6 ms·

> There are reams of economic literature trying to estimate whether government intervention in the market was a good idea. Most of the time it doesn't turn out

• robertlagrant 2y ago
  > There are no markets without government intervention What does this mean?
  • bottled_poe 2y ago
    Someone must police the rules of the market I suppose? Also, a truly free market benefits those who own the market, no?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • dbspin 2y ago
    It means that markets rely on the rule of law. From monopoly regulation to the prohibition on outright theft, markets literally cannot exist without governance.
    • robertlagrant 2y ago
      I think law and order needs to exist, or enforced rules, but that's not "government intervention".
      • lostlogin 2y ago
        It’s rather vague as to where the line is, but as you say, ‘government intervention’ is a term with political baggage in financial theory. https://policonomics.com/government-intervention/ https://policonomics.com/government-intervention/
        • robertlagrant 2y ago
          Yeah, even there: > beyond the mere regulation of contracts and provision of public goods Building roads or enforcing rules: not intervention, according to that.
          • MichaelZuo 2y ago
            How is stopping trucks on the road to check their papers, and holding up the delivery for some period of time, on a semi-random basis, not ‘intervention’ of some kind?
          • eru 2y ago
            Roads are not public goods. > In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. If you ever sat in a traffic jam, you will have experienced that road use is rivalrous. And toll roads show that it's rather easy to exclude people from using roads. Building roads with general taxpayer money and making them available without payment by the users might or might not be good policy. I don't know. But roads ain't a public good.
            • mlyle 2y ago
              Most roads are difficult to exclude. Most spend most of their time with excess capacity and are not rivalrous. They're clearly not a typical private good. And they're usually a natural monopoly, too. Not to mention that the acquisition of land to make a road is often problematic. Basically, there's a lot of reasons to expect market failure in a market for roads. That's not to say the only solution is for the government to provide them, but that laissez-faire, completely hands off solutions are probably not going to turn out great.
              • eru 2y ago
                Nowadays it's fairly easy to exclude people from roads: just put up a sign that says you can only use them if you paid. (You can also use a camera and some machine learning to catch offenders; or otherwise cheap overseans workers who manually review footage.) > Most [roads] spend most of their time with excess capacity and are not rivalrous. Most cars sit around idle most of the time. I'm not sure what your argument shows? > And they're usually a natural monopoly, too. Not to mention that the acquisition of land to make a road is often problematic. That's a different discussion. Though I'm more optimistic.
      • consteval 2y ago
        > but that's not "government intervention" I would argue it 100% is. You can make MUCH more money if you steal or perhaps keep slaves. We're just so used to these preventative measures that we don't really consider them, but this is, in essence, a huge "tax" on the private sector. Playing by the rules is very expensive as compared to not.
    • eru 2y ago
      Even if you buy that argument (and I'm skeptical), that's at most an argument for a minimal nightwatchmen state; not for further government intervention.
      • dbspin 2y ago
        If you're skeptical about whether governance is required for markets to function, launch your next startup on the darkweb or in a failed state. I fail to see how one could imagine any kind of healthy market operating without basic governance, reliable infrastructure etc. It's a religious idea (anarchocaptialism or something similar) at that point. Past that, actually engaging with business (as a customer or employee) should be a rapid reminder of how much we have regulation to thank for. From not being poisoned (immediately or over the course of a lifetime) by our food, burned alive by non-fire retardant furniture (and the absence of a fire service), to having weekends off, our wages reliably paid, to being free from physical and the more obvious forms of psychological abuse. It's right there - you engage with the rights and privileges afforded by legislation daily. Just astonishing to me that this kind of market fundamentalism is still actively engaged in. People can disagree on the extent and fundamental structure of government, but to deny it's role in the basic functioning of business in a society as complex as ours seems outright absurd.
        • eru 2y ago
          As people get richer they demand better quality stuff and can afford it. That includes taking weekends off. It's perfectly legal where I live to work on the weekend. There's also no minimum wage here. Yet, most people get weekends off and get paid more than zero. It's also entirely legal here to offer jobs without reliable pay (as long as the contract doesn't promise reliable pay). There's plenty of long term poisonous food available in all countries: you can mainline eg pure sugar to your heart's content. Most people in most countries opt for tastier and healthier fare, because they can afford it. There's also plenty of immediately poisonous substances available, like strong alcohol. People also regularly opt for more than the legal minimum in terms of furniture safety. Eg Ikea sells you kits to bolt your cabinet to the wall, so it doesn't fall on your child trying to climb up on it. So the legal minimum's don't seem particularly binding: people voluntarily exceed them. > Just astonishing to me that this kind of market fundamentalism is still actively engaged in. People can disagree on the extent and fundamental structure of government, but to deny it's role in the basic functioning of business in a society as complex as ours seems outright absurd. Governments do stick their hands into many pies, but that doesn't mean that them doing that is required by some physical or natural law. > If you're skeptical about whether governance is required for markets to function, launch your next startup on the darkweb or in a failed state. Yes, governments control some of the best real estate on earth. That doesn't mean they necessarily contributed much to that happy state of affairs; often just the opposite. Btw, many companies are trying to escape even basic functions provided by government, and are going for private arbitration instead, because it's more efficient.
    • refurb 2y ago
      Clearly not true as markets exist outside the government (black markets). But that’s beside the point. Even if most markets rely on government intervention, it tells you nothing about how much intervention is optimal. It’s like saying “no human survives without food”, which is true but tells you nothing as to how much food is good.
• eru 2y ago
  > There are no markets without government intervention. David Friedmann (and others) would like to object, I am sure. See eg http://daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsContents.htm http://daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsConten... for how many legal systems work without (or despite!) government intervention.
  • mlyle 2y ago
    Functional markets require a strong mechanism for protection of property rights. The fact that we have some historical systems where that has taken a different form than a conventional government doesn't negate that the only practical mechanism that we have to protect property rights and support markets is a government. Ancap fantasies aside, of course. And then, there's lots of situations where externalities exist. If I poop in the river and you're downstream, it costs me nothing; I have no reason to stop.
    • eru 2y ago
      > Functional markets require a strong mechanism for protection of property rights. The fact that we have some historical systems where that has taken a different form than a conventional government doesn't negate that the only practical mechanism that we have to protect property rights and support markets is a government. Even if we grant that argument, that's at most an argument in favour of a minimalist nightwatchmen state. Not the full blown Leviathan. > And then, there's lots of situations where externalities exist. If I poop in the river and you're downstream, it costs me nothing; I have no reason to stop. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
• kloop 2y ago
  > There are no markets without government intervention. Of course there are. Black markets pop up everywhere to route around government intervention
  • chrisdhoover 2y ago
    Yes they do. Consider weed. It was well established before being legalized. Legalization brought higher taxes and interference. The black market continues as an alternative to the free one.
  • CPLX 2y ago
    For obvious reasons a market for a product that is banned by the government is a poor example of a market that exists "without government intervention"