4 ms·
Government and market are both human institutions. Market is really a convenient shorthand for "distributed, decentralized, uncoordinated economic transactions
by startingup 18y ago
Government and market are both human institutions. Market is really a convenient shorthand for "distributed, decentralized, uncoordinated economic transactions between consenting parties with an interest in the outcome", while government is shorthand for "centralized decision making made by disinterested economic actors". Please note that "disinterested" is a value-neutral term - it implies that the decision makers don't personally & directly benefit from the outcome.
Once you have the definitions right, you can see the benefits and pitfalls for both approaches. If you believe in maximizing human freedom, it is very clear that leaving people free to transact as they wish is the best path for all but those rare edge cases.
- anamax 18y ago> government is shorthand for "centralized decision making made by disinterested economic actors". Please note that "disinterested" is a value-neutral term - it implies that the decision makers don't personally & directly benefit from the outcome. Govt decision making is not done by disinterested actors. The interests may not be immediate or the benefits may be indirect, but they exist.
- tsally 18y agoAgreed, the edge cases being the things that people absolute require: the essentials.
- anamax 18y agoWhy do you think that a govt decison maker is more likely to decide on the right mix of corn vs wheat (and where) than folks who directly benefit from making the right decision?
- tsally 18y agoTo ask this is missing the point; essentials are not about efficiency, they are about consistency. As I have said before, the article addresses this point. Did you read it? "The problem is that, while this system is undeniably more efficient, it’s also much more fragile."
- byrneseyeview 18y agoBy what definition? And, by the way, why?
- tsally 18y agoBecause essentials always need to be available to people, even at the cost of efficiency. The article addresses why essentials are a special case. "If the just-in-time system for producing cars runs into a hitch and the supply of cars shrinks for a while, people can easily adapt. When the same happens with food, people go hungry or even starve."
- byrneseyeview 18y agoSo "essentials" -- which, of course, are defined as things that are essential -- must be controlled by the horribly inefficient and incompetent government, instead of being provided by people with a vested interest in their provision. And this is true, because essentials "always need to be available". Yours is an argumentative wheel of Swiss cheese: completely circular, yet full of holes.
- corentin 18y ago"If something goes bad with food, people could starve" I was not aware of that fact. But in which way exactly does it call for government-controlled agriculture?