avidamoeba

They should. If their socioeconomic system truly is more people-oriented than the western and given its size, then this would be a great showcase.

You know, as time passes I get the feeling that this "space of externalities >>> the market space" might indeed be the case, or otherwise put that the free market fails to allocate resources efficiently more often than it succeeds. I just don't know if there's any empirical evidence for it and therefore I didn't want to add much of my opinion. Just the mainstream economic view of externalities coupled with a few obvious and massive examples like climate change paints a decent picture.

Do you know of any analysis that tries to compare the space of externalities vs the space of the market?

While that's true, the climate crisis is underpinned by decades of centrist policy which has let corporations delay and evade climate action while reaping economic gains that didn't reach the vast majority of people. The same majority who already pay for these externalities and are due to pay way more. So I'm afraid that centrism cannot solve the problems it created. Instead whoever wants to solve the root cause has to shift left and lift workers over capital. Failing that, right wing populism in power becomes inevitable, because the status quo is untenable and only getting more so. We've played this game before but this time the stakes are significantly higher.

The best clip on the Internet today.

That's half of it. But it's worse than that. You're considering the case where a non-zero price would fund existing projects that need work. Now consider how much value FOSS could create if we paid enough for it so that more people went to produce more of it. Microsoft wouldn't exist today or it would use FOSS and either way everyone would pay way less for MS or MS-equivalent enterprise products. There would be a ton of freed up resources that could go towards other useful endeavors. But who am I kidding, they'd go into stock buybacks. 🫠

See my other comment for more detail.

In the free market economic model it's generally assumed that prices of things, including wages, investment, accurately represent the value of what's being produced. An ideal free market has everything about a product expressed in its price. In reality markets often misprice things. That is the price determined by the market for a product is lower or higher than it should be. There are many reasons for that and they're considered market failure, because the market fails to price things correctly which then means it fails to allocate resources efficiently - one of its primary features. This means for example that something is too expensive and we produce too little of it as a result of the other way around. Externalities are a type of mispricing where there's negative or positive effects, or value, of a product which isn't reflected at all in its price. For example, until recently the CO2 emitted by manufacturing of most things wasn't factored in the prices of anything. As a result, say the price of shipping is lower than what it should be. As a result we ship more than what we would have otherwise. As a result there's more wildfires. As a result populations near wildfires lose their homes and their insurance skyrockets. They're paying costs that should have been part of the shipping prices which would have reduced the amount of shipping we do, or made shipping invest in low carbon technology, etc. The market however failed to allocate this cost into the price of shipping, thus producing an externality. Since this externality is an additional cost compared to the price, it's a negative externality. A positive externality is one where there's additional benefit that's not reflected into the price of a product. In the case of free open source software, a lot of it is priced at 0. At the same time there's vast numbers of businesses built upon FOSS. Since the market prices FOSS at 0, most of them pay 0 and we end up with unmaintained OpenSSL libraries. Perhaps more importantly, we end up having less FOSS produced than what would be optimal for the economy. For example we end up having most firms pay Microsoft significant profit margins for their products instead of paying significantly lower prices for FOSS which would have generated the investment needed to develop better alternatives to MS'es products. And that's the market failure that leads to underinvestment in FOSS.

Now I'm not in any way saying that the free market is a tool that is actually capable of allocating these resources efficiently and that "something is done to it" which causes it to fail. If anything, FOSS is a great example of the inherent inability for the free market to efficiently allocate resources in many cases. You know, in case the climate crisis wasn't a good enough example. 😅

On a related note, FOSS suffers from massive positive externality market failure. As a result we underinvest in it.

🙌

It might not be. If your fingerprints are physically changing, then an accurate scanner should not recognize a fingerprint that's changed after the fact. If anything you're looking for a less accurate scanner to help with this issue. But a less accurate scanner could let others in your phone too.

A family member is a massage therapist and no fingerprint reader has managed to recognize their fingers. Not even the old capacitive types in the rear. They don't even recognize there's a fingerprint present. It's like tapping with a wiener.

I find Windows significantly less convenient than Linux. It took a few years for my mindset to flip but there's just no going back. Whenever something requires me to use Windows, I reach for a Windows virtual machine. Whenever I've been forced to use a Windows or a Mac machine for work, I've reached for a Linux virtual machine.

And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example dollars backed by future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn't exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn't, without causing inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc).

In fiat economies financial capital isn't a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens' money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn't hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don't need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There's no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government's "printing press."

Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they're not as easily replaceable. That's why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they're knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they're people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn't ideal. If we assume the latter, then it's a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they're not essential for economic growth.