This seems to be becoming a new one shot attempted refutation of capitalism. In theory capitalism sounds great, BUT because of the asymetry of information it breaks down and fails. Thus we need the state to step in and regulate etc.
Is anyone else hearing this objection?
How would you counter it?
Counter it by telling people that the government is filled with liars and cheats.
But then they'd say reform government and make it more transparent.
The whole point of a market economy is to have different knowledge and skills.
A Note on the Canard of “Asymmetric Information” As a Source of Market Failure, by Thomas DiLorenzo
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae14_2_6.pdf
From two days ago: http://blog.mises.org/18194/quarterly-journal-of-austrian-economics-vol-14-no-2/
TANSTAAFL: This seems to be becoming a new one shot attempted refutation of capitalism. In theory capitalism sounds great, BUT because of the asymetry of information it breaks down and fails. Thus we need the state to step in and regulate etc. Is anyone else hearing this objection? How would you counter it?
If you're talking about the general imperfection of knowledge then t's an extremely foolish argument in the first place. The very reason why markets are efficient is because of the fact that there is generally imperfect information and that therefore those who have correct and more perfect information can attempt to solve market imperfections. This is literally the entire basis for Austrian economics. If information was perfect then socialism would be a perfectly viable, and very slightly prefferable system in terms of economic efficiency.
http://mises.org/daily/5444/The-Implications-of-an-Imperfect-World
If you're talking about the "peaches and lemons" problem it's very simple: Free market regulation. Ebay has built in rating systems for instance, people are generally honest, and free market regulation is a natural process.
Just about the ONLY part of the book "Economics For Real People" that I thought was even worth reading besides the very intro sections on praxeology was the section on regulation
"One source of privately supplied safety information is independent consumer publications, such as Consumer Reports. While they provide consumers with good information today, the demand for safety information, and hence the supply of it, is dampened by the fact that these groups are competing with the “free” consumer information and protection from the government. (It’s not free to us as taxpayers, of course, but since we pay for it whether or not we use it, there is no additional cost in making use of it in our role as consumers.) Some religious or ethnic groups have a tradition of private safety standards as well, such as the “kosher” designation on foods. Or have a look at nearly any electric item you own and you will see a “UL Mark.” It stands for “Underwriters Laboratories.” The UL Mark is applied to as many as 17 billion products every year, to show that the product meets some standard of safety. UL has been providing the service for more than 100 years, long before the regulators got into the business. It’s also completely private, a company with 6,000 employees that examines 20,000 different types of products. Its marks are forced on no one. The existence of organizations like Underwriters Laboratories depends on the fact that most businesses consider it disadvantageous to kill their own customers, both because it will tend to give one a bad name, and because marketing studies have consistently shown the dead to be far less avid consumers than the living."
http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf
Section 14
The simplest means of countering this is to ask: "How do you expect to know everything at all times?"
Just as the future is uncertain, so is present information. Modern technology has improved upon the dissemination of information, but there is still no way for anyone to know everything that is happening at any given point in time. If they did, then, by my own conflation, I would argue that the short-term future is therefore certain to that person (or group of people). At present, given equal access to information, some people acting in the market still speculate outcomes that are proven wrong after the fact.
Asymetrical information is as much a part of life as breathing.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
This is not a new argument. Joseph Stiglitz, for example, became famous for using this sort of argument in pointing out potential problems and rigidities in financial markets. Of course, merely pointing out "inefficiencies" in financial markets, where inefficiency is a sub-optimal condition that does not exist in a ridiculous econometric economic model, does not justify government intrusion. Not only is this the utopian fallacy, but this argument fails to show how government intrusion yields outcomes more efficient relative to those that organically develop in the market and how such interventions avoid this very same problem. In other words, it is a non sequitur.
Additionally, asymmetric information is a condition that exists in all social phenomena; it is not something confined solely to markets (this condition is most prevalent precisely in those economic systems that lack functional markets, i.e., various socialist economies). Either way, Hayek's framework, that he developed during the latter part of his life, is based almost exclusively on this issue; the fact that individuals posses different degrees of knowledge; that individuals often labor under misapprehensions/are incorrect, and that the market process is one of continuous trial and error. He concluded that the price mechanism and the profit/loss constraint are absolutely essential in any rational economic order precisely because this condition is an unavoidable variable in all social interactions.
I would respond by simply saying that if one truly believes that asymmetric information is a serious problem for markets, then one merely misunderstands the purpose of the market and how it functions.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
All this crap about asymmetric information, networking effects, transaction costs, yada yada. It all follows the basic form: "If it weren't for X, then Y, so lets have the government give us Y anyway" Why doesn't X matter? Seriously, why can you just ignore it? I never get an answer. There is no theoretical basis for the statement above. It simply sounds good if you make Y sound fuzzy and pretend like you can get it by assuming that the government will do exactly what you tell it to (specious...).
I'm struck by the similarity between Hayek's knowledge problem (as an argument for the inevitability of the market) and the idea of "asymmetric information". Of course everybody has different information. That's the whole function of prices - prices condense all the available information about relative supply and demand of all goods against all other goods into a single unit of measurement (the monetary unit), which permits calculation.
The implication of the idea of asymmetric information is that markets ought not be "buyer beware." You have the right to buy any good or service and feel assured from the act of purchasing that all the relevant information has been disclosed, etc. etc. When a seedy used car salesman sells you a lemon, he's creating a need for a government to step in and "make things right" again. We need government because we will always have seedy used car salesmen.
This "solution" ignores the other solution, of course. Buyer beware. If you are buying a used car, why shouldn't you have to pay to get it inspected? Why should "society" - aka taxpayers - be on the hook to backstop your laziness and cheapness in foregoing the purchase of a car inspection? Why should the government tax everyone so that when your car breaks down, you can complain to the government about the car dealer's dishonest dealing and "fraud"? Everyone knows that if you're going to buy a home you have to pay an inspector to look at it. There's too much money on the line to rely on the government for this (though building codes and code enforcement play this role, to a degree).
Asymmetric information is bullshit. Almost all information is asymmetric. So what?
Clayton -
TANSTAAFL: How would you counter it?
Define 'symmetric information' and suggest why it would be preferrable to any other type of information? And to whom?
Clayton:Everyone knows that if you're going to buy a home you have to pay an inspector to look at it. There's too much money on the line to rely on the government for this (though building codes and code enforcement play this role, to a degree).
This is tangential to the main point, perhaps, but typically both the bank (in the case of a mortgage) and the homeowner's insurance company will require a prospective home buyer to get an inspection done of the home to be bought. At least, that was the case when I bought my home. The reason, of course, is that they want to be as fully informed about the condition of the home as possible. I see no reason why car insurance companies couldn't do the same thing - indeed, why don't they today?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum