Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Free Market Good for Public?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Is Free Market Good for Public?

#11

Post by twobyfour »

A free market is good for the public. An entirely unregulated market is not.

A lot of people, especially in the U.S., seem to have trouble understanding that a regulated free market is in fact not an oxymoron. Others have trouble with the notion that a regulated market is not the same as a command economy.

An unregulated market suffers from externalities; power and information imbalances; prisoner's dilemmas; tragedies of the commons; and other failures that are detrimental to the public.

These failures are more common in, and cause more problems in some sectors than others. For instance, a free market doesn't do a great job of distributing health care, and externalities distort an unregulated market for energy; but market forces seem to do a pretty decent job when it comes to production and distribution of clothing.

Moreover, a free market can over time result in socioeconomic inequality that in the long run erodes its own consumer base.

So yes, for most (but not all) goods, a free market is better for the public than a command economy. But a free market requires regulation and taxation in order to remain robust and continue to be beneficial to the entirety of the population it serves rather than just those at the top.

Re: Is Free Market Good for Public?

#12

Post by zach417 »

A free market is one where two or more parties are free to exchange goods and services voluntarily, thereby determining prices through the forces of supply and demand. The nature of these transactions must be voluntary in order for it to be considered free market exchange.

So, in my view, your question the following: is there a time when two or more parties wish to voluntarily exchange goods or services, but given the circumstances of the exchange, government has a duty to forcibly intervene, thereby preventing the exchange?

Many are tempted to point to fraud, pollution, or other unjust conduct as evidence that the free market does not work. However, each of the examples that one could give would involve an exchange where one or more parties did not voluntarily engage in that exchange, and therefore, the injured party would have a right to seek damages from the offending party. In a free market, I am no more justified in destroying your garden or selling you snake oil as a cure for cancer than I am in any other market system.

Therefore, I maintain that there exists no exchange that warrants government intervention given that all parties involved engage in the exchange voluntarily. We should conclude that the free market is good for the public and that it is the only market system that equally and evenly respects the rights and autonomy of all members of society. To that point, I conjecture that it is immoral to forcibly intervene in such an exchange since doing so would obstruct the autonomy of two or more moral agents, which I believe to be supported by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Re: Is Free Market Good for Public?

#13

Post by oldmancoyote »

A free market is an example of a non-linear dynamical system. Chaotic fluctuation is the most common expression of such a system. In my lifetime I have seen the the U.S. economy fluctuate wildly. I have seen lives and enterprises destroyed and families suffer great hardship and broken dreams, and in contrast I have seen equivalent periods of wonderful prosperity.

How can you say that policies regarding a huge complex system like the economy are "good" or "bad". Some situations are favored some are harmed. Even comparisons between policies are suspect.

There is no way to rationally sum up the net effect. Those who try are expressing a political preference couched in terms of pseudo-economics.

A thoughtfully administrated mixed economy offers some hope of dealing with these issues. There are no magic bullets.

Re: Is Free Market Good for Public?

#14

Post by ParameterOne »

tai_hn wrote: post #2

Some people seem to believe that markets need to be free. They are against interference of the government to dictate what participants can or cannot do. This concept of a free market generally leads the privatization of the governmental function. They think therefore it’s best to deregulate as much as possible. I have to say that this is a ridiculous idea considering unfairness in our society. It is a proven fact tha…

> What we need to do is not to discuss about the extreme logic between libertarianism and conservatism, but to decide what money should and should NOT be able to buy.

Who do you think should have the power to decide that?? And why should someone not be able to buy something with money? This sounds like a great way to produce more black markets, and the spending of tax dollars to police it. Not ideal.

Post reply on HN