I suspect, to use an open source software aphorism, you are speaking of "free as in beer" and Glen is speaking of "free as in freedom".
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:04 PM Pieter Steenekamp < [email protected]> wrote: > * "But a contract-governed market isn't any more "free" than a regulated > market"* > > Maybe what we understand by "free" is different? If I evaluate the risk > rewards and decide I want to get dentures for 1 dollar from the > "pavement-dentist" and the regulators do not prevent the transaction, I > consider that a free market transaction. If the regulated market prevents > that transaction, I'm still without front teeth. How can you claim the > contract-governed market isn't more "free" than the regulated market? In my > understanding of "free" the contract-governed market is more free; I end up > with dentures and the enterprising man makes a profit. In the free market > case the outcome is win-win and the regulated market case lose-lose. > > What do I miss about your point? Maybe if you explain to me how you > understand "free" we can sing from the same sheet. > > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 23:11, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK. But a contract-governed market isn't any more "free" than a regulated >> market, neither of which are maximally efficient. And in the context where >> all the negotiating power lies with one side or the other, those contracts >> may end up even *more* restrictive than government regulations. (E.g. if >> all the multinational corporations get together and put the same >> boilerplate in their contracts, like routing all breach claims through >> arbitrage by an AI in St Petersburg.) But even if it's not, i.e. somehow >> where we regulate the market so that only symmetric contracts stand, if any >> 1 party entangles, via contract, with multiple other parties without >> normalizing all their contracts, the mesh of contracts will eventually "gum >> up". (Anyone who's signed more than 1 non-compete NDA will know what that >> looks like.) Another (non-free) restriction could be to sunset all >> contracts at, say, 1 year. So, every entrepreneur has to go back through >> their mesh of NDAs and re-negotiate/re-sign them every year. But 1 year >> contracts won't work for everything. So, there'd necessarily be a gumming >> up around how long the mesh of contracts lasted. >> >> All of this works directly against the "freedom" (including transparency >> and efficiency) of the market. So, contract markets are not free markets at >> all. Counterintuitively, a well-regulated market can be freer, more >> efficient, than a contract market. But if the regulators could *reduce* all >> the complexities of any contract into merit/outcome (instead of price), >> then that reductive measure could be multimodal (which price can't ... >> which leads to financial instruments). It might also be multidimensional. >> Outcome could be a vector of both some variable like [non]responder and >> time. >> >> There'd have to be rules about concreteness of outcome-compliance, of >> course. E.g. if side effects from toxic false teeth you bought on the >> street corner kill you from sepsis, you couldn't claim the outcome was met >> just because you no longer need false teeth (because you're dead). But if >> the outcome were <no longer need false teeth, still alive after 2 years>, >> then the teeth vendor could get paid. >> >> In effect, this is what we have already, except "outcome" is diffused >> through the multifarious jurisdictions and power dynamics of who can, and >> the RoI of, hiring a team of lawyers. If the modes and reduction to outcome >> were more algorithmic, it might make the markets more efficient than they >> can be with asymmetric contracts or deep-canon centralized regulation. >> >> >> On 4/26/21 1:37 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >> > No, a free market system is not limited to outcome based contracts. >> Free market is allowing two (or more) parties to have a valid contract on >> the terms and conditions both (or all) parties agree on. A patient and an >> oncologist may agree on a contract where the patient pays for the effort >> and not the outcome, that could still be 100% within the free market >> system. This is of course provided the authorities don't have regulations >> stipulating the legal bounds of the contract. >> > For example, in Cape Town there are many poor people without front >> teeth. A while ago an enterprising man, without any medical qualifications, >> set up shop on a pavement to do false teeth at an order of magnitude lower >> price than a qualified dentist. He was shut down very quickly. In a free >> market system he would have been allowed to provide dentures resulting in >> happy poor people with front teeth who cannot afford a traditional dentist >> and an enterprising man making good money. With the regulations that >> protect people we now have an unemployed poor enterprising man and many >> people who are still without front teeth. >> > >> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 19:49, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Should everyone be paid based on merit/outcome? E.g. I go to the >> oncologist because cytometry tests show I have stage 4 lymphoma. We go >> through a years long treatment, at the end of which I may be a responder or >> a non-responder. A free marketeer *should* argue that the oncologist >> shouldn't be paid until an assessment of response can be made. >> Nonresponders shouldn't have to pay (or get a refund like you would buying, >> say, a blender off the internet). Responders have to foot the bill for the >> whole enterprise. >> > >> > Obviously, there are plenty of other options, all of which are >> negotiated asymmetrically between the chronically fatigued cancer patient >> and the battery of multinational corporate lawyers driving Teslas. But the >> gist of the market is merit/outcome based. Right? >> >> >> -- >> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
