go ahead and bribe. that brings the price down for the buyer, when you run out of money he'll seek the lowest price. The free market is self correcting.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
go ahead and bribe. that brings the price down for the buyer, when you run out of money he'll seek the lowest price. The free market is self correcting.
Not when the buyer is buying on behalf of others and pockets the bribe himself, a more usual scenario.
That's a creed from an economic belief system, not a fact, closer to magical thinking, actually. I many cases, the free market corrects itself after things have gone terribly wrong, and sometimes not at all. It's in the history books.
The belief that institutional violence is a necessary component of a functional government is also a creed and belief system. In fact, it may be worse than magical thinking because it implies an individual has given up thinking all together and resigned himself to the necessary use of violence.
That has very little to do with the point I'm making, and it is not a point I am debating, so I wonder why you reply like this.
In fact, I would agree with what you say, as long as there are other enforcable rules that limit the total free-for-all a free market at its worst could turn into. I do not believe an unconstrained free market will automatically lead to the best solutions, or even set the best prices (best for whom?).
Any viable constitution will have to take into account that not everybody supports the same economic thinking, or even believes that there is a working economic theory out there at all. Trying to come up with an economic theory from assumptions and reasoning alone is rather medieval. If there are no testable hypotheses, or real-world data is ignored, such a theory is without worth.
I think anthropology is a better place to look for inputs for a constitution than economic theory, and I suspect no good will come at all until we replace competition with cooperation.
Not true. the free market works as long as the government doesn't get involved.
History is a lie.
Another creed. You are being religious about what should be just an economic theory. No arguing with that.
the evidence supports the hypothesis.