| I actually agree with disjointrevelry on this one. > For every voluntary buyer in capitalism there is a voluntary seller. Choice does not imply consent [1]. The word "voluntary" is ambiguous as to which concept it refers to and you can march a $70T element through the resulting loophole. Capitalism is the philosophy of ditching compensatory justice in order to preserve marginal incentives (esp. with regard to supply and demand). Socialism is the philosophy of prioritizing compensatory justice over marginal incentives ("to each according to his contribution"). Like most people here, I side with the capitalist prioritization order, at least in markets that don't have a long record of market failure. In other words, I believe that it is more important for people to have incentives to fix supply/demand imbalances (e.g. for working power lines!) than it is for people to be rewarded for honest effort and punished for culpability (i.e. what I consider justice). I think the article at hand is a perfect example of how markets sacrifice justice for correct incentives. What were the effects of the congestion contract? 1. It punished the power company for being incorrect regarding necessary maintenance. It also indirectly punished consumers. Did the consumers deserve to be punished for their power company's poor choices? No, of course not. Yet that's what this market transaction did. So it failed on the "justice" dimension. 2. It increased the financial stakes for the power company to meet its own estimations regarding online capacity. So it succeeded on the "incentives" dimension. Justice was sacrificed in order to obtain correct incentives. Exactly as advertised. ------------------------- [1] Suppose a serial killer kidnaps you tomorrow and gives you the choice of death by machete or death by shotgun (if you try get smart about it, he chooses the machete for you). At his trial, should the fact that you chose "shotgun" be seen as proof that you consented to getting shot? Of course not. |