2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no. I can agree that what he's calling "free market orthodoxy" (which is actually nothing of the sort) is bogus without embracing his particular solution to the problem.

I think in a sense, he's right, though. Taxes can allow a "more efficient provision of (so-called) public goods" if you just adopt the same mindset that the bureaucrat does; something I want is not provided at the level I personally would like in a market allocation, I can apply coercion and force to get the predetermined "correct" number of units produced, therefore, this must be a good thing.

The problem (ignoring the moral implications) is that there is no "correct" number - no one person's preference is inherently better than another.


[/ QUOTE ]We shouldn't be ignoring moral implications, so we can stop right there. Though no one person's 'preference' may be inherently better than another, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a 'correct' number.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Oh, good. Let's talk about moral implications.

I don't think I have the "correct" number of cars. I'm going to use force to get you to buy me another car. I really need the car, trust me, I just told you that I don't have the correct number.

What do you think of the moral implications of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of making a ridiculous analogy, why don't you just say what it is that you actually mean to say.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no. I can agree that what he's calling "free market orthodoxy" (which is actually nothing of the sort) is bogus without embracing his particular solution to the problem.

I think in a sense, he's right, though. Taxes can allow a "more efficient provision of (so-called) public goods" if you just adopt the same mindset that the bureaucrat does; something I want is not provided at the level I personally would like in a market allocation, I can apply coercion and force to get the predetermined "correct" number of units produced, therefore, this must be a good thing.

The problem (ignoring the moral implications) is that there is no "correct" number - no one person's preference is inherently better than another.


[/ QUOTE ]We shouldn't be ignoring moral implications, so we can stop right there. Though no one person's 'preference' may be inherently better than another, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a 'correct' number.


[/ QUOTE ] The moral implications makes PVN's case all the stronger. if no persons preference is better than any others than the only correct number can be the number that is arrived at through voluntary transactions between consenting people with no outside influences forcing them to do one thing or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense. I would refer back to the comments in the links I posted. Do you guys really think that a completely free market would result in some sort of utopia?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really think that a completely free market would result in some sort of utopia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that socialism has led a utopia?

[moorobot]

By "stronger" I did not mean "more accurate". I meant that, if true, it would be thicker, more persuasive, encompass more, etc. To illustrate, we can use your comments on information. It is only on the premise of complete information that Pareto can be achieved (otherwise, people might not know of possible courses of action that would leave them or somebody else better off without making anybody else worse off).

I completely agree that real markets are not efficient in the way that textbook markets with all the unrealistic, simplifying assumptions are, and I don't actually think most academic economists would disagree at this point.

[Felz]

What is Rothbard's definition of market efficiency?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Only an idiot would draw the conclusion that the current state of affairs in energy policy that relates to public goods is somehow a product of Bush "free market orthodoxy." What Maskin is stating is that the Bush "free market orthodoxy" is not a way to change the policy related to the public goods associated with energy. However, it's also not an endorsement of the current government regulations and restrictions that exist either. You seem to be implying more or less that Maskin is endorsing the current state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, I really did not intend to imply a single [censored] thing about the "current state of affairs" of energy policy, although it certainly sounds as though Maskin is in favor of more regulation when it comes to the environment than George Bush, which is hardly a dramatic position, and one that I'm certain I agree with. The post below this one, in flat mode, is the point I was trying to make with my original post.

Your original reply to the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
So what? In the area of energy policy government hasn't had a stellar performance. When the Democrats took control of Congress I believe oil was around 60 bucks a barell. I said by energy companies with both fists because everything that the Democrats wanted to do tended to drive up the price of oil. Now oil is north of 85 bucks a barell. Bush would like to see more suppyly come to market. In no way do the ideas of the Nobel Prize winning economist validate the approach the Democrats have nor do his ideas state that Bush's ideas are worse than the ideas the Democrats have. He's saying his ideas are better than Bush's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea even what the Democrats have done regarding energy policy once they gained control of congress. I don't know what "their approach" to oil prices is. There are more important things than the price of oil. If it's like everything else they've probably capitulated to whatever Bush actually wanted anyway. So ok, so he's just saying his ideas are better than Bush's. I agree.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really think that a completely free market would result in some sort of utopia?


[/ QUOTE ] Are you suggesting that socialism has led a utopia?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am suggesting this (from the second link in the OP):

Prof. Maskin goes on to speak of the needs of ensuring that public goods are provided for properly, taking into account the interests of all citizens, and on the role of his field in finding ways to do so most fairly and efficiently.

This should be considered sane, valuable, important work, especially if we care about building sustainable human societies more than any ideology, yes?

However, the mere acknowledgment of this complex field is an affront to “free market” ideologues who prefer to believe that markets are, by their very existence, efficient — in much the same way that food riots are, by their very existence, orderly.

Unfortunately, this remains something of a state religion in the US, so while hundreds of newspapers have reported on Maskin’s winning of a Nobel, few seem to have bothered to pick up the Reuters story of what the Nobel Prize winner actually says. (In fact, as I write this, the wire story is already a day old, and while I might have missed something, I can’t find it in a single American newspaper.)

The efficiency of the great free market, absolutely proven once again.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]


The standard condition for optimal provision of public goods uses the pareto concept. Which in a nutshell is entirely based upon the premise of purely voluntary transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. To illustrate, lets say a company with monopoly power is broken up (a company with monopoly power, in mainstream economics, is one that can set the market price to some degree, generally by restricting supply). The gains in efficiency and innovation from doing this will often be so high that the monopolist can be compensated (therefore he is not made worse off) while others are made better off.

Or, government could move us towards Pareto by providing people with information that they otherwise would not have (e.g. on labeling).

Whether actual government actions like this usually improve Pareto or not is extremely debatable; what is not generally debated is that gov't can do so in principle and almost certainly has done so before.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Prof. Maskin goes on to speak of the needs of ensuring that public goods are provided for properly, taking into account the interests of all citizens, and on the role of his field in finding ways to do so most fairly and efficiently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, the market is too inefficient or stupid so this guy will figure it out for us. Pretense of knowledge FTL!

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol, the market is too inefficient or stupid so this guy will figure it out for us. Pretense of knowledge FTL!

[/ QUOTE ]

'The market is so efficient and perfect so let's all just trust it.' Pretense of knowledge FTL!

He's a Nobel Prize winner in Economics. What's your Nobel Prize in, tenpin bowling?