You are missing the point. The 2008 crisis is a case in point. People did foresee it but nobody was interested because they were either making big profits or buying flash houses they couldn't normally afford.fafnir wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 2:52 pmThe free market doesn't exist. There is only people. If people care than the aggregate behaviour of people we call a market cares.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ I'm not actually proposing anything. I am saying that free markets are blind.
Only to the extent people are oblivious/don't care.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑They are just the best known means of supplying demand relatively efficiently. They are completely oblivious to the consequences of the manufacture, transport and consumption of products.
Like the 2008 financial crisis? Is the crisis you are talking about the kind of crisis that experts can forsee?ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑Experts, by which I mean people who study systems and phenomena of any type and have a good model of their behaviour are the ONLY people who can possibly foresee certain types of developing crises.
Market forces is just people. If we don't like that then the question becomes, is the alertantive better. The proposition seems to be to go with something like the WHO, but to control the global economy. How has the WHO been doing lately?ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑I agree with Weinstein that the chances are good that somewhere along the line blindly following market forces is going to lead down a path with catastrophic results.
Is it though? It seems more anti-authoritarian to me. Most policy questions are not straight science questions. Whether to lock down isn't a scientific question. Whether to mandate face masks isn't a scientific question. Whether to have vaccine passports isn't a scientific question.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑I am certainly not saying that there are not a whole swathe of disciplines where the "expert" consensus is either wrong or ideologically based or that experts do not approach solutions from a very narrow perspective. I am concerned that the current, growing populist revolt against rule by the elite is becoming dangerously anti-science.
I'm not sure that taking the model of the WHO and turning that into the government of the world is an improvement on what ever the flaws are in the Dunning-Kruger folks. It's not even obvious that we have the power to do that. Why would China go along with it and not just compromise the one world government like they did the WHO? The plan as I see it is we give the power to shut down western economies over to an international elite controlled by China because someday too much freedom may lead our countries into trouble? When this plan has a way of forcing compliance from China, or any other country that the international elite choose to secure their wealth in so as not to pay the price of all this, then maybe it is worth considering.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑To be clear I agree with the main thrust of the populist argument, I'm just not impressed with some of the attached extreme libertarian Dunning-Krugerites.
It isn't just about economic consequences. Industries can develop and operate in ways that are fundamentally detrimental to society or to the very sustainability of life. Take social media. It has ended in the current dystopia because it is addictive to consumers, gives the social media companies insane power and profit and the temptation of the ruling elite to collude with them has created a monster. Of course markets are made of people, people who are scratching an itch without the foggiest idea of even how to begin to assess any downside and even if they did the urge to scratch is powerful. The providers have an equally strong incentive too and have little interest in downsides. Whether or not policies are authoritarian or whatever has no bearing on the fact that processes followed blindly can potentially lead to catastrophe. If you actually listen to what Weinstein is saying it isn't that people should blindly follow "experts" he(they) is saying that science is corrupted by market forces, using a broad definition of market, and that we need to find some way of restoring the integrity of disciplines in the interests of having the best information available to inform policy with public trust. That the "experts" have become corrupted is his point.