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 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.