(no title)
shafoshaf | 4 months ago
Newtonian principles does a really good job for a huge number of use cases, but it isn't the end all.
When it comes to intertwining human taste, a doctrine of equal opportunity combined with private property, and scarce resources, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
walkabout|4 months ago
Usually the discussion of that kind of thing revolves around the near-elimination of profit via (hypothetical) too-perfect competition among producers and too-perfect information for consumers, but with the rise of automated mass-scale spying and automated finer-grained price discrimination (plus enormous consolidation of markets due to near-abandonment of anti-trust enforcement in the ‘70s), we’re kinda seeing the real deal play out the other direction: approaching-maximum extraction of profit from every transaction.
Which sucks, to put it mildly. You do not want markets that function “too well” in any direction.
Retric|4 months ago
Far more complicated theories get much closer to reality, but aren’t nearly as well known outside of economic circles.
nerdponx|4 months ago
It's also common practice to show the effect of something on an idealized free market, with the idea of being that even under supposedly ideal conditions, the something being analyzed is still problematic.
parineum|4 months ago
godelski|4 months ago
They don't apply anywhere. It's a 101 class. It's over simplified. It looks accurate enough but a first order approximation isn't enough to operate effectively in the real world. It's like thinking you can code if you're able to read psuedocode. It's a great outline, but there's a lot of little things in between that ends up being >90% of the lines of code you need to make a working program
babush|4 months ago