| >> |
10/13/11(Thu)21:23 No.1413161>>1413158
The
bank example isn't terrible in and of itself, because there are banks
with fees and banks without fees and almost no one here has a close
enough relationship with a bank such that it's too difficult to actually
switch to another bank (or credit union).
However, the
overreliance on the invisible hand becomes ludicrous when you try to
apply it to other aspects of life where it is impossible or
impracticable to avoid negative consequences. For example, in the
American health care industry, your health care is often attached to
your employment, so you are often stuck with either what your employer
offers (if anything), a subpar state package (if you earn little enough
to qualify), or subpar private insurance where you are essentially
priced into a limited selection of choices, if any.
Rolling
things back a bit, think about the state of medicine before agencies
like the FDA. You'd have batches of Thalidomide babies, because there
was no incentive on the part of the drug manufacturer or the doctors to
test in advance whether the drug would be appropriate for use as
prescribed. Sure, after you have your Thalidomide baby, you know not to
trust your doctor anymore, but the damage has already been done by that
time, and arguably, under a libertarian regime, there wouldn't even be a
cause of action in tort against a doctor who prescribed Thalidomide
during pregnancy.
Anyway, my point with Thalidomide is that it is
an example of something where the invisible hand, by itself, does not
automatically fix all the problems in the world. Such a view - behold,
as the invisible hand cures all ailments! - is essentially religious in
nature. |
