4 ms·

How about fuck the market, which produces terrible outcomes across the board. It's not the toy 'supply and demand' model of economics classes or anything resemb

How about fuck the market, which produces terrible outcomes across the board. It's not the toy 'supply and demand' model of economics classes or anything resembling a pure meritocracy, it's heavily shaped by cartels and asymmetric contractual relations.

pfdietz 2y ago
How about no? The evidence is that markets are essential. Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous, for reasons that were predicted ahead of time.
- MourYother 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bequanna 2y ago
    Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. So far, we haven’t been able to find a way to concentrate power without corruption. The lesson is: only give the government as much control as necessary, never more. In a system that is more socialist, the people forfeit their power to the party. Super easy for one party to dominate in these systems so votes mean little and you enter a doom loop of inefficiency caused by corruption. In a system that is more capitalistic and consumer-based, the people retain a good amount of their power through purchasing choices. It is also tough for any one political party to take complete control, so the people also retain power through votes.
    - pjmorris 2y ago
      > Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract? Before you say 'market forces', you have to address the present case, where three music owners control 60-70% of the market on terms favorable to them rather than to customers or creators.
      - bequanna 2y ago
        It has never been easier to show people your creative works whether you paint, make music etc. The barriers are pretty small. The real issue for creatives is there is too much competition. Too much to choose from. Supply up, demand is largely constant.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        > When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract? Don't buy their product, buy from someone else. The complaints here are from people who want to keep using a convenient platform, just insist it produce something different. Or, they are complaining that consumers are happy with that platform instead of what they think the consumers should be happy with. The problem in any market economy that underlies most complaints is the realization that you have been judged to not be valuable. You are producing creative things, but people don't want them. It's maddening especially if you're entitled. At risk of Godwin, one might call this the Hitler problem.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      It's not just corruption. Non-market systems fundamentally cannot solve the problem of economic calculation, figuring out prices so tradeoffs can be performed. They have to make assumptions about what's wanted and needed, assumptions that cannot help but be drastically wrong, even if everyone involved is pure of any taint of corruption.
  - nradov 2y ago
    What specific market regulations would you suggest in this industry?
- thevidence 2y ago
  [dead]
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Markets as a general thing are essential, I agree. The particular market configuration that we have in this context is bad and tends toward oligopoly. I'm sorry for not articulating this more clearly. I'm sure you don't think that all markets are equally efficient or sustainable, but that individual markets can be more or less good depending on how they are structured and how competitive they are. Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous Nobody mentioned central planning except you.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Central planning is just one example of a non-market mechanism. What other alternative do you propose that could adequately solve the problem of establishing prices?

pfdietz 2y ago

How about no? The evidence is that markets are essential. Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous, for reasons that were predicted ahead of time.

MourYother 2y ago
[flagged]
- bequanna 2y ago
  Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. So far, we haven’t been able to find a way to concentrate power without corruption. The lesson is: only give the government as much control as necessary, never more. In a system that is more socialist, the people forfeit their power to the party. Super easy for one party to dominate in these systems so votes mean little and you enter a doom loop of inefficiency caused by corruption. In a system that is more capitalistic and consumer-based, the people retain a good amount of their power through purchasing choices. It is also tough for any one political party to take complete control, so the people also retain power through votes.
  - pjmorris 2y ago
    > Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power. When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract? Before you say 'market forces', you have to address the present case, where three music owners control 60-70% of the market on terms favorable to them rather than to customers or creators.
    - bequanna 2y ago
      It has never been easier to show people your creative works whether you paint, make music etc. The barriers are pretty small. The real issue for creatives is there is too much competition. Too much to choose from. Supply up, demand is largely constant.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      > When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract? Don't buy their product, buy from someone else. The complaints here are from people who want to keep using a convenient platform, just insist it produce something different. Or, they are complaining that consumers are happy with that platform instead of what they think the consumers should be happy with. The problem in any market economy that underlies most complaints is the realization that you have been judged to not be valuable. You are producing creative things, but people don't want them. It's maddening especially if you're entitled. At risk of Godwin, one might call this the Hitler problem.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    It's not just corruption. Non-market systems fundamentally cannot solve the problem of economic calculation, figuring out prices so tradeoffs can be performed. They have to make assumptions about what's wanted and needed, assumptions that cannot help but be drastically wrong, even if everyone involved is pure of any taint of corruption.
- nradov 2y ago
  What specific market regulations would you suggest in this industry?
thevidence 2y ago
[dead]
anigbrowl 2y ago
Markets as a general thing are essential, I agree. The particular market configuration that we have in this context is bad and tends toward oligopoly. I'm sorry for not articulating this more clearly. I'm sure you don't think that all markets are equally efficient or sustainable, but that individual markets can be more or less good depending on how they are structured and how competitive they are. Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous Nobody mentioned central planning except you.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Central planning is just one example of a non-market mechanism. What other alternative do you propose that could adequately solve the problem of establishing prices?