A quick question for AC Peeps: Market failure

[kniper]

Do you guys ever believe in market failure (assuming the government is not involved)? Ever ever? Please explain if so or if not with examples preferably (or MSPaint).

[ShakeZula06]

My take is that for fundamental reasons, the market is better at solving problems then the state. A lot of people on the forum throw a lot of convulted "what ifs" at us regarding issues in an AC society. What they fail to realize more often then not, is that the state is far worse at solving whatever problem brought up, and many times is counter-productive at solving whatever problem it is.

A free market is simply individuals acting in a voluntary manner to solve problems. If you identify a problem, or a way to improve society, you take that good or service to the market. If it is a problem, your good or service makes you money and benefits society.

I believe for fundamental reasons that privatization of property, resources, production, and with voluntary contracting and voluntary solutions solves whatever "what if" could come in society better then a coercize, imposing territorial monopoly.

So in that sense no I don't believe in market failures.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys ever believe in market failure (assuming the government is not involved)? Ever ever? Please explain if so or if not with examples preferably (or MSPaint).

[/ QUOTE ]

No; there is no such thing as "market failure." Market failure is the excuse that socialists trot out to explain why something that *they personally* want to see more of is not supplied in greater quantities by the market. There is no way, independent of the market itself, to look around the market and *objectively* claim that "there is not enough X being produced". If there really were not enough X being produced, i.e. demand outstrips supply, the profit for producing and supplying X would rise relative to other lines of production, and invite investment in producing and supplying X.

A neat trick by governments, however, is to artificially restrict the supply of X, via things like licensure, regulation, taxation, etc. so that the demand really does exceed supply, prices are kept artificially high, but the supply is not allowed to increase in response to the price signals. The government then steps in and declares a "market failure", and uses this excuse to monopolize the provision of that good or service entirely. This is seen over and over again, for example in health care and health insurance. Another famous example is childcare. Make the hoops that you have to jump through to open a childcare business ridiculous, hence keep childcare artificially scarce and expensive so that most parents cannot afford it, and then declare the need for the state to provide daycare and such for parents.

It always helps when you are trying to engineer a "market failure" to make it a crime to supply the thing you want to make it look like is not being supplied.

[latefordinner]

The history of environmental degradation and the destruction of natural capital and calling it a "profit" rather than a "loss" is one giant market failure which will become glaringly apparent to even the most myopic individuals over the next 50 years.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The history of environmental degradation and the destruction of natural capital and calling it a "profit" rather than a "loss" is one giant market failure which will become glaringly apparent to even the most myopic individuals over the next 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if I don't automatically accept your assertions that every awful outcome of state capitalism is from the state part and not the capitalism part.

Our ability at this point to effect environmental change on such a broad scale makes the thought of 10,000 class action suits against companies for contributing to 2.33% of my cancer and 5.88% of the reason all the frogs are dead in my pond is quaint though.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if I don't automatically accept your assertions that every awful outcome of state capitalism is from the state part and not the capitalism part.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why don't you actually adress the points, made numerous times, that governments *do* refuse to recognize property rights that would negate the tragedy of the commons, and *do* make it illegal to persue legal redress that would internalize costs? Oh, that's right. Because it doesn't suit your preconceived notions and rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]

Our ability at this point to effect environmental change on such a broad scale makes the thought of 10,000 class action suits against companies for contributing to 2.33% of my cancer and 5.88% of the reason all the frogs are dead in my pond is quaint though.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again you trot out arguments debunked long ago.

And how is it that you own a pond, socialism-man?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if I don't automatically accept your assertions that every awful outcome of state capitalism is from the state part and not the capitalism part.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you often assert that every awful outcome of state socialistm is from the state part and not the socialism part.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if I don't automatically accept your assertions that every awful outcome of state capitalism is from the state part and not the capitalism part.



[/ QUOTE ]

Give it time my son, you will.

[kniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The history of environmental degradation and the destruction of natural capital and calling it a "profit" rather than a "loss" is one giant market failure which will become glaringly apparent to even the most myopic individuals over the next 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro,

Can you expand on this or link to a prior explanation? I am not sure what you mean. What property rights are you talking about? What legal actions are you talking about? Specific kinds of torts? Are you suggesting that state ownership of environmental habitats is less efficient than if the area was privately owned with greater legal remedies to private land owners to enforce against those who pollute their property?