It is astonishing to me that probably the most amazing thing ever discovered—markets—are regularly criticized and would be shuttered by a large percentage of the population, if given the opportunity.
Critics might get distracted by mention of China and say we shouldn't offshore to them because they're a national security risk, which misses the point. Might be better to head off that possibility and use a more allied country like Bangladesh or Vietnam as the offshoring example.
Dodging the best example to placate the Nervous Nellies and Norvuses won't appease them at all, it will just encourage them to scream louder. Better to confront them head on.
I haven't heard as many complaints about Bangladesh & Vietnam (people might not be aware of how much they manufacture). I know Japan used to get a lot of complaints.
In a fully marketized society I wouldn't have a mother in law because I would not have married but instead contracted out the use of my sperm to various females, then rented my services as a disciplinarian, educator and child care provider to various local organizations with random tots to care for. I would never have any interaction with any humans that wasn't bought and paid for entirely on the basis of money, with no consideration paid to whether I or they enjoyed the interactions with each other.
Damnit... when I try it actually does sound superior than having Thanksgiving with my mother in law.
My biased opinion again is that government is the root cause. Government allows the possibility of screaming loud enough to sic it on the despicable players who do all those bad things. But all it ends up doing is distorting markets and growing government power. People want to take the easy way out of thinking government has actually accomplished something, and politicians and bureaucrats don't want to solve the problems that create their jobs. WIN-WIN for whiners and bureaucrats, LOSE-LOSE for markets and society.
If government simply did not have the legal capability of interfering in markets, people would still fume and rant and rave, but they would direct their ire at the players themselves instead of the politicians and bureaucrats who promise solutions which cannot be delivered. The players would have to stand up for themselves instead of ingratiating themselves with corrupt cronies. And people would end up with an innate gut instinct of how markets improve lives instead of knowing government is corrupt and they just have to yell louder.
Two things: one grammatical and one where I disagree.
You write, "“Markets only care about money” or “Markets only care about profits.” The "only" is misplaced. It should be the word before "about."
Where I disagree: "Though the CEO who snaps, “Recycling isn’t worth my time” is unlikeable," You haven't given enough information for you or us to judge whether he's unlikable.
Perhaps. I thought he was pretty clearly editorializing there from the perspective of "psychologically normal humans" who routinely view the market as "heartless".
It is astonishing to me that probably the most amazing thing ever discovered—markets—are regularly criticized and would be shuttered by a large percentage of the population, if given the opportunity.
"You’re going to shutter a children’s museum just because the financials keep coming out wrong?"
Yes. Because what else can you do with the money?
And the answer to "but the poor people can't afford to use the children's museum" is to give the poor people cash.
Give poor people cash? Looks like you too have succumbed to social desirability bias.
This was just conventional wisdom in, say, the Clinton administration. I’d like to see Bryan talk about why this approach is not as popular anymore.
Will we get the whole book slowly on substack
Critics might get distracted by mention of China and say we shouldn't offshore to them because they're a national security risk, which misses the point. Might be better to head off that possibility and use a more allied country like Bangladesh or Vietnam as the offshoring example.
Dodging the best example to placate the Nervous Nellies and Norvuses won't appease them at all, it will just encourage them to scream louder. Better to confront them head on.
I haven't heard as many complaints about Bangladesh & Vietnam (people might not be aware of how much they manufacture). I know Japan used to get a lot of complaints.
In a fully marketized society you would pay your mother in law for the thanksgiving dinner.
No. You'd pay for every bite, you'd rent the chair, and you'd rent every little thing.
Come on. If your going to do hyperbole, do it right.
In a fully marketized society I wouldn't have a mother in law because I would not have married but instead contracted out the use of my sperm to various females, then rented my services as a disciplinarian, educator and child care provider to various local organizations with random tots to care for. I would never have any interaction with any humans that wasn't bought and paid for entirely on the basis of money, with no consideration paid to whether I or they enjoyed the interactions with each other.
Damnit... when I try it actually does sound superior than having Thanksgiving with my mother in law.
My biased opinion again is that government is the root cause. Government allows the possibility of screaming loud enough to sic it on the despicable players who do all those bad things. But all it ends up doing is distorting markets and growing government power. People want to take the easy way out of thinking government has actually accomplished something, and politicians and bureaucrats don't want to solve the problems that create their jobs. WIN-WIN for whiners and bureaucrats, LOSE-LOSE for markets and society.
If government simply did not have the legal capability of interfering in markets, people would still fume and rant and rave, but they would direct their ire at the players themselves instead of the politicians and bureaucrats who promise solutions which cannot be delivered. The players would have to stand up for themselves instead of ingratiating themselves with corrupt cronies. And people would end up with an innate gut instinct of how markets improve lives instead of knowing government is corrupt and they just have to yell louder.
Society would be a lot healthier.
Good post.
Two things: one grammatical and one where I disagree.
You write, "“Markets only care about money” or “Markets only care about profits.” The "only" is misplaced. It should be the word before "about."
Where I disagree: "Though the CEO who snaps, “Recycling isn’t worth my time” is unlikeable," You haven't given enough information for you or us to judge whether he's unlikable.
I think the idea is that he would seem inherently unlikeable to those who view recycling as an obvious virtue and avoiding it to be despicable.
If that's so, then it's not Bryan's usual level of clarity.
Perhaps. I thought he was pretty clearly editorializing there from the perspective of "psychologically normal humans" who routinely view the market as "heartless".
"only": I agree, but that battle has been lost.