11 ms·

No, of course you can. Markets are supposed to adapt to changes in demand (and increase supply if physically possible), regardless of the source or reason for t

by js8 3y ago

No, of course you can. Markets are supposed to adapt to changes in demand (and increase supply if physically possible), regardless of the source or reason for the demand. Otherwise, you're then admitting that markets are extremely brittle. Let's consider another example. Consider that security situation of your country worsens and the government suddenly needs more grenades. So they start to buy them at expense of something else, like school lunches. Are you claiming that the market supply won't try to match the demand? If it's true, then screw the free market. It's a bad economic system, if it can't do this. The problem is markets are treated as an article of faith rather than tools, so people don't want to admit their shortcomings.

WalterBright 3y ago
You're saying the market is a zero sum proposition. It is not, not at all. It is infinite. The free market is not an article of faith, it has been tested and proved worthy countless times. > don't want to admit their shortcomings I do admit the shortcomings of the free market.
- js8 3y ago
  > You're saying the market is a zero sum proposition. No, I don't need to assume that. Although of course short-term, production is a zero sum proposition. > I do admit the shortcomings of the free market. Maybe, but you don't admit it in this case (to provide access to university education), otherwise you wouldn't try to blame the government. What should have government done, if it wanted to allow people get more education, and avoid the market failure?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > Although of course short-term, production is a zero sum proposition I don't buy that. > What should have government done, if it wanted to allow people get more education, and avoid the market failure? Before, say, 1980, the US built the best university system in the world without government subsidy. After then, the universities became dependent on government subsidy, and the government began all sorts of regulations on them in exchange for the subsidy. Before 1980, college was affordable. A student could pay for it with a full time summer job and a part time job after school. I know this because I did it.

by js8 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago

You're saying the market is a zero sum proposition. It is not, not at all. It is infinite. The free market is not an article of faith, it has been tested and proved worthy countless times. > don't want to admit their shortcomings I do admit the shortcomings of the free market.

js8 3y ago
> You're saying the market is a zero sum proposition. No, I don't need to assume that. Although of course short-term, production is a zero sum proposition. > I do admit the shortcomings of the free market. Maybe, but you don't admit it in this case (to provide access to university education), otherwise you wouldn't try to blame the government. What should have government done, if it wanted to allow people get more education, and avoid the market failure?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > Although of course short-term, production is a zero sum proposition I don't buy that. > What should have government done, if it wanted to allow people get more education, and avoid the market failure? Before, say, 1980, the US built the best university system in the world without government subsidy. After then, the universities became dependent on government subsidy, and the government began all sorts of regulations on them in exchange for the subsidy. Before 1980, college was affordable. A student could pay for it with a full time summer job and a part time job after school. I know this because I did it.