... Markets misallocate prices ...

Post Reply New Topic

The central problem with markets is the fact that they misallocate prices. At the high end of the scale, markets have a tendency to push investors to take risks that are often dangerous to large sections of society.

Take, for example, the fact that almost anything that is beneficial and healthy for an individual is raised higher in price. It tends to be more expensive to purchase food and beverages that are healthy than it is to purchase junkfood. It even tends to be a bit more costly to purchase recycled paper than it is to purchase non-recycled paper. Mothers send their children off to McDonalds not really because there isn't anything that is better health-wise for them, but rather because it tends to be cheaper. Not only does it tend to be cheaper, but it also tends to be quicker.

The fact of the matter is that these beneficial things are widely available in a market economy, but that the access to such things is favoring the richer part of the population. It is no wonder that mainstream liberals can easily create laws curbing foods with a high fat content, simply because they themselves have easy access to the money needed to purchase these things. These same liberals generally do not embellish on the fact that the "better" stuff tends to be more expensive, thus forcing restaurants through the law to incorporate better foods will ultimately raise prices. The same would be true if we forced firms through the law to employ things like recycled paper.

Maybe this has something to do with scenarios regarding supply and demand, but whatever the case may be ... this tends to be a known fact. It can easily be perceived if one would study how prices are allocated in most stores, for example. Organic foods are always a bit higher than non-organic. Ben and Jerry's ice cream, which is probably the most "organic" ice cream you could buy, is a bit more expensive than many other brands. Most sales items are not incorporated on these ... have you ever seen ice cream by Ben and Jerry's on sale? Most people cater to sales items, which propels them towards non-beneficial stuff. If some of the "better" stuff is on sale, which it can be, it still tends to be higher in sale price than an item that is not "better."

It should be easy to see how markets lead to hideously destructive environments in the long run. They are based solely within an arena where buyers and sellers compete. It is only through the power of government regulation that much of this is regulated, but most market fundamentalists and market-oriented politicians tend to disfavor government regulation of any sort. The problem with this is that these people believe the market is superior to government, and that they don't have any knowledge of any alternative to the market structure. Markets are a horrible allocation mechanism.

- Ray M -

The central problem with non-market systems is that they misallocate prices. Investors harm themselves, that is why it is their money to invest and the risks that investors take belong to those investors. The fact is that investors provide for a better system than governments ever could as investors are invested into their enterprises where as governments drive their choices by just making decisions that "look good" but may or may not be good at all for anybody.

As well, the beneficial and healthy food is likely to be more expensive as well which is why it is higher in price, as companies don't care what they sell so long as they make a profit off of it, and it is very easy and very simple to sell greasy fried food as people like the taste and it is not very complex to make. The difference between recycled and non-recycled depends on the times, at some points recycled is more expensive to make than non-recycled, at other points recycled is less costly, and people follow the costs as those represent how much in terms of resources is being put into the product... or at least they are supposed to. Another aspect of this is that our government subsidizes non-recycled paper making seem cheaper to all those involved and causing it to be consumed more than it should be and worsening things. Finally, mothers are the ones responsible for their children's health, if mothers are doing something wrong then guess whose fault that is. We shouldn't make McDonalds food artificially expensive, nor should we make other food artificially cheap either as the choice comes down to the consumer and what they prefer.

Actually the idea that markets are horribly destructive environments is false, even based upon this. As I have stated and can show links for, non-recycled paper is subsidized and its cheaper price is not based upon the market for this reason, as well, there is nothing wrong with cheap food of any quality so long as individuals have the choice between the double cheeseburger and the salad without dressing, the fact is that if consumers saw the health issue as being more important then more options for healthy food would become available and better options as well, it is just that producers do not think that consumers actually value their health as much as they value the good cheap food and it is not the place of governments to order individuals to value their health more than they already do as such is the act of an authoritarian government and an action against liberty. Market intervention is bad as it is often a tool by individuals to force their will upon others, as well, it can artificially distort what is really going on in the economy causing things such as recycled paper to struggle against non-recycled by subsidizing one unfairly. The only market regulation that we need is that to protect people from non-consensual harm from others or to protect their property from the same. Markets are an excellent allocation mechanism though as they allow consumers and producers the freedom to choose, and they can acquire all of the information provided by prices and process it without much effort and change quickly according to the changes in the market structure. The market does far too much with far too much ease to actually be replaced, and it is beyond the capabilities of the greatest computers to do all of the calculations that the market figures out on its own. A chip manufacturer in the US doesn't need to know that their was a potato crop failure in Ireland to know that the supply of potatos is low. There are no practical alternatives to the market structure and the idea that the government could actually act as this more practical alternative is something that is false.