4/10/2023 0 Comments Joseph schumpeter bookz![]() ![]() They certainly don’t get the sales tax receipts. I have no idea what government gets out of forcing the market to work out provisioning supplies in an emergency completely underground. In the case of the sneaker market, companies like Nike derive tremendous future value from the mystique, so the supply games work for them. Many of the people who get the shoes at retail price end up being people who just want to make a buck, not the sneakerheads who love the shoes. The problem with cracking down is that you immediately involve shady characters into the mix who don’t have a problem with the threshold of breaking the law. From a social order and even social justice perspective, we would be far better off encouraging retailers to get the maximum price for these items than to warn against gouging or crack down on it. In fact, there is plenty of evidence available from people on the scene that it happens every time with all sorts of critical commodities, from ice to batteries to gasoline. I guarantee that the same will happen with plywood if its supply is constrained after a hurricane. shows like DunkXchange), where a $110 retail shoe might sell for upward of $500. The shoes eventually end up in the secondary reseller market (e.g. The people that are fortunate enough to buy them retail may wait in line for hours, then turn around and sell them on ebay or one of the shoe broker sites (like Flight Clun NY). These shoes are in very short supply and quickly become the object of many enthusiast’s desires. What happens there is Nike will do what’s called a limited shoe drop at a few unpredictable stores. I think you need to observe buying and selling in sneaker culture if you think voluntary rationing is a solution to price gouging. P.S.: This is partially a response to some statements made in the podcast with Bryan Caplan as well. ![]() When human beings behave rationally and creatively, they reflect the nature of the God in whose image they were created.Īt the very least, one must acknowledge the significant difference between random movement of atoms producing macroevolution across species, and the free, rational choices of human beings producing desirable social outcomes. I do assert that the aforementioned principles and institutions that make the free market work come from a broadly Christian-theistic worldview. I don’t want to debate the scientific merits of different evolutionary theories. I find it more difficult to believe that the constraints (laws of chemistry and physics) and the participants (matter itself, with no rational capacity) in the natural process could produce such biological order as Darwinian evolution would predict. The participants are human beings with rational and creative capacity. The constraints in which a “free market” produces order are principles like private property, protection from involuntary imposition of cost, individual liberty, etc. The two key differences between the two ideas are the rules of the systems in which “agents” live (institutional constraints, I suppose), and the participants in the systems themselves. I would place myself in this category, and I see no inherent logical contradiction between these ideas. Some writers whom I’d consider my ideological soulmates are my exact religious opposites.Īs Russ said, there are those who see evidence of design in nature and are led to believe in a Creator, but who also acknowledge the wonderful emergent orders produced by a free market. I’ve found Russ’ comment about the religious commitments of “free-market believers” to be remarkably true.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |