The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The market and regulation  (Read 20327 times)

sooyeah

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #50 on: 26/09/2007 14:05:25 »
I think we are drifting off topic, the question was about markets regulating themselves.
« Last Edit: 26/09/2007 22:07:45 by sooyeah »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #51 on: 26/09/2007 23:17:13 »
I think we are drifting off topic, the question was about markets regulating themselves.

If you would wish, I can try and split the topic (I realise it did get a bit bogged down in the debate on the technate).

I did try and respond to your last point here
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #52 on: 24/11/2007 16:01:18 »
I have a question doesn't the reality that the market has rationally acted to not change to a more environmental system quicker; to a degree show that really, the system is rational even though it looks irrational.
Isn't it broken as a truly free market would have acted differently and faster?
« Last Edit: 24/11/2007 16:02:49 by sooyeah »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #53 on: 24/11/2007 16:38:46 »
I have a question doesn't the reality that the market has rationally acted to not change to a more environmental system quicker; to a degree show that really, the system is rational even though it looks irrational.
Isn't it broken as a truly free market would have acted differently and faster?

How do you define 'rational' - are you not judging by your own prejudices as to what a rational decision ought to be?

Evolutionary systems (and a truly free market is evolutionary) will tend towards stability as long as they can, followed by a short period of catastrophic change when they are no longer able to sustain stability.  It is inevitable that evolutionary systems will migrate towards stability, since as long as the system remains unstable it will continue to change until it finds a stable condition, and then it stops changing.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #54 on: 26/11/2007 14:40:24 »
I have a question doesn't the reality that the market has rationally acted to not change to a more environmental system quicker; to a degree show that really, the system is rational even though it looks irrational.
Isn't it broken as a truly free market would have acted differently and faster?

How do you define 'rational' - are you not judging by your own prejudices as to what a rational decision ought to be?

We are talking about control and suppression. To act rationally as you yourself said before, means that a market is broken.

Evolutionary systems (and a truly free market is evolutionary) will tend towards stability as long as they can, followed by a short period of catastrophic change when they are no longer able to sustain stability.  It is inevitable that evolutionary systems will migrate towards stability, since as long as the system remains unstable it will continue to change until it finds a stable condition, and then it stops changing.

Just asking the question as stated above. I think your just being pedantic :).
 

another_someone

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #55 on: 26/11/2007 15:03:32 »
The point I was trying to make is that the market, without any oversight, will tend towards avoiding rapid change if at all possible.  It is gets to the point that rapid change is necessary, then it will create substantial instability.

In order to change rapidly, a system has to be small (the smallest possible human system is one composed of a single person making all the decisions, so a system where one person has absolute control is a system that is capable of the most rapid change).  Clearly, the economic markets are not under the control of one person, or even under the control of a small group of people, so they are not capable of rapid change, except when they are in a state of virtual collapse, where all the control mechanisms are failing.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #56 on: 29/11/2007 13:25:05 »
The point I was trying to make is that the market, without any oversight, will tend towards avoiding rapid change if at all possible.  It is gets to the point that rapid change is necessary, then it will create substantial instability.

In order to change rapidly, a system has to be small (the smallest possible human system is one composed of a single person making all the decisions, so a system where one person has absolute control is a system that is capable of the most rapid change).  Clearly, the economic markets are not under the control of one person, or even under the control of a small group of people, so they are not capable of rapid change, except when they are in a state of virtual collapse, where all the control mechanisms are failing.

Well just a minute if 10% own 90% of the wealth surely that affords them alot of influence? In some countries the percentages are worse, or better, depending how you look at it.
 

sooyeah

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #57 on: 29/11/2007 13:31:09 »
Still, think My Idea for social capitalism is a better answer. Small Government, Low Tax, and Social Services. Let government own shares they already do it some countries. The dividens replace income tax. So you can still tax for the police and bin-men, maybe enforce green taxes. needs work.

That idea does put government on a par with the elites... errr yeah... I'll shut up now.

hugs
« Last Edit: 29/11/2007 13:33:39 by sooyeah »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #58 on: 29/11/2007 23:04:30 »
Well just a minute if 10% own 90% of the wealth surely that affords them alot of influence? In some countries the percentages are worse, or better, depending how you look at it.

No argument with that.

The issue at question is whether 10% of the population (with a national population of 60 million in the UK, that amounts to 6 million people) is a small enough population to be regarded as an inherently cohesive group that can be regarded to be acting in a rational way, as if they were of one mind.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
The market and regulation
« Reply #59 on: 29/11/2007 23:23:16 »
Still, think My Idea for social capitalism is a better answer. Small Government, Low Tax, and Social Services. Let government own shares they already do it some countries. The dividens replace income tax. So you can still tax for the police and bin-men, maybe enforce green taxes. needs work.

That idea does put government on a par with the elites... errr yeah... I'll shut up now.

hugs

Yes, governments have owned shares in the past, but it has normally been to bail companies out, or as a means of nationalising key resources (such as countries that have sought to bring oil resources under national control).  In the UK, the government of the UK has obtained money from the oil industry by selling oil exploration licences rather than by nationalising part, or all, the shares in the industries itself.

The problem with general share ownership is, as it always says in the small print of most of the financial services products, that the value of your shares can go down as well as up.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The market and regulation
« Reply #59 on: 29/11/2007 23:23:16 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums