So does the private sector what? Did you only read and respond to the first sentence of my comment? I can't figure out what you're responding to.

The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly.

The market, then, is assumed to be rational on average, and thus all participants in the market would make decisions in their own best interest, and thus, obtain the best outcome for themselves that is possible. Those who do not choose optimally is then selected out by economic darwinian competition.

The gov't has a role to play, but it does not follow that _more_ gov't regulation makes for a better society.

This may be true in theory, but we are seeing rather different development in the West. 1) power seems to have a tendency to concentrate, which ultimately leads to corporate oligarchy. 2) most markets have high barrier to entry which breaks the alignment of market and interests 3) the concept of rational markets is not as clear cut as it is often perceived, and most studies have failed to incorporate findings from related to bounded rationality

However, the government's incentive is to stay in power and not let that happen. The tool that government has is regulation.

This is because the private sector can't (for the most part) coerce you to deal with them. If the government can keep a lid on external costs, the private sector has to create value people want or they lose money and go away.

The government can force you to give them your money and obey their laws. This is what makes them uniquely powerful and dangerous. In a democracy they do have to get your vote once in a while, but that's within a framework they mostly create and police, with extremely high barriers to entry and very little reward for doing "the right thing".

It baffles and saddens me that otherwise thinking people can be so eager to hand power and authority to the government. I understand that -- after a lot of thought and reading and with much reluctance -- one could conclude that the government should be given a particular power because the alternatives are worse.

I think your last sentence hits the nail.

We have to remember that "we" have selected the best of bad options. This system is not good and will get worse by time. People have to remember that we must not let power accumulate to specific groups, be it private or public sector. Unfortunately the tendency seems to be towards the opposite of what is "good" for average individuals. If government has too much power it cannot be held accountable, and the interests have disaligned.

This assumption of a rational market has been fucking up people's lives for a long time now. What's it gonna take to put that conceit to bed?

It has lifted the largest amount of people from poverty in the history of the world.

That's a nice bumper sticker, but managed markets and other non-laissez-faire economies, like the ones in India and China, could make a similar claim, even though I wouldn't want to live under them.

The assumption of a benevolent government of experts and moral leaders making decisions for the greater good has killed literally millions of people stolen trillions of dollars in war since WWII, and that's just counting western liberal democracies.

If you don't implicitly trust "the market", and you shouldn't, then you can't trust the government. What's it going to take to convince you that handing over more of your rights and money won't enable the government to solve problems it previously could not have.

"The government should fix that" is no less ridiculous than "the free market could fix that". Which is to say it can occasionally be true with a lot of caveats, and often wrong.

It's super interesting that you immediately started railing against the government, which I didn't even mention. I'm critical of currently-popular economic dogma, and I don't understand why that should imply that I'm some kind of authoritarian socialist.

>The private sector's interest aligns with the market, at least on the average, as long as they are not allowed to illegally obtain a monopoly

This is the basic capitalist lie - Do you think Norfolk Southern's interests align with the "market" of Palestine? On what planet do Amazon drivers have the same incentive alignment a Amazon shareholders? No, the argument is "tough shit" go find some place that does, it's a "free market" just move your entire life any abandon community to follow around making money for a private dictator.

Unfortunately the entire profit or bust ethos isn't constrained to one company - any company that has profit as it's primary driver, aka any public company or VC backed company, MUST pursue profits over all things OR THEY WILL BE KILLED BY THEIR OWN INVESTORS. Further, now it's every individual that is required to pursue profit at all costs or - go broke and die - without healthcare because the "market" of healthcare isn't aligned with you the customer.

This lie is so pervasive that the entire field of Economics ASSUMES capitalism as the only possible economic system today (Economics was my field of study!) and anything other than it is "heterodox."

So no, you're simply describing the devastatingly broken system as though it's the only suitable option

In fact, all of the economists that wrote originally about the "market" described precisely how it would be corrupted into what it is today

Go read Veblen from 1899: Theory of the Leisure class then read chapter three of the wealth of nations and then come talk with me

Corporations with regulatory capture