0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I think we are drifting off topic, the question was about markets regulating themselves.
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?
Quote from: sooyeah on 24/11/2007 16:01:18I 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.
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.
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