The heat is on. Fox News special review

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I summarised your arguement perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. End of discussion, ay? You're a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the idea that I summerised an "arguement" could be construed as amusing.

The idea that the market allows for perfect distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said that free markets "allow for perfect distribution of goods and services," or that "any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion?" Wasn't me. Not my idea. It would seem to be your strawman misrepresentation of what the advantages of free markets are alleged to be. Either that or your misunderstanding of what the advantages of free markets are alleged to be. Neither one wins you any points.

The advantage of free markets is that they most efficiently allocate sparse resources and capital among alternative applications in order to satisfy the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of free markets is that they most efficiently allocate sparse resources and capital among alternative applications in order to satisfy the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take this to be true, then any human interference could only lead to a negative impact on effeciency.

So:

[ QUOTE ]
Who said that free markets "allow for perfect distribution of goods and services," or that "any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion?" Wasn't me. Not my idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can be seen to be utterly false.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Have a little faith in the market, brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Wacki, if you want to leave it up to markets this is exactly what is needed FAITH. This is why those that believe in the market do so with such a religous zeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this even more true for those that advocate statism?

"Don't worry, the state will take care of you."

"Trust us, we're from the government."

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I know a fair bit about the history of atomic weaponry. And I'm not sure what your point is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he's pointing out that without government, there would be no market for nuclear weapons, as if that would be a bad thing.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is a "college textbook challenge" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's his uber-strawman. Supposedly, since all of the innovations in the universe that you would ever find in a college textbook were (at least partially) funded by government money, we can conclude that without government, nothing good would ever happen. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Because government intervened and results were still obtained, government must be the ideal solution. QED.

I'm not really sure what the "challenge" part of it is.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the market allows for perfect distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "human interference" that messes things up, it's *coercive* interference. A truly free market is, by definition, one that is free from coercive interference. In such a scenario, resources flow to those who value them the most.

Coercive interference usually has (overtly, at least) good intentions, but is based on one party making value judgements for others about what is desirable and what isn't. This means that resources will not always be directed towards the most valued uses - in other words, the distribution optimality is reduced.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The advantage of free markets is that they most efficiently allocate sparse resources and capital among alternative applications in order to satisfy the needs, wants, and desires of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take this to be true, then any human interference could only lead to a negative impact on effeciency.

So:

[ QUOTE ]
Who said that free markets "allow for perfect distribution of goods and services," or that "any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion?" Wasn't me. Not my idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can be seen to be utterly false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you can't tell the difference between "most efficiently" and "perfect".

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I summarised your arguement perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. End of discussion, ay? You're a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the idea that I summerised an "arguement" could be construed as amusing.

The idea that the market allows for the most efficient distribution of goods and services and that any human interference can only impact on this in a negative fahion is one that is totaly dependent on logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[Dr. Strangelove]

That's a pretty funny fyp. Economics isn't that far removed from astrology.

[Jdanz]

pvn you are unquestionably right that once it's better for a company to produce other forms of energy they will. I can't argue the logic of the market.

What if by that time the pollution caused by shale oil burning (which would have been most efficent until recently) had caused massive negative externailities.

While it's correct that people will act efficently and invest in what they find important, it's a collective action problem here (again i know this is something that you have serious beef with). It is true that energy industries as a whole will continue to make a profit where they can, and when it's useful to them will work on other sources.

In your version of anachro captitalism, if i get it right, someone else should have property rights to clean air, and as energy producers worsen air quality they would have to pay for the rights to do so.

However in the world where we live, myself and everyone else would have to pay a great cost to get together and force energy companies to pay.

Essential in your schemata (sp) i believe that energy companies are stealing, insomuch, as they are using a resource (a non-polluted enviornment) that does not belong to them without paying for it. The typical arguement here is that if people value a clean enviornment they should organize and delinetate the rights to clean air, however i would argue that this organization is incredibly costly to the point of being nearly impossible.

I would agree with anachro capitalism if all rights could be perfectly delinetated, but since that is not possible, and the market neither accounts for, nor allows the trade or all valuable things, it remains imperfect.

So in this particular instance, i think that the status quo relies on an inordinate cost of organization, an inability to guarantee property rights over time, and profittering off a stolen resouce, not on the inherent value of R+D vs the status quo.

I personally think this can be rectafied (though imperfectly) by government interaction.

edit: I know one response is that government would not allocate reasources any better, but i don't think that's really true. In this case i think clean air has identifiably more net value then immediate cheap energy.
(Read i believe A>SQ)

The problem as i see it is organization + "air" delineating costs more then status quo

O + A > SQ

however government reduces the cost of organization to the point that i believe (and it's debateable)

O + A < SQ

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What if by that time the pollution caused by shale oil burning (which would have been most efficent until recently) had caused massive negative externailities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Externalities are bogus concepts that are (mis)used to justify government intervention. The emotion they play on (that others' actions can have effects one's happiness without action from the one that is effected) is a real one, but their application is always arbitrary. Additionally, they assume to know the preferences of the individual that is affected by them, even though that individual has expressed no preference (i.e. he hasn't acted). See http://www.mises.org/story/1360 for more.

[ QUOTE ]
In your version of anachro captitalism, if i get it right, someone else should have property rights to clean air, and as energy producers worsen air quality they would have to pay for the rights to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. They would pay for damages they cause by allowing their pollution to invade your person and property. They gain no "right" to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
However in the world where we live, myself and everyone else would have to pay a great cost to get together and force energy companies to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that cost greater than the cost of allowing the pollution? If that cost is so great, it should be more than enough to discourage polluters.

[ QUOTE ]
Essential in your schemata (sp) i believe that energy companies are stealing, insomuch, as they are using a resource (a non-polluted enviornment) that does not belong to them without paying for it. The typical arguement here is that if people value a clean enviornment they should organize and delinetate the rights to clean air, however i would argue that this organization is incredibly costly to the point of being nearly impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, then, would it be possible in a state system?

Note that class-action lawsuits are often massively expensive, much more expensive than any one member of the class would be able to afford, yet they are routine. Even individual lawsuits that cost more than the plantiff could ever afford are taken up by lawyers every day.

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree with anachro capitalism if all rights could be perfectly delinetated, but since that is not possible, and the market neither accounts for, nor allows the trade or all valuable things, it remains imperfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this not possible? What trade is not allowed?

[ QUOTE ]
So in this particular instance, i think that the status quo relies on an inordinate cost of organization, an inability to guarantee property rights over time, and profittering off a stolen resouce, not on the inherent value of R+D vs the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. When you say "status quo" what exactly are you referring to?

[ QUOTE ]
I personally think this can be rectafied (though imperfectly) by government interaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[ QUOTE ]
edit: I know one response is that government would not allocate reasources any better, but i don't think that's really true. In this case i think clean air has identifiably more net value then immediate cheap energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your valuation may not be the same as everyone else's. Also note that if producers of "cheap" but dirty energy are actually held accountable for their pollution and forced to pay for damages they cause, the price they are able to offer their energy at will have to reflect those costs - the supposed externality has been internalized.


[ QUOTE ]
(Read i believe A>SQ)

The problem as i see it is organization + "air" delineating costs more then status quo

O + A > SQ

however government reduces the cost of organization to the point that i believe (and it's debateable)

O + A < SQ

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's allow that government does enable organization costs to drop. What about the costs it imposes elsewhere?