= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 4 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (325)
Indeed. While I find the general arguments about market efficiency persuasive, there's a big blind spot in the view that "The economy will always operate efficiently despite interference, unless that interference is by something we call a 'government'".
Sure, you'd need to be able to replace the symbol (government) with the substance of what causal mechanisms you believe are responsible for damage to the economy, and why they're associated with the government.
Just to clarify, though, I wasn't criticizing a particular anti-government view, just a particular combination of views. I can understand if someone says, "Nationalization isn't that bad, the economy won't be hurt much by it."
Or if someone said, "Nationalization is devastating, and it will take ages for the economy to recover from one, if it ever does!"
But I see a big problem with someone who wants to believe both that nationalization is devastating, and that "the economy" will recover after one in just a few years. No, if it really is devastating, your definition of "the economy" and its "goodness" need to reflect that somehow.