> To say that the market failed is either wrong or meaningless. If I understand this correctly it was meant that markets can't fail in the same way physics isn't failing if you fall to your death having driven off a cliff.
However a person saying the 'markets failed' isn't unnecessarily claiming something meaningless (such as my analogies claim 'physics failed because I fell') because the odds are they mean something like... 'the actions taken by authorities in the claim that benefits would be provided by free market actions failed' ...which is more akin to saying that physics didn't work the way the driver claimed they would when he said we were going fast enough to bridge the gap. Physics didn't fail - it was some combination of the drivers knowledge and/or control of the cars speed and it's relationship to the required jump that failed. It isn't an argument about the effectiveness of the economic disciplines descriptive powers but about the practical effects of government policy. It being true that markets can't fail if by markets all you mean is the descriptive actions of economics it is also true that being able to describe economics doesn't make that the answer to everything. Continuing with analogies, being able to describe the physical properties of matter doesn't mean everything if I want to build a house. I still have to build something with my understanding and it doesn't help for people to keep saying 'let it sort itself out' because hammers, wood and nails won't, no matter how much I will value the house, construct one if I don't design it and organise the work. Economies will always exist, but if we want one structured to an end we desire (public police forces supporting rule by law for example being something we want provided by our economy), we have to build it. And if the design includes the ridiculous nonsense that has recently endangered all economic activity then it's fair to say it has failed. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
