The law of property determines who owns something, but the market determines how it will be used.
We must first note that economic factors are taken into account in a world in which ignorance, prejudice, and mental confusion, encouraged rather than dispelled by the political organization, exert a strong influence on policy making.
Interpretation
What this quote means
Economic policies are heavily influenced by societal issues like ignorance and prejudice. Understanding these factors is crucial for effective decision-making.
Ronald Coase highlights the intricate relationship between economic decision-making and the social and political contexts in which it occurs. He argues that before formulating policies, it's essential to recognize the pervasive ignorance and prejudice that can misguide political organizations, ultimately affecting the outcomes of economic policies. This underscores the importance of clarity and informed discourse in shaping effective and just economic practices.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
During a debate on economic policy, one might refer to this quote to highlight the importance of informed decision-making.
More from Ronald Coase
All quotes →Roughly speaking, when you are dealing with business firms operating in a competitive system, you can assume that they're going to act rationally. Why? Because someone in a firm who buys things at $10 and sells them for $8.00 isn't going to last very long in that firm.
During the two centuries since the publication of 'The Wealth of Nations,' the main activity of economists, it seems to me, has been to fill the gaps in Adam Smith's system, to correct his errors and to make his analysis vastly more exact.
Similar quotes
There's no reason to think that_x000D_ markets always drive people to_x000D_ what's good for them.
If stability and efficiency required that there existed markets that extended infinitely far into the future - and these markets clearly did not exist - what assurance do we have of the stability and efficiency of the capitalist system?
protected businesses never, never become competitive ... Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons, KPMG, RTI, Blackwater and all other U.S. corporations that were in Iraq to take advantage of the reconstruction were part of a vast protectionist racket whereby the U.S. government had created their markets with war, barred their competitors from even entering the race, then paid them to do the work, while guaranteeing them a profit to boot - all at taxpayer expense.
If farming were to be organised like the stock market, a farmer would sell his farm in the morning when it was raining, only to buy it back in the afternoon when the sun came out.
The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 ... Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government.
The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of the recession because that would just suck up and take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.