If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.
I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.
When I say market, Imagine a farmers market. There’s typically booths and such. Now each vendor has a right to have a booth and sell products. Now, let’s pretend that the popular product at this farmers market is a tide pod. The shoppers love to buy the Tide pod and eat it. Even though people get sick, they just love the tide pods so much that they keep coming for more. From a bystander perspective, they would say, “wow you must have a great product! Everyone keeps buying from you!” but in reality the product is poison and the shoppers are irrational. Do you get what I’m giving out?
Yes, but that’s not what “the market” is about, and nobody would ever make the claim that it is.
The market operates in whatever environment it’s in. It’s the job of the people running the market to set the rules, environment and make people follow the rules.
sidenote: That is not true btw. Market stalls cost money, there is limited space available and there are terms and conditions relating to the products you’re allowed to sell and your conduct on the market. If you violate those rules, you don’t get to participate, and the administration running the market doesn’t have to give you a stall. You don’t have an unconditional right to participate.
If and only if, e.g. safety of the customers is something that’s in those conditions, then it becomes a rule that’s part of the environment the market participants have to navigate. But the responsibility for setting those rules is on the administration, not on the market participants.
Define market
It’s an artificially created, partially abstract environment where people buy and sell goods and services, sometimes using money.
I read this as “a created environment where people buy/sell, typically with money”
This is one of the first things addressed in econ classes: people are rational. In that case, the itdependsman’s comment is true. In the case you mentioned (and there are many similar cases), people make irrational choices, making the free market theories less realistic. Economists have to make these kinds of assumptions to make modeling the economy easier, but at the end people’s behaviour is chaotic and may be impossible to model at all.
Edit: behavioural economics is trying to understand the decision making process of individuals, and when they are more (or less) rational.
well then the whole model is wrong. Logically if your axioms are false then the whole argument is invalid.
Most of the time these models apply to the real world. Yes, in the cases where people act irrationally they don’t work. But a lot of economic phenomena can be explained through these simplified models.
“in the cases” makes it sound like irrationality is rare. It’s not rare. It’s always. Maybe the models have some sort of predictive power, but the explanation for why they work is faulty