5 ms·
Any number of the many, many, negative externalities[0], where market transactions are unable or unwilling to capture the often serious negative effects of an a
by Bluestrike2 3y ago
Any number of the many, many, negative externalities[0], where market transactions are unable or unwilling to capture the often serious negative effects of an activity in its price, that have been documented and researched by economists over the years? Air pollution and greenhouse gases are just two of the biggest examples, with absolutely massive external costs that are not captured in the price. There are even positive externalities with various activities where societal benefits can't be captured in the price.
Regulatory capture[1] and rent-seeking are also examples where markets can fail. There are plenty of others.
Markets are just tools for the exchange of economic activity. Nothing more, nothing less. But as a society, we tend to ascribe all sorts of greater meaning to them that make it harder to recognize where they come up short and actually do something about it. If knee-jerk anti-market reactions are bad, then might I propose that knee-jerk pro-market reactions are just as bad, insofar as they gloss over or outright ignore the negative aspects of markets as we've implemented them?
Imagine a screwdriver. It does one job: turn a screw. If you have the right one, matched with the corresponding screw drive--let's just assume a Philips screw--at the right size, it does its job perfectly. But it'll get less effective as the tip and screw sizes diverge. What about other screw drives? There are a bunch of types where a Philips will sort of fit, and you'll probably be able to turn the screw, albeit with more effort and a greater likelihood of camming out and damaging the screw or your screwdriver. A flat-head screwdriver gets used and abused in all sorts of fun and interesting ways. You can use a flat-head screwdriver to pry open a can of paint, but an actual paint can opener is still less likely to distort or damage the lid or slip and injure you. At some point, you open the tool box and grab another tool. Maybe it's another screwdriver, because you're turning another screw. Or maybe it's a different tool altogether, one designed for the specific task at hand.
Markets aren't so different, if not quite as narrowly-defined as a screwdriver. They work well in some areas, less well in others, and in some, they simply can't function. All to varying degrees. Recognizing their failures and limitations allows us try and develop policies that address their worst parts while maintaining their more desirable parts.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- alchemist1e9 3y agoFor the record I believe I agree with you. However I view it as governments are the failure point in the issues you list, not markets. They have outright failed to address the negative externalities as they have been captured by private interests. In my opinion the entire financial system is captured and the regulations they tend to introduce are simply to allow the corrupt private entities further control. One neat part of anonymous online prediction markets using unregulated digital currencies is how they exist outside this crony capitalist system. It’s not markets to blame. It’s bad government!
- IX-103 3y agoYes, the police are to blame for the rash of murders and arson is clearly the fire department's fault. It takes two to perform regulatory capture -- unless one of them can buy votes from lawmakers. And guess what the "market" found was most efficient?
- alchemist1e9 3y agoAnd the politicians also buy votes from the people using redistribution policies. Seems we agree the government is the problem!