Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Cicero
Dec 17, 2003

Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

axeil posted:

They showed empirically that the countries using command-style economies were, on the whole, only using their resources about 76% as efficiently as non-communist countries.

Of course, classical capitalism only cares about market efficiency and nothing about equality so you need some mechanisms in place to ensure that.
I barely know poo poo about economics -- how does this grok with certain regulations making markets more productive?

The example that I'm well aware of is California's hostility to non-compete agreements (most of them are illegal or unenforceable there): the general consensus I've seen is that this is a big part of why the tech sector exploded and has been so successful in California, that companies can't stop people from switching companies, which has led to a culture where people job hop frequently (and create startups frequently), which means you get a lot of cross-pollination of best practices, and existing behemoths can't stop their employees from going to a smaller upstart that might have a newer, better way of doing things that'll beat them in the market.

Basically, non-compete agreements are locally optimal for the company requiring the agreement, they're beneficial for incumbents because they make it harder for your current employees to go elsewhere. But they're bad for the ecosystem as a whole, they're globally suboptimal, because they hinder newer, more effective companies from disrupting old ones by making it harder for the new companies to recruit.

I have no problem believing that market economies are generally more 'efficient' than strict command economies, I just don't believe that all top-down regulations must reduce total productivity on some level, which is what it sounds like you're saying.

edit: possible real world evidence of what I'm talking about would be looking at the top and bottom 10 US states by GDP per capita and noticing that the top 10 are basically all either blue states or tiny red petrostates, and most of the bottom 10 are red states. Like, if more regulations lowered productivity so much, why would California and New York be unusually productive, when by US standards at least they're regulation-heavy?

Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:33 on May 3, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply