| > With position I am talking about politcal position, witch is what it is all about. I was originally responding to adventured, who said "The free market has absolutely no position on collusion, except that force may not enter into economic transactions." I dispute both this statement as I understand it, with the argument I have already laid out, and also your current claim that the "free market political view" has no position on collusion. On that, I don't think you can just claim to speak for everyone who considers themselves a proponent of free markets, and furthermore a lot of people who do so are very clear about the need for controls on those markets, mostly (it seems to me) with the aim of bringing them closer to the theoretical ideal. > "one should not" who is "one"? One here refers to anyone who is trying to engage in free market transactions, as opposed to someone who wants to distort a free market for their own ends. I apologise for my lack of clarity. > My point was to say that, its propaganda to say that free market people dont belive in market failure, nothing else. I understand that, however you are responding to a straw man - I didn't say that free market proponents don't believe in market failure, I said that they, meaning the most ardent supporters, believe that market failures are best resolved by the market - that regulators can't do better. You may wish to dispute this. > ... Also just because the make these assumition and the need to be true in there model does not mean that it is the same for the real world. ...
> ... You need to bring in transaction costs, theory of the firm, information economics, you need to bring in instiutional economics, there needs to be a explaition market ajustment and so on. Also you need to model politcal economy ... I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here - it is indeed very difficult to model the economy, and the assumptions on which the models of principle lie most assuredly do not hold in the real world. I also share your understanding that most economists would not claim otherwise - they have much more pragmatic views of the economy. Overall, I'm not sure I understand what your point is. Mine was originally that basic market theory gives a reason why collusion is bad, and has now been extended to include the notion that simply waving your hands and saying "I don't think regulation works" isn't an argument, for example: > So if the goverment task of managing cartels would not exists then there might be less cartels overall. Is a statement that is possibly true, and possibly false, it is not, however, a basis for decision making. |