This is certainly a case where the loss is efficiency due to regulation is outweighed by the cost of a market failure. In all honesty, essentials like food, education, clean water, and so on should never be left up to the free market.
If you want to talk small scale, the government makes little mistakes every day. But the market fails every day too. Any transaction in which one party has incomplete information is a tiny market failure.
Large scale, neither fail that often. But when either does, it has drastic implications.
Honestly the idea that the market works the vast majority of the time is misguided.
Once you have the definitions right, you can see the benefits and pitfalls for both approaches. If you believe in maximizing human freedom, it is very clear that leaving people free to transact as they wish is the best path for all but those rare edge cases.
Govt decision making is not done by disinterested actors. The interests may not be immediate or the benefits may be indirect, but they exist.
"The problem is that, while this system is undeniably more efficient, it’s also much more fragile."
"If the just-in-time system for producing cars runs into a hitch and the supply of cars shrinks for a while, people can easily adapt. When the same happens with food, people go hungry or even starve."
I was not aware of that fact. But in which way exactly does it call for government-controlled agriculture?
Regulation is far different than control.
If govt doesn't fail much more often than the market, why would one want the govt to be responsible for all essentials?
> Honestly the idea that the market works the vast majority of the time is misguided.
It's just better than govt.
I note that very few markets have set up death camps or waged significant wars. (The exceptions being folks dealing in illegal goods.) Markets don't try to throw me in jail for saying the wrong thing, markets not having jails and all.
The article addresses this; because the government can be more consistent. Hence the need for them to be in charge of essentials.
> I note that very few markets have set up death camps or waged significant wars.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. How about a market that stops human rights violations?
Point being, arbitration and market forces will always ensure there are more resources available because the government is a monopoly with no challengers. In any markets with competition prices are lower, and more output is available. Besides, does anyone really think that governments can better judge and hedge the risk of various crop failures etc than the market?
No one is proposing "regulation" on the level of the USSR.
> Does anyone really think that governments can better judge and hedge the risk of various crop failures etc than the market?
Does anyone really think the government can better judge and hedge the risk of mortgages than the market?
Why not? We're told that govts must be in charge of essentials because markets fail.
> Does anyone really think the government can better judge and hedge the risk of mortgages than the market?
The recent mortgage crisis pretty much proves that govts are worse at judging mortage risk than the market. After all, it was the subprimes, pushed by govt, that caused the problem.
And, it was govt that provided incentives to invest in Fannie and Freddie.
And, it was govt's backing that gave Fannie and Freddie the ability to borrow money that their assets couldn't pay back.
Guess whose legally protected rating agencies gave AA+ ratings to massive CDOs? Congress.
Guess who managed to figure out that subprime was going to blow and tried to guard against it? Goldman and assorted hedge funds.
Funny the double standards that we hold markets and government to.
Govts have no more inherent ability to be consistent than markets. And, if change is required, consistency isn't a good thing.
It's interesting that you keep comparing the platonic ideal of one alternative with the messy reality of another.
> How about a market that stops human rights violations?
Since markets create far fewer human rights violations than govts, markets are better here as well.
Not so. Being consistent requires a redundant system. A redundant system is not the most efficient one.
> Since markets create far fewer human rights violations than govts, markets are better here as well.
I will venture a guess and say that just as many human rights violations have been committed in the name of the free market than any government. Sweatshops anyone? But my point with that comment was not to argue semantics. It was to point out that you were arguing apples and oranges.
In the 20th century alone.
Can the market match that?
That's an absurd definition because no one has complete information.
However, if we're going to use it to criticize markets, it should be noted that it applies at least as much to govt actions.
It's an odd sort of comparison when one points to a problem with one alternative while ignoring the same problem with at least the same magnitude for the other alternative.
Not really. Markets depend on complete information. Else, how can someone accurately judge the value of something? If I buy a candy bar that's actually only worth $1.00 to me for $2.00, there is a market failure. I might think it was worth $2.00 because of the ingredients on the back. Little do I know that the candy bar is actually made with cheaper ingredients. There is a market failure. Now apply this analogy on a large scale and you can see how incomplete information causes market failures.
Feel free to cite anything about which you have complete information.
> Markets depend on complete information. Else, how can someone accurately judge the value of something?
There are no guarantees, so you act based on perceived value. When you're right, you're better off. When you're wrong, you're worse off.
Note that the lack of complete information applies to govt decison making as well, but govts lack diversity and apply force.
> If I buy a candy bar that's actually only worth $1.00 to me for $2.00, there is a market failure.
Huh? If that candy bar is only worth $1.00 to you, why did you pay $2?
Ah, because you think that ingredient cost matters. That's a failure of end-to-end thinking.
Note govts fail in analogous ways, and often with greater ill effect, yet you don't mention that possibility.
You are proving my point valid; pure free market theory doesn't work because you never have complete information.
Large scale market failures are less common because there's almost always some diversity in a market.
Govts and regulation have no diversity. When the US govt's banking regulation fails, all regulated US banks are at risk.
That's why govts are especially prone to black swans.
However, they won't if they think that govt will seize their savings.