsidize). Not sure we are dissagreeing. You don't seem to be against regulations on a market in general, just not these regulations. Markets are artificial to begin with, there is no such thing as a 'free market' without some organizing effort that people call 'regulations'. How free does it have to be, in 1900's there were private armies, do we go back to that much freedom. I tend to think the Gov should step in on in-elastic markets. Sure, 'free markets' are great when there is competition for something like a TV. But not great when there is a monopoly on insulin. That is why health care free markets don't work. When you are having a heart attach you aren't shopping around for a bargain price. Anyway, I think we diverged a lot from original post. I don't necessarily disagree with 'classical' economics. But those are a long way from modern right wing propaganda on 'free markets' which I thought the thread had gone to. So when someone suddenly starts talking about real 'markets', have to re-calibrate.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      I'm against all regulations that impact mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults (so every regulation with the exception of those relating to interactions with minors and the environment), so I believe we are disagreeing. I fully support targeted government intervention that does not violate the freedom to contract, i.e. is not a regulation, to produce public goods. Where we agree is that we both believe that some level of government intervention is required for optimal economic function. I just restrict the type of government intervention that I support to types that don't suppress the free market. Yes, markets are artificial, in the same way that a peaceful society where murder is prohibited is artificial. Doesn't mean they are not beneficial. >>That is why health care free markets don't work. When you are having a heart attach you aren't shopping around for a bargain price. Emergency care is a small subset of healthcare spending, that should be government provided. The rest is far better provided by a free market. The example of the cosmetic procedures industry, and how it vastly outperforms the healthcare industry with the advantage of being more market based than the latter, shows how beneficial market freedom is: https://www.ncpathinktank.org/commentaries/the-market-for-medical-care-should-work-like-cosmetic-surgery https://www.ncpathinktank.org/commentaries/the-market-for-me... The industries at the top are the most government run/subsidized, and the ones at the bottom the most consumer/market driven: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-3/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-3... Healthcare is not exception to the rule that more freedom in the market generates more efficiency and innovation.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Here is something with some more modern, current examples in technology, might help understand the nuances in 'free markets'. Nobody is saying abolish property, but 'free' doesn't mean chaos mode anarchy. https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-antitrust-predatory-pricing-uber-wework-bird-2023-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-ant...
- ETH_start 3y ago
  First, I should point out that every party that was involved in the publication of the article has a financial conflict of interest in the public's perception of the free market. The journalist is unionized, and thus benefits from the barriers to competition from other workers created by left-wing labor laws that restrict his employer's right to freely contract, and negotiate with workers outside of the union. Unionized journalists not disclosing that they're unionized —and thus that they have a financial conflict of interest when doing economics/politics stories— is a major problem as virtually the entire mainstream media has a unionized workforce, and most people —I presume until I informed you of this, you included— are oblivious to it. The researchers formerly worked for the government, and have expertise relevant to jobs in the regulatory sector of the government. They stand to directly benefit from any expansion in public funds allocated for regulatory agencies. Moving on, even assuming this article's claims are correct, classical economics already recognizes that there are edge cases where a free market without government intervention is not absolutely optimal, so this doesn't invalidate it. And even in these cases, the inefficiencies created by natural monopolies can be addressed without suppressing the free market, via government subsidizing the development of decentralized open-source protocols that are capable of entirely replacing centralized parties in many markets. The state, being publicly funded, is the only entity capable of cost-effectively funding non-profit initiatives like this that produce public goods. Finally, the common characterization of a free market "anarchy" is nothing more than propaganda to vilify a free society. Laws, enforced by the state, that respect and protect the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions is the opposite of anarchy. It is a peaceful well-ordered society. The government, when misused, becomes an instrument of predation, as Frédéric Bastiat explained some over 170 years ago: https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state "Man rejects Pain and Suffering. And yet he is condemned by nature to the Suffering privation brings if he does not embark upon the Pain of Work. All he has, therefore, is a choice between these two evils. How can he avoid both? Up to now, he has only found and will only ever find one means, that is, to enjoy the work of others, to act in such a way that Pain and Satisfaction do not accrue to each person in accordance with natural proportions, but that all pain accrues to some and all satisfaction to the others. From this we get slavery or even spoliation, in whatever form it takes: wars, imposture, violence, restrictions, fraud, etc., all monstrous forms of abuse but in line with the thought that has given rise to them. We should hate and combat oppressors but we cannot say that they are absurd. Slavery is receding, thank Heaven, and on the other hand, our aptitude for defending our property means that direct and crude Spoliation is not easy to do. However, one thing has remained. It is this unfortunate primitive tendency within all men to divide into two our complex human lot, shifting Pain onto others and keeping Satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be seen in what new form this sorry tendency will manifest itself. Oppressors no longer act directly on the oppressed using their own forces. No, our conscience has become too scrupulous for that. There are still tyrants and victims certainly, but between them has placed itself the intermediary that is the State, that is to say, the law itself. What is more calculated to silence our scruples and, perhaps more appealing, to overcome our resistance? For this reason, we all make calls upon the State on one ground or pretext or another. We tell it “I do not consider that there is a satisfactory relation between the goods I enjoy and my work. I would like to take a little from the property of others to establish the balance I desire. But this is dangerous. Can you not make my task easier? Could you not provide me with a good position? Or else hinder the production of my competitors? Or else make me an interest free loan of the capital you have taken from its owners? Or raise my children at public expense? Or award me subsidies by way of subornation? Or ensure my well-being when I reach the age of fifty? By these means I will achieve my aim with a perfectly clear conscience, since the law itself will have acted on my behalf and I will achieve all the advantages of spoliation without ever having incurred either its risks or opprobrium!"

A century of scholarship says markets are good. This isn't some ideological narrative. It's an evidenced based conclusion, and the consensus position of the social scientists who study this.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Sure. But you can't just see any economic theory that has the word 'market' in it and automatically say they are equal and good. Which is the current 'ideology'. I'd also question a 'century' of 'proving it is great' since 100 years is 1923, so any proof at that point was just leading into Depression. And, YES, in the modern American dialog, 'Free Market' is definitely an ideology. People believe in it without any knowledge about what it means, similarly to the bible.

ETH_start 3y ago
I never implied any term with the word "market" is good. And of course most people are going to only have a simplistic understanding of most concepts. But the reason the free market was popularized in the first place is that people who study economics found that it produced prosperity, and then actively popularized the idea of a free market. Of course, they were massively out-propagandized by special interests who benefit from government restrictions on voluntary interactions, and so the free market is extremely unpopular, with all trends — e.g. the rising degree of regulatory of centralization as measured by per capita regulatory compliance costs, the rapid rise in social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP since 1950, etc — demonstrating that. >>since 100 years is 1923, so any proof at that point was just leading into Depression. The Federal Reserve, i.e. the central bank, created the Crash of 1929, and it was Hoover and FDR's government "cures" that turned what would have been a short downturn and quick recovery into a Depression. Hoover's role: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842709 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842709 FDR's: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolon... At one point, the FDR administration was paying farmers a sum equal to $500 million today, to kill and bury five million baby pigs: https://footnote.wordpress.ncsu.edu/2020/08/14/plowing-under-cotton-and-killing-pigs-8-14-2020/ https://footnote.wordpress.ncsu.edu/2020/08/14/plowing-under... This while people were going hungry. The FDR administration, economically illiterate ideologues as they were, believed that the problem was low prices, and that by reducing the supply of agricultural products, they could push up the price, and end the depression. In reality, the money supply had contracted due to cascading loan defaults, and what needed to happen is for prices to adjust downward to come in line with wages. The FDR administration instituted a number of measures to try to control prices, to horrible effect on millions.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I didn't know about the pigs. That was interesting. I've never understood paying farmers to not produce. But, it still happens today. Through decades of Republican and Democratic administrations, we still pay farmers to not produce. And we pay oil companies welfare, not sure why we pay them anything. The government is always trying to balance the economy and subsidize some industries more than others (again, the gray area on which is the right thing to subsidize). Not sure we are dissagreeing. You don't seem to be against regulations on a market in general, just not these regulations. Markets are artificial to begin with, there is no such thing as a 'free market' without some organizing effort that people call 'regulations'. How free does it have to be, in 1900's there were private armies, do we go back to that much freedom. I tend to think the Gov should step in on in-elastic markets. Sure, 'free markets' are great when there is competition for something like a TV. But not great when there is a monopoly on insulin. That is why health care free markets don't work. When you are having a heart attach you aren't shopping around for a bargain price. Anyway, I think we diverged a lot from original post. I don't necessarily disagree with 'classical' economics. But those are a long way from modern right wing propaganda on 'free markets' which I thought the thread had gone to. So when someone suddenly starts talking about real 'markets', have to re-calibrate.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    I'm against all regulations that impact mutually voluntary economic interactions between consenting adults (so every regulation with the exception of those relating to interactions with minors and the environment), so I believe we are disagreeing. I fully support targeted government intervention that does not violate the freedom to contract, i.e. is not a regulation, to produce public goods. Where we agree is that we both believe that some level of government intervention is required for optimal economic function. I just restrict the type of government intervention that I support to types that don't suppress the free market. Yes, markets are artificial, in the same way that a peaceful society where murder is prohibited is artificial. Doesn't mean they are not beneficial. >>That is why health care free markets don't work. When you are having a heart attach you aren't shopping around for a bargain price. Emergency care is a small subset of healthcare spending, that should be government provided. The rest is far better provided by a free market. The example of the cosmetic procedures industry, and how it vastly outperforms the healthcare industry with the advantage of being more market based than the latter, shows how beneficial market freedom is: https://www.ncpathinktank.org/commentaries/the-market-for-medical-care-should-work-like-cosmetic-surgery https://www.ncpathinktank.org/commentaries/the-market-for-me... The industries at the top are the most government run/subsidized, and the ones at the bottom the most consumer/market driven: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-3/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-3... Healthcare is not exception to the rule that more freedom in the market generates more efficiency and innovation.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Here is something with some more modern, current examples in technology, might help understand the nuances in 'free markets'. Nobody is saying abolish property, but 'free' doesn't mean chaos mode anarchy. https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-antitrust-predatory-pricing-uber-wework-bird-2023-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-ant...

ETH_start 3y ago
First, I should point out that every party that was involved in the publication of the article has a financial conflict of interest in the public's perception of the free market. The journalist is unionized, and thus benefits from the barriers to competition from other workers created by left-wing labor laws that restrict his employer's right to freely contract, and negotiate with workers outside of the union. Unionized journalists not disclosing that they're unionized —and thus that they have a financial conflict of interest when doing economics/politics stories— is a major problem as virtually the entire mainstream media has a unionized workforce, and most people —I presume until I informed you of this, you included— are oblivious to it. The researchers formerly worked for the government, and have expertise relevant to jobs in the regulatory sector of the government. They stand to directly benefit from any expansion in public funds allocated for regulatory agencies. Moving on, even assuming this article's claims are correct, classical economics already recognizes that there are edge cases where a free market without government intervention is not absolutely optimal, so this doesn't invalidate it. And even in these cases, the inefficiencies created by natural monopolies can be addressed without suppressing the free market, via government subsidizing the development of decentralized open-source protocols that are capable of entirely replacing centralized parties in many markets. The state, being publicly funded, is the only entity capable of cost-effectively funding non-profit initiatives like this that produce public goods. Finally, the common characterization of a free market "anarchy" is nothing more than propaganda to vilify a free society. Laws, enforced by the state, that respect and protect the right of consenting adults to engage in mutually voluntary interactions is the opposite of anarchy. It is a peaceful well-ordered society. The government, when misused, becomes an instrument of predation, as Frédéric Bastiat explained some over 170 years ago: https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/bastiat-and-the-state "Man rejects Pain and Suffering. And yet he is condemned by nature to the Suffering privation brings if he does not embark upon the Pain of Work. All he has, therefore, is a choice between these two evils. How can he avoid both? Up to now, he has only found and will only ever find one means, that is, to enjoy the work of others, to act in such a way that Pain and Satisfaction do not accrue to each person in accordance with natural proportions, but that all pain accrues to some and all satisfaction to the others. From this we get slavery or even spoliation, in whatever form it takes: wars, imposture, violence, restrictions, fraud, etc., all monstrous forms of abuse but in line with the thought that has given rise to them. We should hate and combat oppressors but we cannot say that they are absurd. Slavery is receding, thank Heaven, and on the other hand, our aptitude for defending our property means that direct and crude Spoliation is not easy to do. However, one thing has remained. It is this unfortunate primitive tendency within all men to divide into two our complex human lot, shifting Pain onto others and keeping Satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be seen in what new form this sorry tendency will manifest itself. Oppressors no longer act directly on the oppressed using their own forces. No, our conscience has become too scrupulous for that. There are still tyrants and victims certainly, but between them has placed itself the intermediary that is the State, that is to say, the law itself. What is more calculated to silence our scruples and, perhaps more appealing, to overcome our resistance? For this reason, we all make calls upon the State on one ground or pretext or another. We tell it “I do not consider that there is a satisfactory relation between the goods I enjoy and my work. I would like to take a little from the property of others to establish the balance I desire. But this is dangerous. Can you not make my task easier? Could you not provide me with a good position? Or else hinder the production of my competitors? Or else make me an interest free loan of the capital you have taken from its owners? Or raise my children at public expense? Or award me subsidies by way of subornation? Or ensure my well-being when I reach the age of fifty? By these means I will achieve my aim with a perfectly clear conscience, since the law itself will have acted on my behalf and I will achieve all the advantages of spoliation without ever having incurred either its risks or opprobrium!"