On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > The free market is the way to efficiently allocate resources, and cash > returns > provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You disagreed, but > have > still not offered an alternative.
*The" way? Or *a* way? Surely it is generally accepted that the free market fails sometimes. Otherwise we wouldn't have anti-trust laws. It fails when competition is inherently inefficient, such as in portions of public utility systems. It seems to fail when goods and services exhibit "network effects" that yield increasing returns (which anti-trust laws have been used to mitigate). I find myself very bothered by what I see as tautological statements about free markets -- that because they are free markets, they are inherently good. There is no objective measure for appropriate distribution of resources, so it is a fallacy to argue that free markets distribute resources appropriately. Isn't the main argument for free free market economies that they seem to strike a balance between individual and social needs and desires... a balance that has no objective measure, either. Nick Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
