[source: https://analyticsindiamag.com/my-fun-ai-project-how-to-be-invisible/]
This week the reading for this class is about the market! We read chapters 5, 7, and 9 of Per L. Bylund’s “The Seen, The Unseen, and the Unrealized”. In this, he introduces the “market”, which he explains is basically another name for the overall economy, establishing that they are pretty much the same thing, people have just given different connotations to the words. He also addresses the many critiques of the market, as well as the critiques like Karl Marx, before finally deciding that, hey, for better or worse the market is working - the only question is how and for whom?
He goes into explaining the necessary components of the market, with a specific dedication to entrepreneurs and how they can drive the market, including prices, supply, and competition, thus concluding that entrepreneurs are the ones to pretty much control overall production. I think that this is a very interesting take that I don’t necessarily disagree with. I found his explanation about entrepreneurship and their influence to be interesting, something I have not really thought about. I don’t pretend to understand the stock market. I would have better luck learning about the intricacies of political systems and their demise. I definitely learned something from this reading. His final remark of that first chapter, that in the end, everyone is with what they valued more, kind of got to me. I wanted to heavily disagree with it but found that, unfortunately, he could be right. After all, even if we’re talking about people being exploited in the market or those who have been shut out, it is usually because they value their economic freedom (no debt) over whatever else it may have been (an education). Thus, technically, he’s right, I just don’t like it to be honest. I also must insist that while he can say that the market is always working, and even use this logic to support it, I have to say that it might only be working for a certain group of people, and it is the people who can afford to play with it, usually those who are wealthier or connected. Which brings me to another point, which is that the market, or the economy, cannot be politically neutral, or free of politics at all. The market is directly tied to politics and should be taken into account when discussing it. There is no point in hypotheticals if you do not also address the reality. It is like when Grady et al tried to prove that dinosaurs were not endothermic or ectothermic based on the studies of other animals, but then was countered when another scientist pulled direct evidence of endothermic tendencies of dinosaurs from actual dinosaurs, not animals that were similar.
\Bylund summarizes his thoughts about production and that it is central to an economy and used to enable consumption. He also addresses more of what the market is, which is an open conversation with the public. They create demand and decide what entrepreneurs succeeded (and, as such, can continue to participate in the market) and which ones failed (leading to financial loss of these entrepreneurs). I know that the economy is a supply/demand model. I took economics in high school and I vaguely remember learning all those graphs about it. I really appreciate how he was able to explain the whole flow of the market, talking about the things we are able to really see and comprehend impact that market, but also the variables that are considered unseen, and how they can also lead to impact in the economy and market. The idea that things can snowball and are connected are really interesting and I can appreciate the simplicity of the fact that stepping on a butterfly can eventually lead to an earthquake across the country.
He also talks about regulation (and taxation) and the impact that they play in the market. Again, addressing the ripple effect that can take place connects to the issues talked about previously, especially in terms of things unseen. The idea that regulation can create a cost is true, but I think it is important to acknowledge the balance between cost and gain with regulations. Sure, regulations can cost money in the short term, but by ensuring equal opportunity and safe use of economic resources by all people, it can encourage more involvement in the economy and thus create a long term gain counteracting the earlier cost. It is the same thing with taxation. It can be a negative thing that has negative consequences across the board, with high costs for everyone, but it could also create long term gain. By creating funding for more opportunities to either invest in the market or encourage others to get involved, there could be a hidden (or unseen) gain.
You clearly did a lot of thinking while engaging with this week's readings. That is exactly the point of the class -- not to get you to agree with the readings, but to get you to think deeply about some concepts you might not have thought about previously.
You have approached this week's readings with a healthy balance of open-mindedness and skepticism -- I especially appreciate the honesty with which you grappled with the concepts you disagree with.