MT: "Markets work best when government adopts an active rather than a passive stance"
yes sireeeee
but i doubt mark agrees with this proposition:
markets in a corporate organized market system
aren't spontaneously "class neutral"
they tilt toward the profiteers
for best gubmint
uncle's agents must gear policy
not toward consumer surplus pass thru max
but job class welfare max
not by relying simply on the 19th century liberal paradigm
ie not only on enhanced competitive forces
that can force thru surplus with ever lower relative prices
the flaw in that ??
markets .... even pushed markets
do not come close
to grinding out welfare max results
---------------------
-- see stiglitz greenwald
as the formal door way into this new modeling of market system reality ---
----------------------------------
yes
uncle needs to agressively thwart
profiteers constant attempts
to trap as much surplus as possible
in corporate cisterns
but
that requires a very intricate often morphing always ersistent
pattern of interventions
AND
a non pareto standard of fair play
one or the other economic class must win
in each of these ever evolving and morphing
market battles
there are no actual long run laissez faire win wins
there are no ties
and surely changes that attempt to make
each side at least as well of as without intervention
simply too grossly stunt the compass of any uncle intervention pattern
for social welfare max
one or other carton of economic class eggs
will be broken..... must be broken
each time
either the profiteers or the jobsters must win
-----------------------------
nb:
but i doubt mark agrees with this proposition:
markets in a corporate organized market system
aren't spontaneously "class neutral"
they tilt toward the profiteers
for best gubmint
uncle's agents must gear policy
not toward consumer surplus pass thru max
but job class welfare max
not by relying simply on the 19th century liberal paradigm
ie not only on enhanced competitive forces
that can force thru surplus with ever lower relative prices
the flaw in that ??
markets .... even pushed markets
do not come close
to grinding out welfare max results
---------------------
-- see stiglitz greenwald
as the formal door way into this new modeling of market system reality ---
----------------------------------
yes
uncle needs to agressively thwart
profiteers constant attempts
to trap as much surplus as possible
in corporate cisterns
but
that requires a very intricate often morphing always ersistent
pattern of interventions
AND
a non pareto standard of fair play
one or the other economic class must win
in each of these ever evolving and morphing
market battles
there are no actual long run laissez faire win wins
there are no ties
and surely changes that attempt to make
each side at least as well of as without intervention
simply too grossly stunt the compass of any uncle intervention pattern
for social welfare max
one or other carton of economic class eggs
will be broken..... must be broken
each time
either the profiteers or the jobsters must win
-----------------------------
nb:
greenwald stiglitz is a general proof
not a means toward intervention in practice
i tend to accept dixit's beware unintended outcomes especially ones that aren't even seen to be connected to the well inntended intial action
not a means toward intervention in practice
i tend to accept dixit's beware unintended outcomes especially ones that aren't even seen to be connected to the well inntended intial action
what happened here
its like a brawl from next door crashed thru the party wall
the topic of this post is not about peak energy
its about
which party is more likely to move our system
to peak markets
------------------------------------