I'm a finance major. A pill that I have swallowed recently is the idea that all products and services are not the same. The thing is, is that finance, to boil it down, is just schizophrenics paid to crunch numbers to maximize profits for the established elite. And while they absolutely have their place in society, I think there is an argument to be made that my field provides no utility to the struggling, almost nonexistent working middle class. What would help the middle class are high-demand jobs that require little to no educational background. The problem is that we essentially exported that to the lowest bidder (China), and instead we decided to spec into market manipulation and stock speculation. Where the closest thing we have to "innovation" is financing DoorDash purchases.
American financial institutions will happily finance the most destitute and uneducated Americans to have a middle easterner bring them a Subway Sandwich, but when an entrepreneur wants to finance starting a business that would actually make notable gains to the productivity of the American economy, they have virtually no avenues to do so.
I can agree that we should help against these kinds of “rent-seeking” behavior that is abusive. The question is how to best legislate against it, as there seems to be no obvious place to draw the line?
This is so true. I feel like anyone who wants to learn about human behavior and habits should read atomic habits. Not only is it great for bettering yourself, it made me realize how much our environment determines our decisions. Policy should be made in accordance with such knowledge.
I would agree with anarcho-capitalism were it not founded on the demonstrably false belief that consumers make rational decisions (see; every Rory Sutherland interview ever).
Individual consumers do not make rational decisions. Large collections of consumers do make rational decisions. That is why markets work.
Anarcho-capitalism is the equivalent of religions selectively worshiping only the pages of their religious text that they like. Every figure-head of the theory around capitalism (Every single one from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman) has acknowledged the inherent need for certain regulations around monopolies and rent-seeking behavior. You can't just take the economic theory you like and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
Problem with any economic system is always this monopolistic incentive corrupting whatever system is in place to regulate it.
In the case of our hypothetical ancap economy this corruption would try to de-rationalise the individual as much as possible, thus moving the rationalism to the large-scale and thus be predictable. Then the company with the greatest ability to influence the consumer controls everything.
I'm a finance major. A pill that I have swallowed recently is the idea that all products and services are not the same. The thing is, is that finance, to boil it down, is just schizophrenics paid to crunch numbers to maximize profits for the established elite. And while they absolutely have their place in society, I think there is an argument to be made that my field provides no utility to the struggling, almost nonexistent working middle class. What would help the middle class are high-demand jobs that require little to no educational background. The problem is that we essentially exported that to the lowest bidder (China), and instead we decided to spec into market manipulation and stock speculation. Where the closest thing we have to "innovation" is financing DoorDash purchases.
What capitalism? Private ownership of the means of production and distribution has long since vanished.
American financial institutions will happily finance the most destitute and uneducated Americans to have a middle easterner bring them a Subway Sandwich, but when an entrepreneur wants to finance starting a business that would actually make notable gains to the productivity of the American economy, they have virtually no avenues to do so.
I can agree that we should help against these kinds of “rent-seeking” behavior that is abusive. The question is how to best legislate against it, as there seems to be no obvious place to draw the line?
The real problem with late stage capitalism is that we lost the knowledge that lowering prices can increase profits.
Excellent article. Heroin is spelled without the e, if you mean the nasty stuff. Heroine with an e is the nice lady who saves you.
This is so true. I feel like anyone who wants to learn about human behavior and habits should read atomic habits. Not only is it great for bettering yourself, it made me realize how much our environment determines our decisions. Policy should be made in accordance with such knowledge.
I sum it up like this:
I would agree with anarcho-capitalism were it not founded on the demonstrably false belief that consumers make rational decisions (see; every Rory Sutherland interview ever).
Individual consumers do not make rational decisions. Large collections of consumers do make rational decisions. That is why markets work.
Anarcho-capitalism is the equivalent of religions selectively worshiping only the pages of their religious text that they like. Every figure-head of the theory around capitalism (Every single one from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman) has acknowledged the inherent need for certain regulations around monopolies and rent-seeking behavior. You can't just take the economic theory you like and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
Exactly!
Problem with any economic system is always this monopolistic incentive corrupting whatever system is in place to regulate it.
In the case of our hypothetical ancap economy this corruption would try to de-rationalise the individual as much as possible, thus moving the rationalism to the large-scale and thus be predictable. Then the company with the greatest ability to influence the consumer controls everything.
Wait...
If large groups of consumers make rational decisions...
How about we use the Commons???