Bigred's Video Game Thread

[Jack Sawyer]

One important principle is that you can't keep people from scamming. Create all the rules you want, but someone will always figure out a way to get around them. If the guys in this particular example with the skin gambling site weren't so oblivious and stupid, they would have never gotten caught.

As for how the free market can regulate itself, eCOGRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOGRA) is a good example. They are an independent company that offers certifications to show that online gambling operations are within certain guidelines, and they have a better long-term reputation than any government licensing jurisdiction on the planet. Companies like eCOGRA showed up because there are no international guidelines or regulatory bodies for online gambling, and it's an excellent example of the market providing accountability in an area where government was not.

Another principle is that it's much easier to corrupt government entities than it is to corrupt profit-driven companies due to the incentives and accountability at play, which is driven by the free market. The example of the FTC giving the "slap on the wrist" in the above case is a good example. If the FTC was profit-driven, not adhering to their own rules (which is what happened with the lack of enforcement) hurts their reputation and their bottom line in a major way. If eCOGRA did that once, their entire business model would fall apart.

The ESRB fills that role in the gaming landscape. But, of course, it's filled with industry heads with obvious incentives to look the other way as much as possible

The point isn't to be without whistleblowers, watchdogs and other forms of accountability. Those are 100 percent needed because, as I mentioned in my first paragraph above, there is no way to 100 percent stop scamming of some type in virtually any industry or sector. The point is that there is no consistent level of accountability with the FTC and other government agencies whatsoever, as you can see in the lack of enforcement of the existing FTC rules in the above scenario (and I'm sure you can think of an almost endless list of other examples).

It's also not that the free market can "do no wrong" or that it's perfect. Instead, the argument is that it's much more efficient and effective than government intervention at these types of things (and at a lot of other things) because of the incentive structures in place.

Indeed, nothing is perfect. But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

[BananaStand]

But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

Who ever said this?

Furthermore, why do you think the government could get closer to perfection than a free market? When has that ever happened?

[Jack Sawyer]

Who ever said this?

Furthermore, why do you think the government could get closer to perfection than a free market? When has that ever happened?

Pretty much every single free market advocate ever. All they do is market it as the one approach to fix all problems, like holy water to vampires

[wufwugy]

Indeed, nothing is perfect. But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

The free market argument is that the free market more efficiently allocates resources to things people want than government does.

There are possible reasons for why this could be the case that include individuals having a better understanding of their own preferences than government does,* individuals having a greater incentive to address their preferences than government does,** and individuals having more information about how to address their preferences than government does.***


*There's not much way around this one. It's basically that you know how you feel better than somebody else does.

**This is skin-in-the-game. You probably care more about your toilet flushing to your satisfaction than Donald Trump does. You are adjacent to your problems while bureaucrats and politicians are several degrees of separated from them.

***When your toilet isn't flushing, you know your toilet's history (with possible solutions), your finances, your plumber options, etc. better than government does. You have a lot of information about your nuanced situations that the government doesn't have. The same goes for people who produce goods and services; they too have an information advantage over government regarding what works, what doesn't work, the science, the expertise, etc..


That isn't to say that government can't be better than the free market in some ways. If you can find something that government taxing, spending, and regulating would do better than if instead it was up to individuals interacting with each other freely, then you would have found a case for government on that issue.

I personally am a free market advocate because I have yet been unable to reconcile economic principles and theory**** with any particular issues where government is proposed to do better.


****And data, but virtually any case can be made with economic data