In the science of human action, the effects of erroneous notions of the market process, most particularly as they pertain to policy-making decisions, are not to be underestimated. The economist can not remain indifferent to these in an era in which the appeals of interventionism and government expansion increasingly hold sway in the domain of public policy. Put differently, we cannot deny how economic and social policies rooted in mistaken views of the market’s process—affect the decisions of consumers who are intent on employing the market as a means towards the satisfaction of their most urgent needs. This is of general significance given that policies, when unsuitable to chosen ends, primarily result in either or both of the following outcomes:
. (a) Some groups in society becoming better-off at the expense of other groups;
. (b) Some gains being obtained in the short term at the cost of greater impairment of welfare in the future.
Ah, yes, and now we come to the regulators, the drone bureaucrats, who know economics and business better than anyone actually involved with skin-in-the-game. Their decisions are (or were) law and if you didn’t conform you found yourself in front of a corrupt administrative judge! As you can see above there were two, not very nice, alternatives from allowing regulation to happen. Thankfully that may also change due to the Looper-Bright decision recently, restricting the perview of the regulatory agencies and agents to the limits of the law decided by congress. Hallelujah!
The economy is a seamless whole and trying to interfere with one little area has an impact on the whole economy. Our socialist-controllers desire to mould the economy there way, thereby, screwing up everybody else’s drive to satisfy their needs. Too much deflection is very unhealthy for the economy as we are beginning to apprehend.