Скачать с ютуб Free Market vs. Resource Based Economy (Antony Sammeroff) в хорошем качестве

Free Market vs. Resource Based Economy (Antony Sammeroff)

What is better the free market or a resource based economy like The Venus Project? Most people have an unconscious, gut instinct that some kind of central planning will yield a better result for the economy than if we just let everybody do whatever they want without any overarching plan. Surely the randomness of all that must end in chaos relative to a clearly articulated plan which can account for, say, making sure the people at the bottom of the economic ladder get bread, and that there are enough mail deliveries to far-reaching places. Whether a person takes the moderate position that the government should merely preside over the economy to regulate the excesses of this potential chaos, or whether they literally think a committee of experts should decide on things like what should be produced, where, and in what quantities; and who should work where, on what and for how many hours – it seems intuitive to most people that if we have people planning this all out in a clearly articulated plan for the economy that is laid out by experts and then handed down to society to be carried out, surely that has to give us a more orderly, predictable, rational result. It turns out that the truth is exactly the opposite. There are many reasons for this. For one thing, as pointed out by Friedrich Hayek – the Nobel-prize winning economist whose work was strongly influenced by Mises – knowledge of our wants in society is diffuse, spread amongst all of us, and only expressed in our purchasing decisions when we choose to favour one product over another, or offer to sell one service over the other. Mises was always keen to point out that people were not like chemicals that had set properties like a boiling-point or conductivity. They have goals, dreams, values, desires, preferences, expectations, and different levels of experience and informations – all of which were constantly changing. While central planners might try to “best guess” what people want and how it is to produced – the market allows thousands of potential solutions to be tested all at once, and for consumers to decide which of them they prefer by adopting them voluntarily. People make bad decisions sometimes, of course, but they rarely buy a low quality product over and over again, and they may well warn others away from it. Businesses are incentivised (even if they don’t always reach these standards) to cater to consumers to keep them satisfied so they come back time and again, and spread the word about their products. All this means that when mistakes are made – even a disastrous business idea that leads to bankruptcy of the company – their consequences are limited to some relatively small number of people. On the other hand, Because resources are limited, people need to choose between competing solutions and the best ones win out over the long run. Each entrepreneur lays out a vision of what he thinks people will want more than what they are already buying, and if the public thinks its a good idea, and the price is reasonable, he makes a profit which means he can scale-up that production and serve more people. If his idea isn’t any good, he makes a loss. His factors of production eventually get sold off to people who think they can do a better job with them. People with better ideas end up with the resources because they have demonstrated that they are good stewards of those resources – who can effectively guess what people want done with those resources. It only takes one person to come up with a good idea for it to be spread across an entire society, but its adopted voluntarily – one person at at time. It gets tested first against the market, rather than imposed upon everyone from the top down by an omnipotent government official. Support Us on Patreon:   / scottishlibertypodcast