On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com>wrote:
> Cam, the world you describe is one that is presented in some high school > economics texts, I suppose, but not really anywhere beyond that. > This is not a valid classification. > Rule number one of actual economics is that there is no truly free market. > It's not rule number one, but no - there is no truly free market, only varied degrees of it, just like everything else in life. > The prerequirements of a free market includes absolute, instantaneous, > knowledge amongst all parties, it requires symmetry between actors and it > requires perfectly rational actors. This is not a requirement for a free market, it is a requirement for a perfect free market actor. > The closest we get to it in practice is probably the commodities market. Closest actors, this doesn't mean a system requires perfect actors to function effectively. > The further we get away from that, the more we have to deal with actual > real entities and their complications. When you get to the level of > employment, you are deep down in the weeds where actors aren't rational, > differentiation between consumer and supplier is multifaceted and there is > substantial inequality of knowledge, which is itself asymmetric. > Nope, people aren't rational. They buy big screen TVs with their tax refund and then can't put food on the table the next day. Very irrational, crazy actors. But there is no law prohibiting that wacky silly, self-destructive behavior - nor should there be. These same irrational actors could potentially cancel their union memberships, shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe they are smart actors, maybe they are dumb actors, rational.irrational.... A Free(er) Market will sort all that out. > It is nothing close to a free market and it never will be. The requirements > for the simplistic model just cannot be met. > I disagree. If the only acceptable for my Free Market is in it's purest textbook form, you are correct. But this is not the only option. There are many principles that can be applied to all parts of our lives that are Free Market principles and the results are quite valid and predictable. > The systems do, however, require constraints to protect the actors (on > both sides) and to help the systems toward optimization. > I think this is the most fundamental difference in our opinions on this matter. I favor letting idiots be idiots. Take the warning labels off. Stop "protecting" the poor poor irrational people from their own stupidity and allow them to fail. This is how people learn to act differently and that is a much better lesson (in my opinion) than "well, I don't know why but that's just the way it is because the government makes us do it that way". > We're still trying to figure out the best way to deal with all those > things. It isn't obvious because it is a complex issue and an evolving > system. Society is including moral valuations (freedom, dignity, > fulfillment, etc) as variables in the equations that just don't arise in > systems like commodities. And at the end of the day, people aren't > commodities. Corn doesn't make choices. Fundamental flaw here: The Corn is not the employee, it's the job. The job is the commodity, not the employee. The employee is only the commodity in a world where a Union (or Government) is controlling (trading) people. -Cameron ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359063 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
