(1/8) What is #misalignedmarkets? My political economy begins by taking F.A. Hayek seriously. He saw markets (and minds) as a form of decentralized processing a logical “spontaneous order” that aggregates knowledge. (I'm sure like Dawkins he'd have been one-shotted by Claude).
Post
(2/8) Where I diverge from market fundamentalists, like Hayek, is that solving for “distribution” is incidental to market capitalism. Profit, not allocation, is the goal. Knowledge is useful insofar as it serves that end. Many profitable opportunities deliberately result in suboptimal distribution.
(3/8) Naive market fundamentalists miss something critical. Distributed knowledge isn't just about information in markets, but the rules of the game. The rules that create property rights interfere with "free" markets. Capitalism is a political governance structure imposing values onto markets.
1 repost5 likes
(4/8) Computers actually are a good analogy for market capitalism. Not because markets “compute” how to allocate resources but because they are a distributed system (like a computer network) whose implicit and explicit rules affect throughput and user experience.
(5/8) Digital assets are non-rivalrous; one person's use doesn't deplete another's, and the marginal cost of production is near zero. Yet, the tech industry has produced the most profitable companies in history. Why? They've found ways to capture value that have nothing to do with distribution.
(6/8) Markets don't naively optimize for distribution or efficiency! They can't because they encode property rights and other legal entitlements in a way that benefits incumbents asymmetrically. Employees as contractors, CDOs built on AAA tranches from subprime mortgages.
(7/8) Markets are interfaces: a boundary between the constructed reality of capitalist inputs (rents, property, entitlements) and the world. Just as a browser, controls what you see and can do over network states, profit-maximizers build interfaces routing to slices of reality favoring them.