Organized Labor

[boost]

It sounds shitty that if you live in a city center, maybe you shouldn't have easy access to a park, but in the long run that probably works out better for everybody because of how it organizes things.

This is a classic loophole of the free market argument: "The free market will take care of this-- but in the event that it doesn't, clearly it wasn't meant to be! Viola! Shazam! Abrakazaba! Magic, bitches."

[wufwugy]

This is a classic loophole of the free market argument: "The free market will take care of this-- but in the event that it doesn't, clearly it wasn't meant to be! Viola! Shazam! Abrakazaba! Magic, bitches."

I don't intend to treat it like a loophole. If we take a step back, I think we can agree that every philosophy has losers. Even if it's just "tax the rich a little more", the losers are those rich who get taxed. But we tend to be okay with this because we think it's fairer for society in aggregate. Likewise, if I argue for something about the markets, I mean for it to work in aggregate.

I appreciate the humility you have in saying "might" because I'm struggling to think of a single example of this happening because of deregulation, and can think of many examples of this happening because of regulation.

With no Central Park, wouldn't there be high demand for Central Park? With this high demand, a private company could create a central park, and it would end up being more accessible, cheaper, and of higher quality than the Central Park. It would involve things like being placed in the part of city where the company thinks it will reach the highest utility while also costing the least. Hell, these new "central parks" might become so popular that they take up significant sectors of the hinterland and surround the city, providing far greater aggregate access, quality, and cheapness.

Central Park is right now a subsidy. NY taxpayers are paying good money to the city to keep it up while also detracting from their own potential value. If this subsidy was eliminated, the influx of capital would make these NYers, in aggregate, richer and would provide them with greater access to other parks if the demand for a park was indeed there. If the demand wasn't there, then it would suggest that Central Park was a bad subsidy whose costs were far above value. From what I see on google about Central Park, it appears that there would be great demand for things like it, so it wouldn't "go away" without regulation. It would just relocate and take on a more efficient cost/benefit structure

The markets allocate resources like nobody's business. Government doesn't.

In the long, long run, market allocation will do things like improve transportation so much that nobody would even want to go to Central Park anymore, because they could just take a short high speed rail ride (or Hyperloop!) to Niagara Falls. Overall costs would be lower and quality of product/experience would be higher. Growth in each hinterland sector would be more efficient and quicker. The world already allocates itself like this except where the government regulates

In the other thread, it was mentioned several times that we need to find an advanced theory above democracy. What if the free market is that theory? Look at it like this: democracy is where you vote for a representative on a piece of paper once a year or whatever; the markets are where you vote with you capital, your choices, your money, your labor. Perhaps the next evolution of society is a free market economy, where all things are distributed based on how they're valued