> Economic progress is one of creating markets for more things, not fewer.
So, eliminating markets for people was a bad thing?
So, eliminating markets for people was a bad thing?
Why, for example, would a market for health care be good, but a market for child-imprisonment be bad? If a market for child-imprisonment were susceptible to bad actors, perverse incentives, and bad outcomes, then it stands to reason the same could be said of all markets. That's a rather large implication, I'm sure we agree on.
If humane child imprisonment is valued by the market participants, then that's what the market will provide. If a market doesn't signal that it's important, then it's definitionally not important. That's what price signalling is all about.
It seems like what people are trying to say is that market outcomes dictate market success. Eg: bad market outcomes = bad place to hold a market, but no one is flat out saying it. At the same time, we have the idea that markets are "the best thing we have and any limits on markets produce negative outcomes." This is a contradiction and at this point at this place, I don't think debating that topic directly is going to teach me anything. Debating the fringes, however is.
It's the same thing as saying "X doesn't work" on StackOverflow and getting people to prove that it does. It's that we're doing it with something non-tech this time.
https://harpers.org/archive/2023/02/is-liberalism-worth-savi...
The conversation flits around a bit too quickly for my taste, but some interesting points are made.