Or you get even more nuanced and say unregulated free market is best only on the frontier of emerging new market sectors, and that areas we depend on should be heavily regulated, socialized, and run at cost for the public for free supported by tax dollars.
Have different systems for different things depending on which works best for what.
I say it’s the opposite. Given that markets distribute more reliably and equitably than any other system including direct redistribution of goods and services, it should be considered more heinous to distort markets around things we need.
Healthcare and education are two markets that have been royally fucked (in terms of access to affordable options for poor people) by government attempts to do the opposite. We decide something’s too important to leave open, so we start dumping money into aid programs, and prices absolutely skyrocket.
Oh and housing too. Dems were talking about offering up to $X of down payment assistance on houses. Provide buyers with government money to help them buy this thing we’ve decided people cannot be without. Same thing we’ve been doing for decades in education and healthcare. Same thing that has driven both those markets into ridiculously high prices, and created massive ranks for debtors from the lower class in both of those.
Subsidized demand drives prices up. It closes the door to market access for lower income individuals and forces them to use the government assistance to get access.
Nuance is important, but it’s also difficult for laypeople. Not because they’re unintelligent, necessarily, but because they haven’t studied and trained like experts have. That’s why we have to be able to rely on experts. But, deferring to the authority of experts means giving up at least some power. I think that can work when there’s trust between the experts and the laypeople, but when trust is lost, laypeople will no longer respect the authority of experts. That’s what the experts, the “elites” have to understand: their expertise gives them authority, and with authority comes power, and, well, as uncle Ben would say, with power comes responsibility, and accountability. I don’t think the experts of today take their responsibility seriously enough, nor do I think they take proper accountability.
Or you get even more nuanced and say unregulated free market is best only on the frontier of emerging new market sectors, and that areas we depend on should be heavily regulated, socialized, and run at cost for the public for free supported by tax dollars.
Have different systems for different things depending on which works best for what.
I say it’s the opposite. Given that markets distribute more reliably and equitably than any other system including direct redistribution of goods and services, it should be considered more heinous to distort markets around things we need.
Healthcare and education are two markets that have been royally fucked (in terms of access to affordable options for poor people) by government attempts to do the opposite. We decide something’s too important to leave open, so we start dumping money into aid programs, and prices absolutely skyrocket.
Oh and housing too. Dems were talking about offering up to $X of down payment assistance on houses. Provide buyers with government money to help them buy this thing we’ve decided people cannot be without. Same thing we’ve been doing for decades in education and healthcare. Same thing that has driven both those markets into ridiculously high prices, and created massive ranks for debtors from the lower class in both of those.
Subsidized demand drives prices up. It closes the door to market access for lower income individuals and forces them to use the government assistance to get access.
Noting should ever be completely unregulated. Humans are the worst.
Nuance is important, but it’s also difficult for laypeople. Not because they’re unintelligent, necessarily, but because they haven’t studied and trained like experts have. That’s why we have to be able to rely on experts. But, deferring to the authority of experts means giving up at least some power. I think that can work when there’s trust between the experts and the laypeople, but when trust is lost, laypeople will no longer respect the authority of experts. That’s what the experts, the “elites” have to understand: their expertise gives them authority, and with authority comes power, and, well, as uncle Ben would say, with power comes responsibility, and accountability. I don’t think the experts of today take their responsibility seriously enough, nor do I think they take proper accountability.