« George Will on Austan Goolsbee | Main | Markets in everything, American Indian edition »
The Tyranny of the Market
A new book by my friend and Wharton colleague, Joel Waldfogel. I've not read it yet, but based on our lunchtime conversations, I'm looking forward to it. (Hint: what does it take to get a free copy?) Plus you've got to admire any book invoking the Rolling Stones in the title.
Joel has summarized the main arguments in his latest column at Slate. Certainly a subtle and fascinating hypothesis about how and when markets can fail us. More commentary (from the Wharton writers) here.
Posted by Justin Wolfers on October 4, 2007 at 11:58 AM | Permalink
Comments
Part of the article is obvious, the rest is misleading. Obviously if my tastes are unique, then it might not be profitable for a marketplace to provide goods and services that meet each of my idiosyncracies.
The difference is that a government forces me to pay for things that I do not consume, while a market does not. I might want to buy what Wal Mart is selling or eat at McDonald's, but neither can forcefully take my money from me. The same cannot be said for government, which confiscates my wealth every paycheck whether I like it or not.
Posted by: DM at Oct 4, 2007 12:08:17 PM
He offers a critique but no solution. The only one I can come up with is that the government undertakes the task of providing products for people who form too small a market to be profitable. Of course if these products are not profitable, they are not self-funding, which means that the government will need to take money to cover the losses from other areas. Such as my paycheck... Which makes this "tyranny of the minority".
The problem isn't markets vs government. It's that there are fixed costs to producing things that need to be payed for. Markets make the people who use the products pay those costs, and if they don't want to, they don't have to (but then the product doesn't get produced). Government makes people who don't use the products pay, whether they like it or not.
Which one does the word "tyranny" sound more like?
Posted by: Josh at Oct 4, 2007 12:30:09 PM
everyday there is more variety than there was the day before.
Posted by: josh at Oct 4, 2007 12:32:53 PM
It seems to me, based on the column, that the book's thesis is based on a flawed premise. That being the assumption that The Market is perfect. The Market isn't a perfect model satisfying _everyones_ needs and wants in all cases and at the price that they want to pay. The Market is just the most efficient model compared to the alternatives.
Posted by: Bob. at Oct 4, 2007 12:37:28 PM
I thought the Slate article was nonsense. What was its point? I fail to see why it is a "tyranny" that the market does not meet every single desire of mine at a price I want to pay. How exactly else does he propose these needs are to be met? He never addresses that. The wish that somebody else immediately fulfill my desires, and calling it tyranny when somebody else does not, seems extremely narcissistic. Seems more like people like him need to understand that the world does not revolve you and exist to serve every single need. This is the argument of a child, not an adult. If this is representative of his work, I'll readily pass.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at Oct 4, 2007 12:37:38 PM
I think that Waldfogel has an interesting point. Essentially, if you have fixed costs of catering to a preference, and low/constant marginal costs of production, then you may not get what you want if not enough people share your preferences. I've certainly seen Waldfogel's core argument for years, I've heard him make the argument, and he's produced a fine body of work that illustrates that point in TV, radio, and newspapers.
I think Waldfogel overplays it a bit, however.
First, whatever the "tyranny" of the market, it's certainly a lot less tyrannical than the democratic tyranny of the majority. In 1957, both John Galbraith and Ayn Rand had bestsellers. It's hard to see that happening if publishing was democratically-controlled.
You have a bestseller if 1 million people buy a copy of a book. That's less than 1% of the adult population. That's certainly a lot smaller than 50% of the population. Maybe you'd have been out of luck if you'd liked a novel that only 1,000 other people would buy.
Second, we now have technology that greatly lowers the fixed setup costs
across a large variety of products, especially media products. You can start a webpage of a blog devoted to anything at virtually zero fixed cost. New technology is lowering the fixed costs of producing music, movies, and even news coverage. The vast increase in channel space available on satellite and digital cable greatly lowers the fixed costs of having a channel that caters to a given preference (BET and TVOne, for instance are both cable channels targeted to African-Americans). Innovations like satellite radio allow firms to spread their fixed costs across larger groups of people. That means that you don't need enough people in your local area to share your preference; you just need enough people across the country. Heck, thanks to the internet, it probably is now profitable to web-publish books that only 1,000 people would buy.
So "preference externalities" really never made the market worse than government, and they are now rapidly diminishing as a real driver of actual marketplace outcomes.
Posted by: Keith at Oct 4, 2007 12:38:07 PM
Here's a illustration of point about how aggregation by national media services can solve the fixed-costs "tyranny" in the marketplace, from some very subtle and fascinating work by my favorite economists:
"Many media products incur up-front fixed costs and constant (and
often low) marginal costs. Consequently, media firms will only produce content
that appeals to enough people to cover their fixed costs. Locally-based media may
not produce adequate diversity because not enough consumers with a particular
preference live in the same locality. Nationally available media like satellite radio
helps resolve this problem because they can aggregate the preferences of
consumers across the nation, which means that they can cover the fixed costs of
producing content that appeals to small (locally vanishing) groups of consumers.
For example, assume that a radio station requires 150 listeners to be
viable. In city A 100 listeners like jazz and 100 listeners in city B like jazz. Local
radio stations in cities A and B will therefore not air jazz, because no station in A
or B could attract enough listeners to be viable. A national radio service that
reaches listeners in both cities, however, will produce jazz, because the national
radio service reaches 200 jazz listeners, which more than covers the fixed costs of
its jazz service."
Posted by: Keith at Oct 4, 2007 12:45:46 PM
As someone who is 6'8" and wears a size 15 shoe, I sympathize with the Native Americans in the Slate article. (By the way, according to Census figures, the percentage of the population over 6'4" (0.8%) is about the same as the Native American population (0.7%).) Growing up it was very difficult to find shoes, shirts, pants, and nearly anything in my size. As noted by "Josh", this is no longer true. The innovation of the market has driven down the costs of all transactions to the point where idiosyncratic preferences are much easier to satisfy today than in the past. I can get size 15 in nearly any shoe; I can satisfy my preference for antique Geology books by using the Web to buy books in Japan or Spain; I can listen to old-time country music on the computer or satellite radio. There may be some markets that are unsatisfied -- when, oh when will Vera Wang make a black cocktail dress in my size!? -- but these are becoming fewer and fewer by the day. Not because of government intervention, but in spite of it. The goal of government policy should be to drive down transaction costs and get out of the way of voluntary exchange. From that all else will (eventually) flow.
Posted by: Todd Henderson at Oct 4, 2007 12:47:18 PM
I haven't read the book, and I believe that Joel W is a smart guy, but that Slate article is just nonsense.
Yeah, pity those Native Americans who didn't have wide shoes until Nike stepped into the breach and...oh, wait. Try a Google search for "wide shoes." You get, oh, about 2.5 million results; the first page is entirely different places to buy wide shoes.
So...the real tyranny isn't that Native Americans couldn't get the wide shoes they've been craving lo these many years but, rather, that they couldn't get the wide Nike shoes they've been craving.
Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for those who are so cruelly oppressed by the market that they are denied cheap, designer shoes built to their specific tastes.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Oct 4, 2007 12:53:34 PM
In what sense is this an advance on the work of Meade?
Meade, James E, 1974. "The Optimal Balance between Economies of Scale and Variety of Products: An Illustrative Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 41(164), pages 359-67, November.
Posted by: tom at Oct 4, 2007 12:56:30 PM
In what sense is this an advance on the work of Meade?
Meade, James E, 1974. "The Optimal Balance between Economies of Scale and Variety of Products: An Illustrative Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 41(164), pages 359-67, November.
Posted by: tom at Oct 4, 2007 12:56:38 PM
A purer example of academic thumbsucking in the face of our historically unprecedented avalanche of market-driven productivity and choice would be hard to imagine.
What sort of market failure produces people like Joel Waldfogel? Finding an (ethically acceptable) way to fix that would be useful.
Posted by: ZF at Oct 4, 2007 1:14:23 PM
Christ, ZF. You're being a little over the top, no?
Like I said, Waldfogel has a good point and he's actually shown markets where this phenomenon occurs.
It's just that the phenomenon is now rapidly disappearing in many areas. But it certainly likely holds in the case of pharmaceutical research.
Posted by: Keith at Oct 4, 2007 1:20:37 PM
I kept thinking what he is complaining about is the tyranny of scarcity. It seems that the market often does a very good job of mitigating that tyranny.
Posted by: martin at Oct 4, 2007 1:23:37 PM
I'll add my voice. This concept is nonsense.
Posted by: dave smith at Oct 4, 2007 1:28:07 PM
I really want a 200,000,000 dollar blockbuster with special effects and top actors/actress about my life story.
I guess the market sucks for not giving it to me.
Seriously, I thought that the beauty of the market was that it ensures that my movie, who would only be seen my me and my mother, would never get made.
Posted by: dave smith at Oct 4, 2007 1:30:56 PM
It seems to me that Adam Smith already laid this point out. The diversity of goods produced is dependent on the extent of the market. No one has claimed that the market is a genie in a bottle. Though it is an oasis that frees you from a type of tyranny. If you could not exchange your labor for others', you would be left poor and desperate.
For an economist to fail to see the glory of that freedom, save the counterfactual of no market, is depressing. Do you think we could petition his PhD granting institution to rescind his degree?
Posted by: Richard Pointer at Oct 4, 2007 1:46:40 PM
I can't get my head around how bad this is. Richard Pointer's point is very good.
Also, if I remember from my IO classes, most people critize markets becuase they provide too much variety.
Posted by: dave smith at Oct 4, 2007 1:50:04 PM
Hold the presses! MR commenters dismiss arguments sceptical of markets; find their beliefs confirmed.
I have to wonder why some people bother reading the one-page article. Of course, you could ask why I read this comment thread and had my own prejudices confirmed about MR commenters, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: tom s. at Oct 4, 2007 1:50:05 PM
free-market economists have told us for decades that we should rely on market decisions, not the government, to meet our needs, because it's the market that satisfies everyone's every desire.
This guy is a professional economist? Good grief.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Oct 4, 2007 1:51:48 PM
If you're not familiar with Joel's work, I highly recommend "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas" in AER in the mid-90s. I know it's not the traditional season to break this article out, but Christmas advertising does seem to get earlier every year, does it not?
(And I think this tyranny is a bit of a strange argument...if the total marginal welfare of a new product is less than the total cost (including fixed costs), it should not be produced on efficiency grounds. I feel pretty confident that, at a higher price, one could get Nike's widened by a decent cobbler, so the market is "complete" in that sense. If the argument is just that markets aren't complete for some reason (say, in insurance), then I buy that, but in general I imagine the welfare loss from this is small since otherwise the market would quickly fill in a large gap).
Posted by: cure at Oct 4, 2007 1:56:46 PM
Yeah, the comments have gotten really unfair about a guy who's done good work. Waldfogel really has shown that there are markets where people are more likely to get what they want when there are other people like them in that market.
Now, I think that's rapidly becoming less important as we've seen much lower fixed costs in a wide variety of markets, and Waldfogel himself seems to acknowledge as much.
But geez, people, ease up on the torches and pitchforks, already.
Posted by: Keith at Oct 4, 2007 2:08:51 PM
On the specific point, New Balance makes running shoes that come in widths. The shoe I am wearing right now comes in D, EE, and 4E. Some of their other models come in B.
I know this because my feet are narrow. I fit somewhere between New Balance's B and D. I bought a woman's B, which fits me perfectly.
On the broader point, if government controlled the shoe supply, I doubt they would legislate that New Balance make me a men's C, in the exact size, style and color I want. But other posters have critiqued this thesis better than I can.
Posted by: Phil at Oct 4, 2007 2:09:20 PM
I don't know what Native Americans did for shoes before this shoe, but I bet they weren't barefoot. There market I'm sure was limited in choice and variety, but I bet there were decent substitute shoes. The reason is that if they were willing to pay 3x as much for a shoe as the regular person, someone would step in and make that shoe. The point is that there wasn't a market for a great variety of shoes, at the price they are willing to pay for it.
But it does make me think about, other goods that we actually do require markets to provide. We often provide sellers to offer handicap access to their stores. This access may be costly and unjustified from a profit perspective if the number of handicap people is small, yet, there is something about freedom of access appealing about it. Milton Friedman (who I greatly respect) was against protection of consumers against race discrimination and presumably (though I'm not sure) against forcing the market to provide handicap access. He thought it was wrong to make us pay for such things, and he thought government would do such a lousy job (regulating badly, too often) that the costs would outweigh the benefit.
I don't think the government should force the market to make a larger variety of shoes for people with big feet (just as I don't think it should keep my beloved Sorkin shows on the air), but handicap access is something I think about a lot. In some ways, it is very similar.
Posted by: Charlie at Oct 4, 2007 2:21:35 PM
I too was seriously disappointed with the article. Didn't we just not too long ago have a book called "The Long Tail" that showed how smaller and smaller niches are getting served more and more often? Where's the beef?
Special thanks to Bob Montgomery (12:53pm) for saving me time by typing exactly what I was thinking. Come on Waldfogel, were these Indians shoeless before Nike "belatedly" came along? What was the population size, 1.5 million? Aren't there any Indian entrepreneurs who are astute enough to see and fill such a huge market? Perhaps the reason Nike didn't enter the market is because it already was being filled.
As far as diseases/viruses that "too few" people have, and therefore it isn't profitable enough to fund for-profit research on, I think it makes more sense for the private for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and the government sector, to focus on mitigating as much pain and "premature" (whatever that means) death as possible for as many people as possible. Where is the logic in anyone (excepting the afflicted themselves and their loved ones) funding research to find a cure for a disease that afflicts perhaps 500 people a year when there is another disease that is as promising or unpromising to find a solution to that afflicts 500,000 people a year? (The argument works for any size group).
There is no market failure here, unless you think that the lack of living a painless life for eternity is a market failure. Government action on the other hand would be more likely in the absence of market agents to fulfill the funding requests of the squeakiest wheels, not the wheels most likely to be helped by reasearch dollars or the wheels most in need of help (i.e. the most numerous categories).
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Oct 4, 2007 2:24:53 PM
Mr. Waldfogel's argument is not unfamiliar to me. I was taught economics in college by professors that were proudly self labeled as "heterdox" and I remember hearing arguments along these lines from just about every member of the department. In fact one teacher pointed towards Swedish media policy as being highly desirable precisely because the government subsidized plurality within the media. Meaning if the conservative or liberal paper of the time was going broke, the government would save them in the interest of promoting "plurality." I dont know, I have always fond the argument that we live in a world of scarce resources to be rather compelling. Perhaps, Mr. Waldfogel's and my professors think there is a bit more abundance in the world than we would like to believe.
I would also argue that Mr. Waldfogel's point is really a non starter for one major reason. Markets promote diversity in perception and cater to a wide variety of tastes in small bites. Meaning that entrepreneurs usually work with much smaller chunks of capital in order to bring goods and services to the market. If their ideas are profitable then a socially optimal chain of events has taken place and the firm can evolve in a manner that allows them to produce goods and services with higher fixed costs. Governments on the other hand do not operate in a context that makes decision makers fully responsible for errors in judgment. As a result, you get a higher degree of capital outlays that are more perceptible to failure.
Posted by: John Pertz at Oct 4, 2007 3:39:04 PM
I'm a bicyclist, and often disappointed as designs I like fall out of favor. Bicycling technology is very trend-driven, and moves in waves. So yeah, I get the idea. You can get what you want, as long is what everyone else wants in this 'wave.'
Might be a good domain for someone researching this ...
Posted by: odograph at Oct 4, 2007 3:50:37 PM
From the article: "...because it's the market that satisfies everyone's every desire."
I think this is the author's primary misunderstanding of not only markets, but the way the world works. Markets don't meet "everyone's every desire" because of scarcity. Scarcity is a fundamental fact of life. Government involvement cannot do away with it. The question is how efficiently scarce resources are allocated, and I doubt anyone really believes the government is competent in that regard.
Posted by: David at Oct 4, 2007 3:54:00 PM
I forgot to add that for people who like products which do not have a market, technology is easing your surely painful life. The book "The Long Tail" discusses this.
Posted by: David at Oct 4, 2007 3:56:57 PM
The long tail works now for information items, and I suppose some would argue that low-cost fabs will make this 'around the corner' for physical goods.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 4, 2007 4:13:22 PM
I agree with those who thought the Slate piece was overblown.
Fixed costs are a fact of life, but they're not "tyranny" and they are not caused by "the market." If anything, the opposite is true...the market prevents tyranny, and finds ways to lower fixed costs.
Posted by: ed at Oct 4, 2007 4:18:56 PM
Re-reading the comments, I think many are taking this in a strange way. I think a globalized market is the best way to provide goods and services to-and-from all of us. That doesn't mean it is perfect, or that we can't acknowledge the ying with the yang.
The bicycle market is yielding crazy improvements. My new mountain bike has hydraulic disc brakes! Who woulda' thought? On the other hand, my desired bike was no longer available with rim brakes (high quality rim brakes were always good enough for me).
The market provides a lot of neat stuff ... or as the Rolling Stones continue ... "And if you try sometime you find, You get what you need"
Posted by: odograph at Oct 4, 2007 4:42:42 PM
It's just that the phenomenon is now rapidly disappearing in many areas. But it certainly likely holds in the case of pharmaceutical research..
Actually this is changing in the pharmaceutical world too, with the rise of personalized medicine and digial R&D technologies. Drug researchers are giving more attention to drug therapies aimed at smaller markets, and this seems to hold much promise not only for users in small markets, but those in larger ones as well.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Oct 4, 2007 4:58:02 PM
I bet it was because the Indians prefered $50 shoes that did not fit to $500 shoes that fit.
Posted by: Floccina at Oct 4, 2007 5:21:02 PM
in a world of scarcity, some preferences are more important than others. those preferences will be catered to and others will not. that's just a fact of life. markets are just another way of ranking those preferences, and it does a good job of doing so. if there is any 'tyranny' it is the tyranny of scarcity and an unfair universe. most of us get over this and move on. it seems like waldfogel can't, and blames markets when he should blame god.
Posted by: quitacet at Oct 4, 2007 10:46:09 PM
The recent issue of Wired poked fun at this new breed of trashy economic best-sellers. On page 54 of the October 2007 issue:
"How a Catchy Title and Argumentative Premise on a Transparent Trust Will Change Your Business, the Web, Culture, and Your Bank Balance Forever.
I agree with the poster who said this guy's Ph.D should be put in jeopardy. I'd like to hear Justin Wolfers explain why he finds his "friend's" theory interesting. I don't see as anything other than a transparent attempt to profit from the economic ignorance of the masses.
Posted by: Anthony at Oct 4, 2007 11:18:05 PM
The recent issue of Wired poked fun at this new breed of trashy economic best-sellers. On page 54 of the October 2007 issue:
"How a Catchy Title and Argumentative Premise on a Transparent Trust Will Change Your Business, the Web, Culture, and Your Bank Balance Forever.
I agree with the poster who said this guy's Ph.D should be put in jeopardy. I'd like to hear Justin Wolfers explain why he finds his "friend's" theory interesting. I don't see as anything other than a transparent attempt to profit from the economic ignorance of the masses.
Posted by: Anthony at Oct 4, 2007 11:19:51 PM
This book looks like it posits market imperfection without providing a viable remedy, except for the implied remedy of government intervention.
It's like a doctor telling someone "the problem is, you can't fly," with the implied remedy of jumping off a roof.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Oct 4, 2007 11:53:54 PM
"This book looks like it posits market imperfection without providing a viable remedy, except for the implied remedy of government intervention."
No, I think you guys see regulators behind every tree. That's what I meant when I said above, "I think many are taking this in a strange way."
I really don't think some of you can read this at face value, you are too used to looking between the lines for your mortal enemies.
(i love markets!)
Posted by: odograph at Oct 5, 2007 9:50:49 AM
That article does a disservice to economics and to markets by assuming markets are something other than what they are and that their justification is defined by a secondary characteristic. First, markets don't actually "do" anything, people do. Second, efficiency and satisfaction of individual wants is a secondary characteristic of a system whose salient characteristic is relatively unrestricted individual choices; a system in which individuals are able to think and act in the widest possible scope.
Indeed, it is possible that the entire notion of "market failure" is a straw man reflecting no more than personal disappointment, or unsatisfied want, because someone else has not yet found a profitable means for its satisfaction.
Posted by: Al Abbott at Oct 5, 2007 11:59:14 AM
This article describes what anyone who spends any time in a market economy will see ... but perhaps we shouldn't talk about it, because we are insecure in our belief in markets ... and must uphold the myth that they are perfect?
You guys are coming across very strongly as ideologues, rather than as 'market players' enjoying the benefits (and the idiosyncrasies) of the system.
And of course this is about "personal disappointment, or unsatisfied want" ... perhaps by those who do not put ideology first.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 5, 2007 12:51:45 PM
odograph: "I think you guys see regulators behind every tree."
I haven't read the book, odograph. But I followed the link to my Wharton School's review of it and found:
"According to Waldfogel, his arguments, though not revolutionary, buck the popular wisdom that government involvement in markets is automatically bad."
and
"According to Waldfogel, there are no pat answers or simplistic formulas to determine the correct balance between free markets and government intervention."
Yeah, I see a regulator lurking behind those sentences.
Posted by: John Dewey at Oct 5, 2007 1:19:20 PM
OK, that's a hint, I'll give you that.
On the other hand, they seem the voice of moderation. They neither endorse the mythic happiness of the socialist utopia, nor the kind of libertarian fantasy only found in (and best left in) bad novels(*).
A regulated market economy, which remains "mostly market" is proving to be the best thing humans can arrange. It succeeds world-wide, while more ideological extremes fail, falter, or need adjustment. Those who have read that old P.J. O'Rourke book, Holidays In Hell, surely get that.
* - ok, some good novels, but that was a fun line to type.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 5, 2007 1:51:44 PM
When an economist argues that public libraries succeed when bookstores fail to meet the needs of the marketplace, I suspect he hasn't done enough homework.
Waldfogel refers to less populous and less rich sections of cities, meaning the low income areas of cities, of course. In my early days as a book dealer, I visited thrift stores in those low income areas. It was fun picking up 25 cent bargains that low income folks left on shelves for weeks to gather dust. It's not the private bookstores that failed to meet market needs, it's the public school systems.
Waldfogel is wrong to conclude that lack of large bookstores in a section of town indicates a problem with market distribution. For those persons living in areas which lack demand for large bookstores, "the market" has created a solution: AMAZON.COM. UPS and USPS deliver books on demand right to front doors.
Waldfogel is also wrong to claim market failure when a large newspaper, in his opinion, fails to cater to the interests of minority populations. Minority newspapers spring up everywhere there is sufficient demand. Many large newspapers now offer Spanish language editions. Most large newspapers include localized coverage. Market forces have even driven the development of minority news websites. Those are the market solution for small populations that Waldfogel apparently cannot see.
Posted by: john dewey at Oct 5, 2007 2:55:44 PM
Doesn't Waldfogel himself praise on-line book sellers?
"Waldfogel says there are some business-to-the-rescue stories, where technology and other advances are addressing the downsides to the market. On-line booksellers and movie purveyors can offer more titles for a wider variety of tastes than your neighborhood book or video store. [...]"
(from the last link in the article above)
FWIW, I think the best word from that article is the word "messy", as in:
"The Tyranny of the Market is based on academic papers that Waldfogel wrote over the past decade. He says he has repeatedly made the argument to his fellow economists that markets share some messy features of politics and are far from perfect."
Human societies are messy, an no one human endeavor (markets?) is perfect.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 5, 2007 3:32:01 PM
The people that say the market tyranny doesnt allow them to make choices is the same saying that the market is evil because there are to many options.And choices make you unhappy.Give me a break
Posted by: jean at Oct 5, 2007 4:06:47 PM
and free market all around the world would allow a 6 billions or more market place wher would be easier to find enough people to make goods affordable no matter how exclusive your tastes are
Posted by: jean at Oct 5, 2007 4:12:33 PM
"Doesn't Waldfogel himself praise on-line book sellers?"
Well, he praises on-line booksellers in one place. In another place he claims public libraries fill a need that bookstores ignored, though brick and mortar booksellers have long offered online services.
Public libraries are ineffective at rationing scarce resources. Patrons are not charged for checking out and making unavailable books they do not read. No incentives encourage early returns of books others may desire.
Rationing is the problem for all free public services, right?
Posted by: John Dewey at Oct 5, 2007 5:23:56 PM
I'd think the quality and distribution of libraries are another example of messiness. In my experience wealthier towns (those in least need of them) have the best libraries.
Posted by: odograph at Oct 5, 2007 6:34:33 PM
Posted by: aizheng at Oct 8, 2007 2:10:52 AM
Though still unconvinced of the unfettered free market argument so often put forward on these pages, I fail to see what good government intervention would do is this case. Nobody is accusing Nike of discrimination and I heard of no news stories of American Indians protesting the lack of stylish footwear. What is not answered is why Nike started to make the shoes. There is a reference in the Slate article that "according to the Associated Press, the new sneaker "represents less of a financial opportunity than a goodwill and branding effort."" I doubt this as it would be a very limited branding effort and is more likely a change in manufacturing and distribution technology.
Posted by: BrianDRPM at Oct 8, 2007 6:55:25 PM
