What is the Austrian response to Freidman’s ideas on market failure?
Is it sort of a ‘so what?’ response. His conclusion is still that interventionism will only make things worse.
Not really bothered to check them out.
If interventionism only makes things worse, then how can something be a ‘market failure’? That makes no sense. All it seems to me is a revolt against nature. People get together to find solutions for shared problems. If sometimes it’s hard or costly to find a solution then that’s simply the nature of reality. And IF there is some solution then it should be possible to provide it voluntarily. Radical subjectivism above all.
“Market failure” is glorified opinion. Failure is dependent on goals. I might say it is a physics failure if I fall off a bridge to my doom. Gravity failed to fulfill my goals. His comment at the outset that people misunderstand the meaning of “market failure” skirts the entire issue. Which is that the word “failure” is used for the purpose of creating a misunderstood negative connotation toward the market.
I’ve seen a video of Friedman addressing market failures. He made the compelling point that, sure, in a free market there is no guarantee that “market failures” will always be addressed. But than again, in a political market (i.e. state) there is a guarantee that they will not be addressed. So Friedman held that market failures are a very, very poor defense of the state. It seems like a mopped-up Rothbardian argument. I find it agreeable.
Personally I don’t really find issue with the idea that “market failure” due to things like externalities, I find issue with the idea that the government can quantify such things and intervene to produce a net benefit.