Hello Skot,

Thank you again for thoughtful comments. I know that markets are a person-made construct. If it were not then animals would also be transacting, and they do not. If markets were 'natural' then in a situation in which an airplane crashes into an icy winter river, and as survivors emerge from the plane, there would be people standing on the shore bartering with the people in need of rescue over the correct price of their lives. The survivor who bid highest for services would be rescued first. That would then be the market clearing price. And then the auction would start again for the next survivor. And so on.

This very situation happened with a plane crash in Washington, D.C. in the early 1980s. Markets did not spontaneously arise. Instead, people, in total defiance of rational expectations jumped into the river to rescue people with no possibility of reward. Not all of these people were paid professionals whose jobs asked of them to make such a sacrifice. Some of the erstwhile rescuers died. Some did not. When the surviving rescuers were asked why they did what they did they did not bring up market clearing prices. Now, if markets are natural, why didn't they arise in this critical economic exchange? Why in all such situations do they not arise? The reason is that these are contexts for which markets are not designed. And as soon as we use that word context then we have the critical intellectual separation from the subject that allows us to recognize that they are tools for a job. The question is: for what jobs are they tools. That is what the series has been about.

Next point, if, at any time, we as people can only imagine one singular possibility it is a sure sign of a behavioral bias. I would argue that Hayek and socialists, both ( they are lumped together by me in this instance) are quite guilty of confirmation bias.

Final point. The meaning of the word 'absolute' is similar to the word 'infinity.' By definition, anything less than infinity, has a defined context - only infinity includes all contexts, including non-contexts. Are you saying markets are infinite? Probably not. And if you are, then I would love to hear your market-based, capitalist-based model of explaining the strong nuclear force. Chances are you agree that this is not an appropriate context for markets. I agree. I also think that within economics - simply the exchange of resources - markets are not always the best solution. Again, see the rescue situation above. My series has featured multiple examples of contexts in which markets fail. I believe the most powerful example I provided was that of sea level rises. Here I am not making a claim as to the causality of sea level rises. But they are measurably higher. The current trend, with little deviation, is for them to continue to rise. From the perspective of the sea wall construction company's investors this is a wonderful outcome. But from the perspective of the entire economy it is a disaster because such an investment diverts capital to an unproductive use. This isn't an externality, it is just that individual markets form around individual products (e.g. sea walls) without relating themselves to other contexts. Ouch!

Markets are wonderful for allocating resources in some contexts, but not in all. That is my only point.

Again, thank you for your comments and discussion.

Jason