Realization about the Appeal of a Mixed Economy \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Realization about the Appeal of a Mixed Economy

5781 sats \ 15 comments \ @KeynesianClowns 6 Feb econ

I may just be the train that was late to the station on this, but I questioned why anyone (referring to market participants here) would think it makes sense to have a mixed economy for a while. This questioning was based on the idea of having the problems of both (i.e. barriers to market entry due to immense regulation and extensive federal programs that distort the market as examples) a controlled and free market economy clearly evident in our society.

That said, I also realized that gov't can easily sell this on the grounds that they wish to preserve the wealth generation potential of free markets while also providing support to individuals who don't have basic means of life for whatever reason (generational poverty, abuse, disability, economic underdevelopment, etc.). Whether this is actually accomplished is another story entirely (and I certainly don't advocate for the welfare state), but I was curious as to whether anyone could think of a better model - whether theory only or potentially actionable - that would serve the purposes of allowing people to function in totally free markets while also meeting the needs of the poor in a manner that is at least more efficient than what we have now.

view all related items

44 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 6 Feb

It's appealing for the same reason as any other good grift: over promise on benefits, obfuscate on costs, under deliver, blame shift, repeat.

141 sats \ 0 replies \ @KeynesianClowns OP 6 Feb

Yeah, the actions of the state make a lot more sense when you learn their patterns, don't they?

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 6 Feb

The better model is for people to act in a more virtuous way. The fortunate should help the less fortunate, without coercion.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @KeynesianClowns OP 6 Feb

I agree about the coercion, but a lot of things should happen and that doesn't necessarily mean that they do.

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @kr 6 Feb

can you expand on your definition of a mixed economy here?

1480 sats \ 9 replies \ @KeynesianClowns OP 6 Feb

Sure thing! I'm just referring to an economy that consists of both private businesses and public services (nationalized healthcare programs, public utilities, public education, etc.).

I guess you could summarize my discussion into:

How do we account for the needs of the people who actually are underserved or less capable through something outside of their control in a voluntary society?
What ethical considerations should be made in this process?

625 sats \ 5 replies \ @kr 6 Feb

got it, thanks.

i would argue that America (and many other countries you might call free) have always had some component of government intervention to act as guardrails for free market capitalism.

this was the case in the 1800s, 1900s, and today. one good example is related to zoning regulations.

not even the most libertarian-minded person would consider buying a home next to a plot of land without zoning regulations.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Feb

not even the most libertarian-minded person would consider buying a home next to a plot of land without zoning regulations

I submit myself as an existence proof to the contrary. I would absolutely consider that and I am "the most libertarian-minded person" (it's a many-way tie for 1st).

You know the entire city of Houston has no zoning regulations and most of them aren't even libertarians?

625 sats \ 3 replies \ @kr 6 Feb

it is the only major city “without zoning” in america, but even it still has ordinance codes… enforced by the government.

here is one example of Houston’s recent changes to their residential buffering ordinance: https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/Residential-Buffering-Ordinance.html

are you trying to make the case that houston (or any other city in america) is free of government intervention?

843 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Feb

I'm mostly just being cheeky, but I am serious about being more than willing to live in a city that had no government zoning rules.

Note that, I am not saying there would be no voluntary covenants or easements amongst property owners.

625 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr 6 Feb freebie

pre-1916, voluntary and informal land use rules were how neighbors made sure they balanced the quiet enjoyment of their home with regional productivity. zoning didn’t exist in america.

however, the invention of the automobile made it so that people no longer lived near their work, and businesses began encroaching on neighborhoods.

in a town where everyone lives and works in the same place (and thus has strong incentives not to build factories in neighborhoods), this could work… but that type of neighborhood looks a lot like the “15 minute cities” that most Bitcoiners are strongly opposed to.

722 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Feb

that type of neighborhood looks a lot like the “15 minute cities” that most Bitcoiners are strongly opposed to

I think the objection is more about it being forced on people than the design specifics. At least based on the post about car vs foot people yesterday, I'd say most prefer to have amenities within walking distance.

reply on another page

91 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Feb

The trickiest part about discussing the first point is getting people to be realistic. We're talking about people who struggle in the current environment, too, despite all the coercion. Oftentimes, people will reject a voluntary society because it doesn't have a good answer for those cases either. The burden of proof should be on the coercive solution, by the way, not the voluntary one.

The most common case people make is that a free society is much wealthier and therefor there's much more potential for private charity to provide services. Another similar case (that I like more) is that state provision of services for the poor has crowded out private associations that used to take care of community members and it's reasonable to expect those to return if the state withdrew.

The simplest (and admittedly least rigorous) case is to just look at an economic freedom index and ask yourself whether you'd rather be poor in the countries at the top of the list or the countries at the bottom.

Freedom gets a bad wrap, because it's harder to understand how everything will work itself out than when there's a defined program, but in the long-run a rising tide really does lift all boats. (and, yes, I realize that's an ironic metaphor)

625 sats \ 1 reply \ @KeynesianClowns OP 6 Feb

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. It is worth noting that this type of transition would cause a lot of economic pain in the beginning stages at least, but (while you may think it's ironic) your closing metaphor does hold with a long enough time preference. I'd be a bit weary of private charity associations returning given the mindsets of many people I've come across in my personal life, but the Bitcoin community is one that gives me hope that there are still good people out there who want to make change for the better (and yes, I know that must sound about as cliche as it gets). Thanks for your response as it has helped clear up my thoughts.

104 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Feb

That's what I attempt to be here for.

I appreciate the way you framed the discussion. I think it opened the door for people with pretty much any point of view to weigh-in.