View Single Post
  #136  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Its harder than you reading the thread, I guess.

Now that I answered your question - ....
When markets work, the government doesn’t have to subsidize real estate developers. You ought to be outraged that your tax dollars are going into landlords’ pockets in this way.
Indeed, going back and scanning every one of 134 posts is hard than you typing in "100".



No, you didn't answer my question. You were being deliberately evasive that appeared to me, just to be annoying.

"When markets work...", this is a economic fallacy.

http://fxtrade.oanda.com/documents/R...isiblehand.pdf
Since the inception of classical economics over 200 years ago, one of the
most sacred assumptions has been the hypothesis that an invisible hand
determines market prices and that market prices follow a random walk.
Today, there exists significant statistical evidence that this is not the case and
we need to acknowledge that financial markets are, indeed, predictable. How
is this possible?
....
For Adam Smith and his followers, it was clear that division of labour would
only develop within the context of a free market economy with competitive
prices. At the time, governments had firm control of market pricing. Smith
believed that to unleash the forces of the market and foster competition, it
would be necessary to free markets from this control.
The ‘invisible hand’
Early economists used their theories to argue their policy recommendations,
which in turn influenced the very way their theories developed. Under no
circumstances did they want to develop a theory of the advantages of the
market economy that could be attacked as being unfair, i.e. inequitable to
society. Thus was born the concept of the ‘invisible hand’.
They argued that an efficient market has such a large volume that any one
participant has a negligible impact on the market as a whole. Because any
one participant is so small (relatively speaking) and insignificant, it was concluded that everyone behaves in the same way. Economists thus postulated that man behaves like a ‘homo oeconomicus’ who is rational and
maximises his utility. From this they inferred that everyone reacts in the
same way to market events and that market reactions to outside events are
thus homogeneous, with no secondary reactions. ,,,"


https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2...-markets/70151

Your Adam Smith Invisible hand is a outdated concept from 1776, proven wrong by many economists since then.