Great post. I only disagree that the anti-market bias derives from economists studying markets and not governments. While economists still have some anti-market bias as you mentioned, they are far less prone to it than other disciplines, including those which study governments. I think the anti-market bias is due to a natural inclination (which Bryan Caplan documents in "Myth of the Rational Voter")
Really interesting analysis !. I'd add one other observation, or perhaps a special case, to the part about assuming markets work great, and otherwise for government to be the saviour. Which is an unhealthy belief in insurance as a way to solve for unseen risks. Having dealt with large insurers and neo insurers as an investor, this is one of the bigger "spherical cow" issues in theoretical models that don't translate to the world.
Great post. I only disagree that the anti-market bias derives from economists studying markets and not governments. While economists still have some anti-market bias as you mentioned, they are far less prone to it than other disciplines, including those which study governments. I think the anti-market bias is due to a natural inclination (which Bryan Caplan documents in "Myth of the Rational Voter")
Absolutely. On net, economists are quite favorable of markets. I was just pointing out one aspect where we actually are pushed against markets.
Really interesting analysis !. I'd add one other observation, or perhaps a special case, to the part about assuming markets work great, and otherwise for government to be the saviour. Which is an unhealthy belief in insurance as a way to solve for unseen risks. Having dealt with large insurers and neo insurers as an investor, this is one of the bigger "spherical cow" issues in theoretical models that don't translate to the world.
Thanks :)
That's a fair point too. If we write down models where all risk is insurable, then we will think risk is insurable. It's a trap.