Must, be, Richard Murphy tells me so.
Our latest comment call and response:
“. It is impossible to suppose that a man who can argue (as you did in the Guardian, very recently) that “Things in markets are worth what the markets say they are worth” is a true heir of Smith,”
I fear that you have failed to note the next but one sentence. “It’s also true that we often don’t like the values that markets come up with so we intervene to change them.”
As I’ve said before, and as just about everyone both acts and believes (and indeed I’ve made this very point here on this very blog), no one thinks that all markets all the time produces the optimal allocation of resources. “Things are worth in markets what markets say things are worth” is a tautology. The value of a freely copyable book (or MP3 in this digital age) is damn near nothing in a market system. So we intervene with copyright to create some value: for we do not like, either for efficiency (ie, if creators earn nothing from creation we’ll get too litte creation, the public goods argument) reasons or for more moral reasons (it is right that creators earn from their creations).
The argument is not over whether markets *always* produce either “just and moral” prices, as opposed to simply market prices, or whether they *always* produce an optimal allocation of resources. It’s over when and where do they and when and where do they not.
As I’ve said here before. And as you seem to be ignoring.
That\’s me. This is Ritchie:
Oscillating again, aren’t we? Have you ever given a straight answer?
The simple reality is this: you’re recognising that markets produce imperfect outcomes except when it suits you to say otherwise – which seems to be when it’s a matter of abolishing the minimum age, for example.
In fact it’s always a matter of markets work when it suits you and your privileged ilk and not when they don’t. And you like to say economics is objective and a science?
Come on Tim, your true colours are now clear. You’re just a bigoted hypocrite hiding behind a market theory as a witch doctor does behind a cauldron, and with both as bogus in their claims to competence.
If markets don’[t work – and that’s what you’re saying – your arguments fall apart at the seams.
Game over Tim. Don’t bother to post again. You’ve been rumbled.
Now I thought I was being very reasonable. Markets work except when they don\’t, at which point we both can and should intervene. As, for example, the late Sir Alan Walters, with the full support of the Adam Smith Institute, used to argue for congestion charges.
This makes me a bigoted hypocrite apparently.
If I could just add that while I seem to have been banned from Richard Murphy\’s comments section, as is his right….it being his private property….Richard is not banned from mine. Up to you Dickie.