The irony of faith in blind markets
Libertarians and conservatives believe in free markets, but in laissez-faire the market is soon captured and manipulated by the few, and then there is no meritocracy anymore, only an oligarchy.
And when an economy is run by a only few people, whether that be in communism or in laissez-faire capitalism, things always start to go wrong, because no one can understand the micro-market better than millions of individuals.
Markets need regulations to keep them free and open.
Lip Service to Wisdom
So, what’s that irony I spoke of, earlier? How does this central principle turn around and bite today’s libertarians and conservatives, proving many of them fools?
Clearly, everything I’ve said, so far, ought to make a libertarian or conservative happy!
So where’s the problem? The problem is that it’s all lip service on the right! Those who most-loudly proclaim Faith In Blind Markets (FIBM) are generally also those proclaiming idolatry of private property as a pure, platonic essence, a tenet to be clutched with religious tenacity, as it was in feudal societies. Obdurate, they refuse to see that they are conflating two very different things.
The Irony of Faith in Blind Markets
But in rejecting one set of knowledge-limited meddlers—100,000 civil servants—libertarians and conservatives seem bent on ignoring market manipulation by 5,000 or so aristocratic golf buddies, who appoint each other to company boards in order to vote each other titanic “compensation packages” while trading insider information and conspiring together to eliminate competition. Lords who are not subject to inherent limits, like each bureaucrat must face, or rules of disclosure or accountability. Lords who (whether it is legal or not) collude and share the same delusions.
So, what’s that irony I spoke of, earlier? How does this central principle turn around and bite today’s libertarians and conservatives, proving many of them fools?
Clearly, everything I’ve said, so far, ought to make a libertarian or conservative happy!
So where’s the problem? The problem is that it’s all lip service on the right! Those who most-loudly proclaim Faith In Blind Markets (FIBM) are generally also those proclaiming idolatry of private property as a pure, platonic essence, a tenet to be clutched with religious tenacity, as it was in feudal societies. Obdurate, they refuse to see that they are conflating two very different things.
The Irony of Faith in Blind Markets
But in rejecting one set of knowledge-limited meddlers—100,000 civil servants—libertarians and conservatives seem bent on ignoring market manipulation by 5,000 or so aristocratic golf buddies, who appoint each other to company boards in order to vote each other titanic “compensation packages” while trading insider information and conspiring together to eliminate competition. Lords who are not subject to inherent limits, like each bureaucrat must face, or rules of disclosure or accountability. Lords who (whether it is legal or not) collude and share the same delusions.
Evonomics.
9 comments:
“Libertarians and conservatives believe in free markets, but in laissez-faire the market is soon captured and manipulated by the few, and then there is no meritocracy anymore, only an oligarchy.”
Everyone believes in free markets as long as they are genuinely free and fair for all. Adam Smith believed in genuinely free markets.
Neoliberals do not believe in free markets. They want monopolized markets controlled by oligarchs. They stand Adam Smith on his head.
Libertarians want markets free of government regulation, so that markets fall under oligarch regulation and private ownership.
Markets need regulations to keep them free and open.
Everything needs regulation, from the whirling of electrons to the rotation of galaxies. Without regulation there is nothing but chaos and disintegration.
Hilary Stagg of northern California heard a harp being played, and he thought it so beautiful that he set himself to learning how to play it. Friends cautioned him that the harp is far more difficult to play than it looks (it is one of the most difficult instruments in the entire orchestra) but he persevered with nice results. He put out two albums that I know of, but suddenly died after a brief illness in June 1999 at age 41.
Examples…
Forever (Very relaxing music; might put you to sleep)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG8c-B_MLX4
Land of Oz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDGcLpfMi1o
Prelude to Love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5K1Uc6u4Dg
Spirit Dancers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw3uIgXr5CU
I'm going to need something to put me to sleep tonight after watching that Planet of the Apes scene. I still hate it after all these years.
One scene that freaks me out after all these years is "Colonel Kong" riding the H-bomb in Dr. Strangelove.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I thought this was interesting.
Humans and other primates fear the unknown. Death is a great unknown.
Once we enter into the unknown, and we get used to what we find, we lose our fear. Watch what happens to chimpanzees when they face the unknown. Chimps caged for 30 years are finally released to a sanctuary. At first it’s scary. Humans are the same.
3½ minute video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEjXLMd4VA
Everything needs regulation, from the whirling of electrons to the rotation of galaxies. Konrad
Actually those things don't need regulating since they are subject to negative feedback - unlike banks since those have largely escaped the stability that having genuine liabilities would provide.
In other words, the way to fix banks is for them to be 100% private with 100% voluntary depositors.
Same unintelligible babble over and over. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla pretium dui eu tincidunt feugiat. Duis suscipit elit sapien, eget imperdiet augue aliquet in. Donec vestibulum leo ac luctus ornare.
Same unintelligible babble over and over. Konrad
When a bank creates a deposit that deposit is a liability for fiat. But, except for mere physical fiat, coins and bills, which are, for example, totally useless for electronic commerce, the public may not use fiat.
Hence the liabilities of the banks toward the public are largely a sham and hence the accounting is largely a sham too.
Actually the accounting toward the non-bank private sector (i.e. "the public") is ENTIRELY a sham since Central Banks would lend banks, etc. as much physical fiat as necessary during a bank run on the entire system thus rendering that bank run useless as far as disciplining the banks, etc.
So the banks are literally "out of control" accounting wise which is why they must be regulated in the absence of honest accounting.
So fix the accounting (i.e. make it honest) and the need for regulation disappears.
Accounting is already "fixed".
Who defines "honest"?
How does one fix accounting without regulations?
You are using Roddis logic.
Who defines "honest"? Noah Way
I might long for the total abolition of physical fiat so that you could then go to your bank and try to cash a check. Then you'll realize that "Pay to the order of _____ ______ dollars" is a completely sham liability.
And sham liabilities mean sham accounting.
Post a Comment