4 ms·
Isn't part of the problem assuming that there is a single global optimum? It seems there are at least two, such as in the case of utilities: best services or b
by Arrath 2y ago
Isn't part of the problem assuming that there is a single global optimum?
It seems there are at least two, such as in the case of utilities: best services or best profits for the shareholders. Again in the case of utilities we see time and again that these are mutually exclusive optimums as a privatized utility makes cuts to investment, build out, maintenance, customer service, or other aspects of the business in the goals of increasing profits, to the detriment of the quality of their service.
- hgomersall 2y agoIt's hard to argue that as a society we should construct systems that have any goal that isn't optimising (in this example) services. If that aligns with maximising profits for shareholders, then great, if not then the system is not working as it needs to. IMO it's never really about free markets per se, but about competition. If the market is not delivering effective competition, then it should be made to do so. Competition is what aligns shareholder interest with customer interest.
- mindslight 2y agoYes, although usually when people are making these arguments they're imagining optimization across different entities and through time (relative to foreseeable events / probabilities). It then becomes much easier to write off conflicting higher-level subjective goals as not being actually valued in some imagined universal sense. The fallacy is rejecting the stickiness of human-made structure, even though that structure is all around us.