A quick question for AC Peeps: Market failure

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
But seeing as regulation stifles competition and allows for industries to consolidate, raise prices, etc

[/ QUOTE ] Extreme overgeneralization. Some regulation undoubtely does that, some even intentionally and all but explicitly does that, but not all.

Businesses definitely want PROTECTIONISM for themselves and competition for others, but not all regulation=protectionism for business.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can you not look for voluntary solutions to things you perceive as problems? That way you can actually know if people think it's a good idea, because they can choose for it.


[/ QUOTE ] Nielso: you turn everything into a black and white issue of this nature. But really it is all a shade of grey. One problem is the way you look at the market. You treat it as if it is this utopian place with everything being decided with persuasion and discussion and choice. But, if the market worked the way you imagined it does, it wouldn't work at all. In reality, the market gets things done by constraining people, by forcing them to innovate and cost cut (for businesses) or work (for individuals) or perish. It coordinates activity via what we would call a bribe if it was done by an individual. Nobody chooses the price of an item, or gets to choose whether there product would be sucessful, nor is anything decided by a roundtable discussion. If all businesses could really choose what the price of an item was, or how much of X could be produced profitably, or how much they get paid for and what ("well, regardless of your argument that a doctor ought to be paid a lot and an XBOX player nothing, I voluntarily choose that I'm a pro XBOX player and a millionaire") was then market societies would be unmitigated disasters. The market works, when it does work, BY REMOVING THESE CHOICES, BY TAKING AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO DECIDE. The market is a way for people to control the behavior of other human beings, and that is why it is a good thing, as this aspect of the market allows us to be better off than we would be without a market because it coordinates our behavior: it gets us to do socially beneficial things that we wouldn't do IF WE HAD THE CHOICE. Don't produce, don't make much money. Don't make what consumers want, go out of business. Waste, and lose market share and profitability. What is and isn't acceptable in the market is decided by power (namely, that of dollars) just as what is and isn't accceptable in a state is decided by power (namely, that of votes).

Social coordination is made possible because of the existensce of known punishments for those who don't cooperate and rewards for those that do. That's how human beings get along on a large scale.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually believe that you can solve problems with violence?

[/ QUOTE ] Threats work. A society that decides everything voluntarily is not a libertarian society but an imaginary one.

The threat of violence is necessary when the market's threats of starvation and extinction (and low status, and insecurity, etc.) are ineffective. Call them coordination problems or market failures or whatever you want to call them: there are are instances when each individual pursuing there own self-interest in the market leads to situations in which they would be better off not pursuing there self-interest. But, we know that all people some of the time will pursue there own self-interest. Change the incentives involved via, say, the state, and outcomes could be better.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually believe that you can solve problems with violence?

[/ QUOTE ] Threats work. A society that decides everything voluntarily is not a libertarian society but an imaginary one.

The threat of violence is necessary when the market's threats of starvation and extinction (and low status, and insecurity, etc.) are ineffective. Call them coordination problems or market failures or whatever you want to call them: there are are instances when each individual pursuing there own self-interest in the market leads to situations in which they would be better off not pursuing there self-interest. But, we know that all people some of the time will pursue there own self-interest. Change the incentives involved via, say, the state, and outcomes could be better.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you'd say that people are justified in using the threat of violence and also *actual* violence, if they think they're helping people?

[ConstantineX]

Does justification really matter? People are going to do it whether you like it or not (like right now). It's much more practical, IMO, to show them it doesn't lead to the results they want.

[hmkpoker]

Market failures are a joke compared to state failures.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Does justification really matter? People are going to do it whether you like it or not (like right now). It's much more practical, IMO, to show them it doesn't lead to the results they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

The state exists because people believe in it's virtue. NOT because they think it's 'efficient'. Everyone knows socialism doesn't work, for example suggest to people what they think about socialized food.

The reason I'm using this type of argument against NoPropertarian is to show the inconsistency in his thinking. I'm showing him that he is invoking universal principles, and I use those do disprove his own ideas.

What you are saying {might makes right} is not something people can accept. The state in fact is might makes right. So people invoke all kinds of stuff to get the focus away from that. Notice how NoPropertarian says 'threats' instead of 'violence'. Or how he is appealing to the interests of people (I want to help people), but also at the same time saying that people should not be allowed to follow their self-interest. All very weird double think.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

The state exists because people believe in it's virtue. NOT because they think it's 'efficient'. Everyone knows socialism doesn't work, for example suggest to people what they think about socialized food.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually the argument is that some things are more efficient as being socialized (army, police, education, health care) because of free riders, negative externalities or whatever. This is the position I used to take.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
But, we know that all people some of the time will pursue there own self-interest. Change the incentives involved via, say, the state, and outcomes could be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like an example of idealistic thinking to me.

How is over-idealism a control issue? Over-idealism is a control issue because:

* It is your attempt to put the "locus of control'' in your hands to get others to be the way they should be for you.

* It is at the root of your need to overcontrol situations, people, places, or things in order to ensure that they come into compliance with your ideal image of the way reality is supposed to be.

* You can resort to coercion, intimidation, or threats to get people, places or things to come into line with the ideals you expect them to have.

* It often is at the base of your need to fix or be a caretaker because you see something less than ideal or perfect and impulsively reach out to change or care for it.

* In your need to politically espouse your ideal belief system, you can utilize manipulation, conning, storytelling, promise making, favor swapping, and bargaining to get people, places, or things into line with you.

* It often can blind you to the uncontrollables or unchangeables in your life so that rather than admit to powerlessness and then let go of them, you conversely work harder to change and bring them under control.

* It is often a barrier to your ability to gain self-control over your life because your idealism blinds you to what is reasonable, realistic and achievable for you in your life.

* Behind your need to gain control and power over other persons, places, or things is the idealistic image or fantasy of the way your world is supposed to be and how only you have the answers to bring your world into synch with this image.

* It encourages a lack of moderation or compromise in your efforts to control others so that you can feel sane in an ideal world and at peace with the ideal way in which people should treat you.

One recommendation:
It is better to keep my idealistic and perfectionistic attitudes to myself than to inflict them on others who have no desire to become like I want them to be. If I cannot live with this reality, then it would be better for me to leave the situation than to inflict others with my rigidity, irrationality, unhealthiness, and over-controlling, ``better-than-thou'' attitudes.


Life is
a little sunshine, a little rain
a little loss, a little gain
a little happiness, a little pain
not all sweet, nor all sour
now a weed, now a flower but
a goodly average of sunshine and shower.


A detailed, step by step guide in how to recover from idealism can be found here:

http://www.coping.org/control/idealism.htm

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso: you turn everything into a black and white issue of this nature. But really it is all a shade of grey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's not. You either initiate violence or you don't. Which are you in favor of?

[ QUOTE ]
One problem is the way you look at the market. You treat it as if it is this utopian place with everything being decided with persuasion and discussion and choice. But, if the market worked the way you imagined it does, it wouldn't work at all. In reality, the market gets things done by constraining people, by forcing them to innovate and cost cut (for businesses) or work (for individuals) or perish.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market is not an actor. It does not constrain. It does not force. People are forced to "work or die" but not by the market; they are forced to do so by *nature*. You try to shift the blame so you can justify your regime of violence.

[ QUOTE ]
It coordinates activity via what we would call a bribe if it was done by an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody chooses the price of an item, or gets to choose whether there product would be sucessful, nor is anything decided by a roundtable discussion. If all businesses could really choose what the price of an item was, or how much of X could be produced profitably, or how much they get paid for and what ("well, regardless of your argument that a doctor ought to be paid a lot and an XBOX player nothing, I voluntarily choose that I'm a pro XBOX player and a millionaire") was then market societies would be unmitigated disasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument makes no sense, because nobody is arguing what you're arguing against.



[ QUOTE ]
The market works, when it does work, BY REMOVING THESE CHOICES, BY TAKING AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO DECIDE. The market is a way for people to control the behavior of other human beings, and that is why it is a good thing, as this aspect of the market allows us to be better off than we would be without a market because it coordinates our behavior: it gets us to do socially beneficial things that we wouldn't do IF WE HAD THE CHOICE. Don't produce, don't make much money. Don't make what consumers want, go out of business. Waste, and lose market share and profitability. What is and isn't acceptable in the market is decided by power (namely, that of dollars) just as what is and isn't accceptable in a state is decided by power (namely, that of votes).

Social coordination is made possible because of the existensce of known punishments for those who don't cooperate and rewards for those that do. That's how human beings get along on a large scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't like the rewards and punishments which naturally emerge, and you want to re-engineer the system with your own set of rewards and punishments.

That's great. Go for it!

But if you want other people to participate in your scheme with you, you're going to have to either convince them to join voluntarily, or use force in order to compel them to do so.

Which route are you taking?

[ QUOTE ]
The threat of violence is necessary when the market's threats of starvation and extinction (and low status, and insecurity, etc.) are ineffective. Call them coordination problems or market failures or whatever you want to call them: there are are instances when each individual pursuing there own self-interest in the market leads to situations in which they would be better off not pursuing there self-interest. But, we know that all people some of the time will pursue there own self-interest. Change the incentives involved via, say, the state, and outcomes could be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better according to your subjective preferences, of course.

[clowntable]

An interesting case for me is if the market clashes with democracy and or ethics because the market is in a sense a weighted democracy (everyone get's one vote per unit of wealth).
Questions like offering someone X units of wealth for killing themselves were the net worth over the lifetime of that person is < X etc. (or the whole can of worms related to child pornography etc.)