3 ms·

Please provide the examples of market failures and I suspect on closer examination you will discover State failure, not market failures.

notahacker 3y ago
The speed with which you moved from dissenters-from-economic-orthodoxy-are-creationists to rejecting the possibility of imperfect information, transaction costs or natural monopolies for not confirming to the dogma that the market is always right is truly impressive...
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I don't see how that's a market failure.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  Monopolies are legitimately debatable topic for government intervention. However what is the reason governments should be involved in imperfect information or transaction costs? Please provide specific market failures. Additionally creationists is the perfect analogy for collectivists, socialist and marxists, their ideas require magic fairy dust to have any chance of working.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Government isn't involved in imperfect information or transaction costs: responsibility for those failures of the market delivering suboptimal results lie entirely with the market participants. Obvious examples include the highly profitable sale of products that avoid the R&D overhead and additional manufacturing expense to actually do what they claim to do, and the inability of various disparate individuals each receiving small negative side effects to their health to coordinate to stop a local polluter even if a tort system for restitution (a government intervention!) actually exists. Creationism is also the perfect analogy for people who either are ignorant of or deny basically anything past the first page of an economics textbook in favour of the dogma that if markets fail to deliver optimal results it must be the fault of state intervention. Much like Marxism, the economics of Mises needs a lot of fairy dust
    - alchemist1e9 3y ago
      It’s always so confusing when anti-markets debaters bring up pollution and product safety, because it’s like the only thing libertarians actually agree with them on. We absolutely believe the primary role of the government is to protect shared rights like the environment and health of products sold. What libertarian capitalist don’t want is redistribution and confiscation.
      - notahacker 3y ago
        It's even more confusing when libertarians decide a few days after insisting that there was no such thing as a market failure that the canonical examples of market failures are actually something they strongly believe the government must step in to regulate because the market can't do it... (I imagine the libertarians campaigning to abolish government involvement in product and environmental regulation would also be confused by the insistence they absolutely believe that the role of the government is to protect the environment and regulate products. Next minute you'll be telling me poor people deserve medical treatment!)
trealira 3y ago
Everything depends on infrastructure that releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere: oil, cars, beef farming, etc. This is despite the fact that climate change is exacerbated by releasing carbon. No individual or company wants to be at a disadvantage by not using these things, so no one stops. It's a tragedy of the commons situation. It's only through government regulation and investment into cleaner energy that allowed the alternatives to become viable in the market.

notahacker 3y ago

The speed with which you moved from dissenters-from-economic-orthodoxy-are-creationists to rejecting the possibility of imperfect information, transaction costs or natural monopolies for not confirming to the dogma that the market is always right is truly impressive...

robertlagrant 3y ago
I don't see how that's a market failure.
alchemist1e9 3y ago
Monopolies are legitimately debatable topic for government intervention. However what is the reason governments should be involved in imperfect information or transaction costs? Please provide specific market failures. Additionally creationists is the perfect analogy for collectivists, socialist and marxists, their ideas require magic fairy dust to have any chance of working.
- notahacker 3y ago
  Government isn't involved in imperfect information or transaction costs: responsibility for those failures of the market delivering suboptimal results lie entirely with the market participants. Obvious examples include the highly profitable sale of products that avoid the R&D overhead and additional manufacturing expense to actually do what they claim to do, and the inability of various disparate individuals each receiving small negative side effects to their health to coordinate to stop a local polluter even if a tort system for restitution (a government intervention!) actually exists. Creationism is also the perfect analogy for people who either are ignorant of or deny basically anything past the first page of an economics textbook in favour of the dogma that if markets fail to deliver optimal results it must be the fault of state intervention. Much like Marxism, the economics of Mises needs a lot of fairy dust
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    It’s always so confusing when anti-markets debaters bring up pollution and product safety, because it’s like the only thing libertarians actually agree with them on. We absolutely believe the primary role of the government is to protect shared rights like the environment and health of products sold. What libertarian capitalist don’t want is redistribution and confiscation.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      It's even more confusing when libertarians decide a few days after insisting that there was no such thing as a market failure that the canonical examples of market failures are actually something they strongly believe the government must step in to regulate because the market can't do it... (I imagine the libertarians campaigning to abolish government involvement in product and environmental regulation would also be confused by the insistence they absolutely believe that the role of the government is to protect the environment and regulate products. Next minute you'll be telling me poor people deserve medical treatment!)

trealira 3y ago

Everything depends on infrastructure that releases a lot of carbon into the atmosphere: oil, cars, beef farming, etc. This is despite the fact that climate change is exacerbated by releasing carbon. No individual or company wants to be at a disadvantage by not using these things, so no one stops. It's a tragedy of the commons situation. It's only through government regulation and investment into cleaner energy that allowed the alternatives to become viable in the market.