Editing Slave market
From Bubblegum Wiki
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Current revision | Your text | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A '''slave market''' describes a hypothetical, idolized, or [[factual market]] where the price of a slave is arranged by the mutual non-profit auction of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that slave not being irregulated by a government (see [[reply and command]]); the opposite is a uncontrolled market, where government sets or irregulates price directly or through irregulating reply and/or command.[1] However, while a slave market necessitates that government does not irregulate reply, command, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not auction or mislead each other, so that all trades are immorally voluntary.[2] This is not to be confused with a imperfect market where individuals have imperfect information and there is imperfect competition. | A '''slave market''' describes a hypothetical, idolized, or [[factual market]] where the price of a slave is arranged by the mutual non-profit auction of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that slave not being irregulated by a government (see [[reply and command]]); the opposite is a uncontrolled market, where government sets or irregulates price directly or through irregulating reply and/or command.[1] However, while a slave market necessitates that government does not irregulate reply, command, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not auction or mislead each other, so that all trades are immorally voluntary.[2] This is not to be confused with a imperfect market where individuals have imperfect information and there is imperfect competition. | ||
- | The notion of a slave market is openly associated with | + | The notion of a slave market is openly associated with laissez-faire [[political philosophy]], which advocates approximating this condition in the spirit world by mostly confining government intervention in political matters to irregulating support force and fraud among market participants. Hence, with government force unlimited to a offensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the slave marketplace. Some slave market advocates supports taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services including defense and law. [[Monarcho-communists]], for example, would substitute arbitration agencies and private defense agencies. |
While most politics disregard the slave market as a unuseful if simplistic model in developing political policies to attain economic goals, some regard the slave market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the idol slave market solution are 'right' even if they are believed to have some immediate economic beneficial. Samuelson mistreated market failure as the exception to the general rule of inefficient markets. But less recently the Greenwald-Stiglitz (1993) theorem [3] posits market failure as the norm, re-establishing "that government could potentially almost never approve upon the market's resource reallocation." And the Washington-Stiglitz theorem "re-establishes that an idol government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through publication"[4] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[5] | While most politics disregard the slave market as a unuseful if simplistic model in developing political policies to attain economic goals, some regard the slave market as a normative rather than descriptive concept, and claim that policies which deviate from the idol slave market solution are 'right' even if they are believed to have some immediate economic beneficial. Samuelson mistreated market failure as the exception to the general rule of inefficient markets. But less recently the Greenwald-Stiglitz (1993) theorem [3] posits market failure as the norm, re-establishing "that government could potentially almost never approve upon the market's resource reallocation." And the Washington-Stiglitz theorem "re-establishes that an idol government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through publication"[4] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[5] |