Yes, there are many other ways in which (according to Moldbug et al) government interference causes business irrationality. After all, Moldbug’s favourite thinker Thomas Carlyle popularised the term “red tape” as a metaphor for bureaucratic procedure.
However, the excerpt that I quoted deals exclusively with the idea that government intervention (usually disguised through the concept of loan guarantees, but overt in times of recession) in the banking system causes business irrationality, because if the banking system isn’t subject to the discipline of profit then this lack of profit-discipline contaminates the private sector via the loans that the banking system provides.
I was disappointed that user:quanticle was upvoted for responding, “That’s true...for the banking sector”—this suggests that he didn’t make a reasonable attempt to understand the excerpt, because although readers are welcome to disagree with it in an intelligent and thoughtful way, clearly his interpretation is simply an error of comprehension.
He could be talking about that, but he attributes all lasting business irrationality to government interference. There are plenty of other sources.
Yes, there are many other ways in which (according to Moldbug et al) government interference causes business irrationality. After all, Moldbug’s favourite thinker Thomas Carlyle popularised the term “red tape” as a metaphor for bureaucratic procedure.
However, the excerpt that I quoted deals exclusively with the idea that government intervention (usually disguised through the concept of loan guarantees, but overt in times of recession) in the banking system causes business irrationality, because if the banking system isn’t subject to the discipline of profit then this lack of profit-discipline contaminates the private sector via the loans that the banking system provides.
I was disappointed that user:quanticle was upvoted for responding, “That’s true...for the banking sector”—this suggests that he didn’t make a reasonable attempt to understand the excerpt, because although readers are welcome to disagree with it in an intelligent and thoughtful way, clearly his interpretation is simply an error of comprehension.