[wolverine876]

Why would free markets help homeless people? Is there any basis for this, other than claiming that one's favorite solution is the best? Free markets serve those who pay the most, which is good for allocating iPhones, but not for healthcare, basic housing, basic food, education, safety, etc., which should not depend on ability to pay.

> It's the same thing that happens in social media, trolls and bots pollute the information so it's impossible for most people to tell the truth apart from fiction.

Isn't that 'real free market', unregulated?

[tgflynn]

> Free markets serve those who pay the most

As someone who has spent years in a low income situation due to health issues that hasn't been my experience. At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes. There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.

Housing and medical care, on the other hand, are completely unaffordable for a significant fraction of the population without government assistance.

[wolverine876]

I am not doubting your experience, but I don't think we can project that to the larger situation.

> At least up until the pandemic food as well as many manufactured products, which are relatively unregulated, were quite affordable even for the lowest incomes.

The data shows otherwise, that many people haven't been able to afford food (think of school lunch programs) and especially quality food. Also, large 'food deserts' exists in poor communities where food is unavailable beyond very expensive small stores.

> There's a large enough market of low income people so that companies like Walmart, dollar stores and even Amazon can make money serving that market.

I've thought that, but it turns out that they don't often don't serve low-income people. I've also spent plenty of time in low income areas, and retail options are very slim. I've been in the best grocery store in the neighborhood, where fruit scales were rusty, and it stunk of something rotting. It was packed.

[tgflynn]

Well, I know that I could live spending less than 50% of my monthly income on food. Ignoring other subsidies however my rent would cost over 80% of my monthly income, so if I paid my rent, as people are likely to do first, it's true that I wouldn't have enough money for food.

So what I am saying does not contradict the claim that many people can't afford enough food, since most of their money is going to rent.

[holbrad]

Generally for most goods markets work really well. There's two intrinsic failure cases: externalities and monopolies.

So arguably housing fits into the monopoly bucket, especially if you lean towards a land value tax.

Safety and a monopoly on force most would argue are the domains of government.

But the rest of your examples seem fine to be market based, though the devil is in the detail.

[wolverine876]

> Generally for most goods markets work really well. There's two intrinsic failure cases: externalities and monopolies.

I agree, but you are omitting two other cases: Equity and availability.

Again, markets are built to serve those who provide the highest profit. That's fine for iPhones, but not for health, safety, education, basic food, and basic shelter. Everyone should have those, regardless of how much profit they provide.

Markets also depend on 'creative destruction', businesses fail and their goods and services go away. That can't happen with healthcare, food, education, safety, and shelter. There are 'food deserts' in poor communities, where people can't get anything but expensive corner-store groceries. We can't have a safety, education, shelter, or healthcare desert (or a food desert).

[holbrad]

Markets provide availability of goods, as long as you can accept price variability.

I'll reiterate for safety and land I think these things fail for the reason I mentioned originally.

Healthcare I could certainly see working in a mostly market led way, I'm personally from the UK (So extra heretical to say)

Food is a bad example, as availability is ultra high. Fresh produce is scarce in areas due to low demand. Low demand leads to higher prices.

[wolverine876]

> Markets provide availability of goods, as long as you can accept price variability.

Not if the vendor goes out of business.

> Food is a bad example, as availability is ultra high. Fresh produce is scarce in areas due to low demand. Low demand leads to higher prices.

That's not the case, based on the reports I've seen. What have you seen that supports that?

[holbrad]

Unless we are in a monopoly situation there are other vendors for common goods.

If a super market goes out of business there are several others though perhaps further away.

The idea of "Food deserts" is around the poor availability of affordable "nutritious" food. There is plenty of food in these food deserts with many different food providers.

So it's not about general food availability, it's around what food is stocked. Which food are stocked is almost completely determined by supply and demand. We know the supply exists, so if there a lack of stock it's due to demand.

What other explanation is there ? A shadowy cabal making sure the poor can't access certain foods ?