On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Cameron Childress <camer...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > 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. > > Obviously we disagree, though you seem to go on to support the notion that you understand that the world you presented is not the world that we live in. > > 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. > > What do you think rule #1 of real world economics is then? I'm curious. > > 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. > Free markets, in the classical sense, require free market actors. All the requirements I listed are text book definitions. That's why the classical theoretical notion of the free market is not applicable to the real world. > > > 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 rules have to change as the constraints change if you want something like an equivalent outcome. That's fundamental systems theory. > > 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. > > You are making a presumption about the behavior of a Free(er) Market that is not born out by either theory or practice as far as I can tell. > > > 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. > > Agreed. That was my point. They are complex and nuanced, however. It isn't the simple "Invisible Hand of the Market" construction that people seem to learn in high school about supply and demand and then presume that it applies to everything in a capitalist economy. > > 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". > > Curious, I see a lot of people failing and, oddly enough, most of them are poor. The systems in place seem to protect one class a lot more than others. Fundamentally, however, I believe that systems should serve the people and not the other way around. They should protect the most vulnerable and encourage everyone to improve their own lives and communities. > > 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. > > Many systems try and treat employees like commodities. However, even if you consider the job to be the commodity, it still fails. They do not satisfy the criteria to be considered commodities. There is great economic theory out there about employment and wages and incentives. I'd love to learn even more than what I do now, it's a fascinating and evolving field. It isn't simple, though. And it isn't classic free market theory. Cheers, Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:359067 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
