Correct me if I'm wrong ... but 'the invisible hand of the market', the concept itself, is meant to work as a countermeasure against any individual trying to exploit the system, is it not? It's basically ensuring optimal prices/supply/demand while people pursue their self interests. The whole point is that no one can get away with taking big chucks of money at once. So, I assume we are supposed to work against the invisible hand in this game.
I believe what you're describing is a Keynesian countermeasure to the unbridled free market. As Adam Smith would contend in his Wealth of Nations, the "Invisible Hand" is the concept that the free market fulfills all the duties and needs of a nation's populace far more efficaciously than previous economic paradigms.
Thank you for the clarification friend. Much appreciated. I think I was a bit vague when I was trying to define the invisible hand. I do understand the distinction between 'letting the invisible hand to the work' and the 'Keynesian school of economics (which proposes government intervention)'. What I meant by "countermeasures against exploits" was that this is the result of a the invisible hand at work, not that it is an independent body working with agency against exploits. In other words, if you let the free market work, it will self-regulate. Probably my poor wording caused the ambiguity. So based on that I concluded that in a free market, at least in its purest form (which doesn't exist), you can't expect any sort of "get rich fast" scenario. Coincidentally that seems to be the theme of this game. I could be wrong though. It's been a while 😅
A theoretical entirely unregulated free market governed by the "invisible hand" only would be the ideal climate in which to get rich quick. Without anti-trust legislation, consumer fraud protection, corporate liability, etc. an amoral actor in such an environment could extract profit to a maximum extent.
How though? In the system you described, wouldn't this "amoral actor" require at least some level of exceptional resources or the support of an external force to have the upper hand and upset the balance? I did a little reading up on the 'ways to exploit the free market' and based on what I found, most criticisms on the model seem to stem from the fact that a 'truly free market' is not realistically feasible. In other words it would only remain theoretical.
A good example of how this could be achieved in a relatively unregulated free market would be the Gilded Age of the USA wherein an exceptionally clever so-called "robber baron" could accumulate vast resources in a short period of time. Suppose one such individual were to shrewdly reinvest profits in vertical and horizontal integration of a particularly vital sector of a larger national and international economy. Carnegie Steel would be the best example of this type of entrepreneurial endeavor by an individual actor that I can recall extemporaneously.
https://youtu.be/MSxmEs3VoUg
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but 'the invisible hand of the market', the concept itself, is meant to work as a countermeasure against any individual trying to exploit the system, is it not?
It's basically ensuring optimal prices/supply/demand while people pursue their self interests. The whole point is that no one can get away with taking big chucks of money at once.
So, I assume we are supposed to work against the invisible hand in this game.
I think I was a bit vague when I was trying to define the invisible hand.
I do understand the distinction between 'letting the invisible hand to the work' and the 'Keynesian school of economics (which proposes government intervention)'. What I meant by "countermeasures against exploits" was that this is the result of a the invisible hand at work, not that it is an independent body working with agency against exploits. In other words, if you let the free market work, it will self-regulate.
Probably my poor wording caused the ambiguity.
So based on that I concluded that in a free market, at least in its purest form (which doesn't exist), you can't expect any sort of "get rich fast" scenario. Coincidentally that seems to be the theme of this game.
I could be wrong though. It's been a while 😅
In the system you described, wouldn't this "amoral actor" require at least some level of exceptional resources or the support of an external force to have the upper hand and upset the balance?
I did a little reading up on the 'ways to exploit the free market' and based on what I found, most criticisms on the model seem to stem from the fact that a 'truly free market' is not realistically feasible. In other words it would only remain theoretical.