If anyone is looking for a brief, concise and informative overview of how markets work, check out Steve Horwitz's most recent article over at The Freeman. A key insight:
It’s not that markets do things well because entrepreneurs are smart; rather, entrepreneurs are able to do things well because markets are “smart” in that they are able, through prices and profits, to make more knowledge available to entrepreneurs than political processes do to bureaucrats. This feature of markets is what Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith calls “ecological rationality.” [emphasis mine -ed.]
Showing posts with label Markets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Markets. Show all posts
Stossel and the MSM
John Stossel on the double-standard of the mainstream media.
Stossel is far and away my favorite member of the MSM. There are two reasons for this.
One, he is the only member of the MSM that is a true and true free-marketer. This is unlike the clowns on Fox News who trumpet free markets when in comes to Wall Street and the broader economy, but then feel only the federal government is capable of handling and regulating the horrors of drugs, gay marriage and the like.
Secondly, Stossel takes a novel approach to his reporting, which he talks about at the end of the linked article. He admits his bias. And he reports based on his biases. But he never hides them. I find that admirable.
There is no doubt in my mind that bias runs rampant throughout the MSM. We can continue the charade and pretend these reporters are doing the nation a service with their objectivity. Or we can admit our biases like Stossel and let the market determine who is providing the most valuable reporting.
Stossel is far and away my favorite member of the MSM. There are two reasons for this.
One, he is the only member of the MSM that is a true and true free-marketer. This is unlike the clowns on Fox News who trumpet free markets when in comes to Wall Street and the broader economy, but then feel only the federal government is capable of handling and regulating the horrors of drugs, gay marriage and the like.
Secondly, Stossel takes a novel approach to his reporting, which he talks about at the end of the linked article. He admits his bias. And he reports based on his biases. But he never hides them. I find that admirable.
There is no doubt in my mind that bias runs rampant throughout the MSM. We can continue the charade and pretend these reporters are doing the nation a service with their objectivity. Or we can admit our biases like Stossel and let the market determine who is providing the most valuable reporting.
Revision
Sorry, I'm having some technical difficulties posting and editing at the moment. For the most recent "Markets vs Coercion" post, sub-step g of Interaction based on markets should read:
If Z <> or equal to Y+P. If they cannot agree to a price within that criteria, no transaction.
If Z <> or equal to Y+P. If they cannot agree to a price within that criteria, no transaction.
A Logical Understanding of Markets vs Coercion
1. Society = Community
2. Community requires interaction
3. Two types of interaction
a. Voluntary
b. Coerced
4. Two types of voluntary interaction
a. Markets
b. Altruism
5. Altruism not practical
6. Two types of interaction
a. Coercion
b. Markets
7. Interaction based on markets
a. A desires good/service X
b. B recognizes A's demand and produces X
c. B produces X at Y cost
d. A recognizes opportunity to obtain B for Y+P cost
e. A values X at Z amount
f. If Z > or equal to Y+P , A will purchase X from B
g. If Z <> or equal to Y+P. If they cannot agree to that price, no transaction
h. Transactions, even if they fail to occur, result in most beneficial outcome for all parties
involved
i. Interaction is not corrupted
j. Society is not corrupted
8. Interaction based on coercion
a. G has monopoly on application of legal force on all parties
b. G has monopoly control over all terms and conditions of all past, present and future
transactions for all parties
c. Perverts fundamental institutions that all market conditions are based on
d. Interaction is corrupted
e. Society is corrupted
9. Markets are preferable to coercion in terms of societal operation
This is obviously a very simple application of logic towards both of these organizational styles. There are clearly many more variables that need to be taken into account in such analysis. But I do think the underlying premises and conclusions are fair and accurate. Also, to note, I am not advocating anarchy in this analysis. I am simply noting the perversion of markets governments inevitably create when they interfere in areas that markets should solely be involved in. But in areas where markets are not appropriate, the institution of government is not simply preferable, it is necessary. In other words, government is necessary to facilitate effective market interaction. But government should not involve itself in the actual interaction. And that is from everything as subtle as indirect regulation to as blatant as direct competition with private participants.
2. Community requires interaction
3. Two types of interaction
a. Voluntary
b. Coerced
4. Two types of voluntary interaction
a. Markets
b. Altruism
5. Altruism not practical
6. Two types of interaction
a. Coercion
b. Markets
7. Interaction based on markets
a. A desires good/service X
b. B recognizes A's demand and produces X
c. B produces X at Y cost
d. A recognizes opportunity to obtain B for Y+P cost
e. A values X at Z amount
f. If Z > or equal to Y+P , A will purchase X from B
g. If Z <> or equal to Y+P. If they cannot agree to that price, no transaction
h. Transactions, even if they fail to occur, result in most beneficial outcome for all parties
involved
i. Interaction is not corrupted
j. Society is not corrupted
8. Interaction based on coercion
a. G has monopoly on application of legal force on all parties
b. G has monopoly control over all terms and conditions of all past, present and future
transactions for all parties
c. Perverts fundamental institutions that all market conditions are based on
d. Interaction is corrupted
e. Society is corrupted
9. Markets are preferable to coercion in terms of societal operation
This is obviously a very simple application of logic towards both of these organizational styles. There are clearly many more variables that need to be taken into account in such analysis. But I do think the underlying premises and conclusions are fair and accurate. Also, to note, I am not advocating anarchy in this analysis. I am simply noting the perversion of markets governments inevitably create when they interfere in areas that markets should solely be involved in. But in areas where markets are not appropriate, the institution of government is not simply preferable, it is necessary. In other words, government is necessary to facilitate effective market interaction. But government should not involve itself in the actual interaction. And that is from everything as subtle as indirect regulation to as blatant as direct competition with private participants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
