On the non-optimality of free markets.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@GilesStratton

I was sort of talking about economics, as the context of the preceeding discussion makes clear.

Nice try. Won’t work.

[mickanomics]

@Juan

Also, you are assuming that you have the right to experiment with people. May I ask who appointed you social engineer in chief ?

This entire thread has been an experiment I’ve been running on mises.org. The experiment was designed to establish whether I could learn anything from the forum. Thank you for volunteering to take part.

[hayekianxyz]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@GilesStratton

I was sort of talking about economics, as the context of the preceeding discussion makes clear.

Nice try. Won’t work.

Because we all know the economics isn’t value free.

[MatthewF]

@mickanomics

The problem is that consumers would not see any need to protect themselves from a problem they do not realize exists, so the “profit opportunity” would barely exist.

That’s like saying that the light bulb would never be invented because there is plenty of light from the sun or from candles.

[Juan]

And ? Did you learn something ?

[mickanomics]

@MatthewF

@mickanomics

The problem is that consumers would not see any need to protect themselves from a problem they do not realize exists, so the “profit opportunity” would barely exist.

That’s like saying that the light bulb would never be invented because there is plenty of light from the sun or from candles.

If god had designed the world without a night-time then I suspect that the invention would indeed have been delayed.

[mickanomics]

@Juan

And ? Did you learn something ?

Yes indeed.

I have learned the meaning of many new words an phrases.

I have been persuaded about the rarity of preditory pricing.

I have learned a little about the nature of Austrian economics, and what books to read if I want to learn more.

I am very grateful to everyone who has participated in this debate.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@mickanomics

The whole point of smoke and mirrors pricing is that consumers rarely notice its happening

And yet their skies are falling over modestly “over-priced” fruit, 4EVER! [8-)]

[mickanomics]

@Wilmot of Rochester

And yet their skies are falling over modestly “over-priced” fruit, 4EVER!

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting its not possible to scam someone without them finding out they’ve been scammed?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@GilesStratton

Because we all know the economics isn’t value free.

No, because you weren’t talking simply about economics. Please don’t try to protest. It. Won’t. Work. Why? Because slavery isn’t simply about economics. There’s no way to divorce it from the concept of rights. None whatsoever. Not unless you want to divorce it from reality, in which case you’re just spouting nothing–and a lot of it.

[MatthewF]

@mickanomics

I am very grateful to everyone who has participated in this debate.

I want to thank my parents and god and Matthew…

Seriously though, I’m at work and keep getting interupted, where were we?

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@mickanomics

@Wilmot of Rochester

And yet their skies are falling over modestly “over-priced” fruit, 4EVER!

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting its not possible to scam someone without them finding out they’ve been scammed?

I’m saying it’s not likely that people will continue to buy fruit at grocery stores if it costed them the amount it would take to make such a fuss over it.

I’m saying that if it were so detrimental, it wouldn’t be very widespread. Scams tend to be short-lived, or at least very well hidden. I’m assuming there isn’t a cartel of evil fruit growers with the surname of Madoff bending the arms of the poor denizens of the UK. So it’s probable that this scam is either non-existent and made up in your head or is simply so insignificant that normal people don’t notice or care about it.

[MatthewF]

@mickanomics

@MatthewF

-it could require punishing CONSUMERS who buy from vendors who bend the rules

Not if I were in charge.

Mick,

Read this please, http://savingcommunities.org/docs/browne.harry/ifyouwereking.html it’s very short but I think you’ll see the point.

[mickanomics]

@MatthewF

Read this please, http://savingcommunities.org/docs/browne.harry/ifyouwereking.html it’s very short but I think you’ll see the point.

A very interesting and well written article. Thanks for that. I shall think about it further.

[hayekianxyz]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Because slavery isn’t simply about economics.

In this discussion, I was.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Impossible. You can’t just talk about it in a vacuum.

[nirgrahamUK]

but your objections were no more insightful than recognising that despite the evidence indicting interventionism beyond a reasonable doubt, that still some philosophic doubt, (skeptical doubt) remains on the issue.

big whoop.

yet, i agree with you. with my philosopher hat on and brain set to full turbo-skeptic mode. you are a right on mother-trucker

so now,…
two of us together, have made statements that others can say ‘big whoop’ about. its so trivial. and off-topic.

(the end, maybe? )

[hayekianxyz]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Impossible. You can’t just talk about it in a vacuum.

Of course you can, saying otherwise is the equivelant of denying the value freedom of economics. In any case, your language is off. Nobody is talking about forgetting the ethical implications of slavery, just, focusing on the economic aspects.

[Judicator]

Monopolies produce deadweight losses so social welfare (Producer Surplus+Consumer Surplus) can be enhanced by regulating them. Regular firms also produce externalities, so the government has to regulate that (again if it wants to maximize CS+PS) by either creating property rights or standard regulation if transaction costs are prohibitively high.