4 ms·

> For instance, forced labor, pollution, etc. are factored into price. Or more specifically, the customers willingness to care about these things is factored in

> For instance, forced labor, pollution, etc. are factored into price. Or more specifically, the customers willingness to care about these things is factored into the price, on the buy side. And someone’s willingness and ability to do them is priced on the sell side. I don’t agree with this. Pollution primarily affects people who cannot afford to pay to not affected by pollution. The people who buy the most polluting products are not the people who are directly exposed to the most pollution. This isn’t as simple as “oh people just don’t feel bad enough to not buy cheap things”, the people who cannot afford to avoid the consequences of societally bad decisions are suffering way beyond their consumption! The poor live most exposed to effects of climate change (fires, floods, etc) because they cannot afford to avoid it, not because they somehow calculated that they don’t feel bad enough about it. The wealthy are not forced to have their house flooded in accordance to the number of cars they own, for example.

lazide 2y ago
[flagged]
- filleokus 2y ago
  Agree more with you than GP. Revealed preference is a thing, virtue signalling and performative behaviour is rampant. However, you can have a situation in a hypothetical economy where the VAST majority cares deeply about an issue and actually put the wallet where their mouth is. But the aggregate spending is different simply due to an enormous inequality in wealth. The integral of "revealed preference" across the population is not the same as a popular vote after all. I guess some people would argue this is the case in western economies, that we "have no choice" due to powers at be, but I don't agree with this view. But it's conceivable that in some economies this is, or at least could be, the case.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Ah, but we’re talking markets. Not votes. Though, politics is power, and power is about money. Or is that sex? I forget. Power definitely does impact markets, as it applies counter pressures on what matters or not, sometimes to the point of making it impossible* for a trade to actually occur. But always shifting what actually matters or not in some direction, and hence influencing prices. Power unexercised is power that de-facto does not exist in the moment, eh? So if the voters aren’t making something illegal (and ensuring enforcement) they aren’t exercising their power to influence that market, and hence that power does not yet exist. And so typically prices will merely reflect the risk premium of the potential. Not have it as fact. And if the rich folk are transacting in these markets, and are using their power to hide and/or obfuscate that they are doing so, to avoid any public influence, that is power that definitely does exist right now.. And markets will reflect that, on the balance, or a trade won’t occur. When trades do occur, EMH gradually forces things towards efficiency. And the more players there are, and the more transactions occur, the more efficiency is inevitable. Barring things like monopolies, regulatory action, etc. * though as the war on drugs (and the persistence of smuggling from antiquity through to the modern day) makes quite apparent, it is actually very difficult to stop all trade when there is a large market ‘potential’ that exists. Trade ‘finds a way’.

lazide 2y ago

[flagged]

filleokus 2y ago
Agree more with you than GP. Revealed preference is a thing, virtue signalling and performative behaviour is rampant. However, you can have a situation in a hypothetical economy where the VAST majority cares deeply about an issue and actually put the wallet where their mouth is. But the aggregate spending is different simply due to an enormous inequality in wealth. The integral of "revealed preference" across the population is not the same as a popular vote after all. I guess some people would argue this is the case in western economies, that we "have no choice" due to powers at be, but I don't agree with this view. But it's conceivable that in some economies this is, or at least could be, the case.
- lazide 2y ago
  Ah, but we’re talking markets. Not votes. Though, politics is power, and power is about money. Or is that sex? I forget. Power definitely does impact markets, as it applies counter pressures on what matters or not, sometimes to the point of making it impossible* for a trade to actually occur. But always shifting what actually matters or not in some direction, and hence influencing prices. Power unexercised is power that de-facto does not exist in the moment, eh? So if the voters aren’t making something illegal (and ensuring enforcement) they aren’t exercising their power to influence that market, and hence that power does not yet exist. And so typically prices will merely reflect the risk premium of the potential. Not have it as fact. And if the rich folk are transacting in these markets, and are using their power to hide and/or obfuscate that they are doing so, to avoid any public influence, that is power that definitely does exist right now.. And markets will reflect that, on the balance, or a trade won’t occur. When trades do occur, EMH gradually forces things towards efficiency. And the more players there are, and the more transactions occur, the more efficiency is inevitable. Barring things like monopolies, regulatory action, etc. * though as the war on drugs (and the persistence of smuggling from antiquity through to the modern day) makes quite apparent, it is actually very difficult to stop all trade when there is a large market ‘potential’ that exists. Trade ‘finds a way’.