|
|
 Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I don't trust people to get this right. It's clear to me that some people are talented at establishing and moving public opinion. The public can easily become split over a complex issue with an inability to discern the experts from the expert-fakes. I don't understand enough about the legal system to wonder on how it will fail, but I'm betting the side with the biggest pile of cash is better than no chance to win over some cold hard facts on the ground.
The same is true of regulatory agencies and policymakers. The argument is that those end up making it worse by creating special interests and misallocation of capital due to inefficiencies and distorted incentives, while market foundations go the opposite direction and solve a lot of these problems due to relying on consequential capital allocation.
I think you're assuming a distinction between decision-making and truths; whereas market proponents don't necessarily. The reason is because a market system is itself a truth-finder because "the cold hard facts" of whatever economic behavior prevails is what wins out. Costs and prices are representations of those economic facts and behaviors. I think when we look at the influences of the smoke-filled room shadow characters, we're only seeing a fraction of the picture. In our current society, those with the greatest influence in aggregate have come out of this value system (Microsoft made Bill Gates, not Machiavellisoft). Ultimately, the allocation of capital chases cold hard facts, be they about raw resources or cultural sensibilities
Socialism is at its core an attempt to thwart markets. Its an attempt at supreme morality, at capital distribution based on morals instead of the cold hard facts of the world, and that's why it has failed in every country that has tried it
|
Reply With Quote