Half way inn I was thinking; What a brilliant man. Then I realized he sounds exactly like professor Frink. I couldn't focus on anything else after that.
This war market failure arguement is moronic, for the same reasons that they all are, it looks at one specific location for about 5 minutes and declares a market failure.
Why did the Spartans hold the line even though it killed every last one of them? Because they could think ahead more then 5 minutes, unlike mr. market failure here.
If I run away and everyone else holds, I get a punishment that was WORSE THEN DEATH, dishonouring my whole family and thus ruining my and their lives.
@Hashishin13: I'm not sure if you're critiquing David D. Friedman, but he does talk about how the scenario of men with spears can be turned into a market success.
@isionous Of course I am, and he probably thinks the market needs outside forces, like a military leader who could kill someone who ran away. he would be wrong, there are plenty of examples of people going into combat without some external force binding them together.
The american militia that fought in the revolution didn't have any leaders with coercive power.
"he probably thinks the market needs outside forces, like a military leader who could kill someone who ran away"
Well, he does mention that killing people who run away turns the market failure into a market success. However, market failure simply means "a scenario where rational individual behavior leads to group irrational behavior". Market failure might have market in the name, but it is not necessarily about markets...cont'd in my next comment...
@Hashishin13: I think David D. Friedman is perfectly aware of groups of men fighting without a death penalty for running away. He never states that all people always act in their rational self-interest. Even if you have people not acting in their own rational self-interest, that doesn't make a situation any less of a market failure. Or if it is in people's rational self-interest to fight the cavalry then you never had a market failure to begin with, but that wasn't the situation he described.
@isionous Which is exactly why I pointed out that the situation he described is laughable. If both you and I can see how the "market" wouldn't "fail" in his scenario then his example isn't a market failure, because such things don't exist.
People can be stupid and fail, but it is never the market's fault. For every scenario I have ever heard described as a "market failure" I can see a "market solution that someone was too stupid to choose.
I don't think that any of his examples are market failures. Those are simply rational actions of individuals acting in self-interest. How is that a failure? Because they don't act as a group?
@rumco As he says in his talk the definition of "market failure" is when the rational self interest of individuals acting in a group turn out to not give them what they wanted. It's a bad term but there certainly are scenarios where that happens. As he says... it's like "public goods."
@rumco No. Because they only take into account private interests and benefits, resulting in externalities (spillover effects on third parties), and not the society's interests and benefits. You've got one thing right though, that's 'self-interest'. It is exactly because of 'self-interest' which results in market failure.
@murcielago6405 There is no such thing as society's interest. Society does not have interests nor benefits, society is a group of individuals. Spillover effects can be prevented by enforcing property rights - state's monopoly power does not deal with it.
'Spillover effects,' external costs, external efficiencies, eminent domain and the trapping of persons in donut shaped property enclosures are solved by the loss system (if force is not used to make bad policies survive as per Statist Socialism)/ prices guiding societal co-op contract over scarce land etc
On the topic of the video, it's amazing how such an AnCap like D Friedman could be spawned from one of the most overrated anti-Say's Law monetary cranks that ever lived-Milton Statist Friedman
@rumco. Would you own that a difference exists between individual H20 molecules and water. The property of wetness, in case of point, may be predicated to the latter and not the former. In a similar vein, groups of people arranged and set to interact in various ways also exhibit emergent properties. It is difficult to believe that anyone is still countenancing the argument you make here.
@earthshine2Y Philosophy is not physics. One would think that it's obvious. How do you wish to sum and average "wants" across the society that even people themselves can't express, not to mention assign some sort of scale to it. You fail.
@rumco It's an analogy but the mapping still holds (maybe not isomorphic but it's certainly monomorphic). BTW, all science was originally natural philosophy. Classical Economics (presumably a science) takes for granted that all individuals act in identical ways (all striving to maximize utility). Further, the market itself emerges pursuant to the coming together of buyers and sellers in some kind of orderly way--by way of the rules constructed by society.
@rumco Please for future reference, don't offer an incomprehensible rejoinder (and in pidgin English) and then tell me I've failed. You're capacity for productive abstract thought is in serious question.
@earthshine2Y No, your analogy doesn't hold because I told you that you cannot express needs of one, let alone "society". How do you measure how I value food, shelter etc., sum and average with others and then act on it as a society?
Learn how to spell, it's not "you're" but "your". Pidgin English yourself.
@rumco OK. I rushed in writing this bit. You're right. From what I am able to understand, you are a skeptic. So I have a query for you. In classical economics, expected value = actual value and market participants are in possession of complete information when making decisions. Further, they know precisely how to go about maximizing utility. Given these theoretical assumptions, how are you a libertarian? You're worldview precludes the existence of any rational calculus of economy.
@earthshine2Y Define libertarian. I am an anarchist, capitalist. Being a libertarian or an anarchist does not need to depend on economic reasoning. My reasons are mostly ethical. Economic reasoning is secondary. Market participants, that is individuals, do not have complete information, they collect relevant information and act upon it. Each participant has local knowledge that cannot be possessed at once by anyone. Why does my view preclude rational calculation of the market?
@rumco I suppose I owe you an apology. I should have examined your posts more carefully; I didn't realize you were an anarchist and that you were coming at the issues from an ethical standpoint. This does, indeed, change everything. Thanks for clarifying.
Unfortunately Friedman's opening remarks illustrate the mischaracterization that Ayn Rand battled for so many years. Rational self interest includes all actions one can voluntarily take to one's benefit. That includes cooperation and communication.
David Friedman is the reason I have been a hardcore libertarian for over 15 years. Loved his father as well. Both brilliant. It's a privilege to hear or read what they have to say.
Yup, for the man who pushed the witholding of income tax and argued vociferously against a non-monopolistic currency to convince a very large number of people that he was was pro-freedom required some kind of brilliance.
@blackacidlizzard I admit I am shocked to find out he helped develop the withholding tax but I forgive him because 1) He was young and didn't know it would become what it has today and 2) He was influenced by the fact there was a war going on. He's certainly not perfect but I don't think his actions indicate he isn't pro-freedom.
What about his insistence on government-enforced fiat currency? For one group to determine what is to be accepted by all who wish to trade legally (or else) seems an odd type of "free-market." Those who have never asked the question can be forgiven, certainly - Friedman asked the question of free-market money and answered with a resounding "NO"
M. Rothbard and J.Salarno. have some talks on Friedman, and the Chicago school more generally, on the net. I'll send you the links if you're interested.
@blackacidlizzard Yes, send them, thanks. I may not get to them for a while but I'd like them nonetheless. Listen, Friedman is certainly not an anarcho-capitalist (most days I'm anarcho-capitalist) but in the overall political spectrum I think he's firmly libertarian. Where would you classify him?
These days I'm not as much focused on "spectrum" as "base premises" and "effect." I see Uncle Miltie as a firm believer in a central planning structure which understands the benefits it can gain from giving a bit more walking room to its cattle. On the "effect" side, while I can easily say "I'd rather have those types in charge than certain others," the incentive structure which drives towards ever more violent interference remains, and leads to a similar destination.
Half way inn I was thinking; What a brilliant man. Then I realized he sounds exactly like professor Frink. I couldn't focus on anything else after that.
Usernamenottaken2k 2 months ago
This war market failure arguement is moronic, for the same reasons that they all are, it looks at one specific location for about 5 minutes and declares a market failure.
Why did the Spartans hold the line even though it killed every last one of them? Because they could think ahead more then 5 minutes, unlike mr. market failure here.
If I run away and everyone else holds, I get a punishment that was WORSE THEN DEATH, dishonouring my whole family and thus ruining my and their lives.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13: I'm not sure if you're critiquing David D. Friedman, but he does talk about how the scenario of men with spears can be turned into a market success.
isionous 10 months ago
@isionous Of course I am, and he probably thinks the market needs outside forces, like a military leader who could kill someone who ran away. he would be wrong, there are plenty of examples of people going into combat without some external force binding them together.
The american militia that fought in the revolution didn't have any leaders with coercive power.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13:
"he probably thinks the market needs outside forces, like a military leader who could kill someone who ran away"
Well, he does mention that killing people who run away turns the market failure into a market success. However, market failure simply means "a scenario where rational individual behavior leads to group irrational behavior". Market failure might have market in the name, but it is not necessarily about markets...cont'd in my next comment...
isionous 10 months ago
@Hashishin13: I think David D. Friedman is perfectly aware of groups of men fighting without a death penalty for running away. He never states that all people always act in their rational self-interest. Even if you have people not acting in their own rational self-interest, that doesn't make a situation any less of a market failure. Or if it is in people's rational self-interest to fight the cavalry then you never had a market failure to begin with, but that wasn't the situation he described.
isionous 10 months ago
@isionous Which is exactly why I pointed out that the situation he described is laughable. If both you and I can see how the "market" wouldn't "fail" in his scenario then his example isn't a market failure, because such things don't exist.
People can be stupid and fail, but it is never the market's fault. For every scenario I have ever heard described as a "market failure" I can see a "market solution that someone was too stupid to choose.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13: This comment system with character limits is annoying, I will message you directly.
isionous 10 months ago
switch camels ;) I love it
pppaulie 1 year ago
meh boring describing basic game theory situations, Milton was much better
TheAcehd 1 year ago
great description of market failure :)
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
witty as his father
chokin2 1 year ago
I don't think that any of his examples are market failures. Those are simply rational actions of individuals acting in self-interest. How is that a failure? Because they don't act as a group?
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco As he says in his talk the definition of "market failure" is when the rational self interest of individuals acting in a group turn out to not give them what they wanted. It's a bad term but there certainly are scenarios where that happens. As he says... it's like "public goods."
landofbile 1 year ago
@rumco No. Because they only take into account private interests and benefits, resulting in externalities (spillover effects on third parties), and not the society's interests and benefits. You've got one thing right though, that's 'self-interest'. It is exactly because of 'self-interest' which results in market failure.
murcielago6405 1 year ago
@murcielago6405 There is no such thing as society's interest. Society does not have interests nor benefits, society is a group of individuals. Spillover effects can be prevented by enforcing property rights - state's monopoly power does not deal with it.
rumco 1 year ago
'Spillover effects,' external costs, external efficiencies, eminent domain and the trapping of persons in donut shaped property enclosures are solved by the loss system (if force is not used to make bad policies survive as per Statist Socialism)/ prices guiding societal co-op contract over scarce land etc
On the topic of the video, it's amazing how such an AnCap like D Friedman could be spawned from one of the most overrated anti-Say's Law monetary cranks that ever lived-Milton Statist Friedman
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@rumco. Would you own that a difference exists between individual H20 molecules and water. The property of wetness, in case of point, may be predicated to the latter and not the former. In a similar vein, groups of people arranged and set to interact in various ways also exhibit emergent properties. It is difficult to believe that anyone is still countenancing the argument you make here.
earthshine2Y 1 year ago
@earthshine2Y Philosophy is not physics. One would think that it's obvious. How do you wish to sum and average "wants" across the society that even people themselves can't express, not to mention assign some sort of scale to it. You fail.
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco It's an analogy but the mapping still holds (maybe not isomorphic but it's certainly monomorphic). BTW, all science was originally natural philosophy. Classical Economics (presumably a science) takes for granted that all individuals act in identical ways (all striving to maximize utility). Further, the market itself emerges pursuant to the coming together of buyers and sellers in some kind of orderly way--by way of the rules constructed by society.
earthshine2Y 1 year ago
@rumco Please for future reference, don't offer an incomprehensible rejoinder (and in pidgin English) and then tell me I've failed. You're capacity for productive abstract thought is in serious question.
earthshine2Y 1 year ago
@earthshine2Y No, your analogy doesn't hold because I told you that you cannot express needs of one, let alone "society". How do you measure how I value food, shelter etc., sum and average with others and then act on it as a society?
Learn how to spell, it's not "you're" but "your". Pidgin English yourself.
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco OK. I rushed in writing this bit. You're right. From what I am able to understand, you are a skeptic. So I have a query for you. In classical economics, expected value = actual value and market participants are in possession of complete information when making decisions. Further, they know precisely how to go about maximizing utility. Given these theoretical assumptions, how are you a libertarian? You're worldview precludes the existence of any rational calculus of economy.
earthshine2Y 1 year ago
@earthshine2Y Define libertarian. I am an anarchist, capitalist. Being a libertarian or an anarchist does not need to depend on economic reasoning. My reasons are mostly ethical. Economic reasoning is secondary. Market participants, that is individuals, do not have complete information, they collect relevant information and act upon it. Each participant has local knowledge that cannot be possessed at once by anyone. Why does my view preclude rational calculation of the market?
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco I suppose I owe you an apology. I should have examined your posts more carefully; I didn't realize you were an anarchist and that you were coming at the issues from an ethical standpoint. This does, indeed, change everything. Thanks for clarifying.
earthshine2Y 1 year ago
@earthshine2Y No problem :)
rumco 1 year ago
Unfortunately Friedman's opening remarks illustrate the mischaracterization that Ayn Rand battled for so many years. Rational self interest includes all actions one can voluntarily take to one's benefit. That includes cooperation and communication.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
David Friedman is the reason I have been a hardcore libertarian for over 15 years. Loved his father as well. Both brilliant. It's a privilege to hear or read what they have to say.
hardcider09 1 year ago
@hardcider09
Yup, for the man who pushed the witholding of income tax and argued vociferously against a non-monopolistic currency to convince a very large number of people that he was was pro-freedom required some kind of brilliance.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
@blackacidlizzard I admit I am shocked to find out he helped develop the withholding tax but I forgive him because 1) He was young and didn't know it would become what it has today and 2) He was influenced by the fact there was a war going on. He's certainly not perfect but I don't think his actions indicate he isn't pro-freedom.
hardcider09 1 year ago
What about his insistence on government-enforced fiat currency? For one group to determine what is to be accepted by all who wish to trade legally (or else) seems an odd type of "free-market." Those who have never asked the question can be forgiven, certainly - Friedman asked the question of free-market money and answered with a resounding "NO"
M. Rothbard and J.Salarno. have some talks on Friedman, and the Chicago school more generally, on the net. I'll send you the links if you're interested.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
@blackacidlizzard Yes, send them, thanks. I may not get to them for a while but I'd like them nonetheless. Listen, Friedman is certainly not an anarcho-capitalist (most days I'm anarcho-capitalist) but in the overall political spectrum I think he's firmly libertarian. Where would you classify him?
hardcider09 1 year ago
@hardcider09
These days I'm not as much focused on "spectrum" as "base premises" and "effect." I see Uncle Miltie as a firm believer in a central planning structure which understands the benefits it can gain from giving a bit more walking room to its cattle. On the "effect" side, while I can easily say "I'd rather have those types in charge than certain others," the incentive structure which drives towards ever more violent interference remains, and leads to a similar destination.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
Great video thanks Bile!
IcerC 1 year ago
Please remember to rate these videos! : )
EsotericThrone 1 year ago
David Friedman? Oh God.
qtronman 1 year ago
@qtronman
lol. this is a great presentation though even if you disagree with the notion of a stateless society.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago