pull down to refresh
How do we know that on average it will always be cheaper to trade rather than conquer?
All of human history, basic logic, economics writing for the last four centuries etc etc.
ie is it always the case that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources, or can a strategic use of violence/coercion provide a long-run benefit to an aggressor?
Yes, we use non-markets for lots of decisions without that being nefarious or violent. Having kids, allocating resources within a family; school and admissions; orchestra auditions etc etc. In Nordic countries, medical decisions; in America, organ donation lists.
How do we know that on average it will always be cheaper to trade rather than conquer?All of human history, basic logic, economics writing for the last four centuries etc etc.
Um... is that really true? Human history seems to suggest conquest is often the more efficient means of getting resources than trade. Sometimes, conquest is done for the specific purpose of opening up trade.
Human history seems to suggest conquest is often the more efficient means of getting resources than trade.
If the great enrichment since ~1800 or ~1600 hadn't happened, I'd agree with you. But they one sort of takes the quantitative cake (like craaazy) and so squashes everything else
I was emphasizing long-run efficiency because it seems necessary to me that actors who attempt to achieve resource allocation through violence must eventually go broke when compared with actors who attempt to achieve resource allocation through markets.
If actors who use violence do not end up being outcompeted by free-market actors, what stops actors using violence from mixing violence into their market operations and dominating the market?
I'd like to accept your statement that trade is always cheaper than conquest, but for some strange reason people keep shooting missiles at each other. This year alone, we have seen quite a bit of bombing and destroying. Are the people who choose such actions all ignoring human history, basic logic, and four centuries of economic writing?
If so, why? For some reason they seem to think that bombs will get them what they want more than deals. The widespread adherence to such a belief surely merits some investigation.
I will try to take the unpopular defense of what Beckert may be saying.
My mental model of markets being good goes something like this: as long as market participants are free to engage in trade as they see fit, competition between participants will tend to allocate resources in the most efficient manner possible.
One question is whether markets require some sort of state threat to keep actors from using violence against each other, ie is it always the case that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources, or can a strategic use of violence/coercion provide a long-run benefit to an aggressor?
For instance, if I live in a place that has no delicious mangoes, but my neighbor has a whole orchard of them, does it make more sense for me to try to trade with him or to try to steal the mangoes?
If it is easier for me to steal the mangoes, eventually we might expect my neighbor to quit putting effort into growing mangoes that he doesn't get to eat (or he may put extra effort into defending his mangoes, but let's imagine I happen to be bigger and stronger than him).
If he stops growing mangoes, I may decide to take over his orchard and force him to grow the mangoes for me.
The free-market maxi in me says such an operation will be more expensive than just paying him for the mangoes. However, it seems that there might be occasions where the conquer the orchard route might be cheaper.
Isn't the question: How do we know that on average it will always be cheaper to trade rather than conquer?