Nobel Laureate Economists Say Free Market Competition Rewards Deception and Manipulation

What markets and government do for us

Share with your friends

More share buttons
Share on Pinterest

By George Akerlof and Robert Shiller

It’s “the economy, stupid!” said James Carville, campaign advisor to presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. He wanted to stick it to President George H. W. Bush for an array of economic problems that were tied to the economic recession that started during the Bush presidency. Well, we have a different, broader interpretation of Carville’s statement: that many of our problems come from the nature of the economic system itself. If business people behave in the purely selfish and self-serving way that economic theory assumes, our free-market system tends to spawn manipulation and deception. The problem is not that there are a lot of evil people. Most people play by the rules and are just trying to make a good living. But, inevitably, the competitive pressures for businessmen to practice deception and manipulation in free markets lead us to buy, and to pay too much for, products that we do not need; to work at jobs that give us little sense of purpose; and to wonder why our lives have gone amiss.

We wrote this essay as admirers of the free-market system, but hoping to help people better find their way in it. The economic system is filled with trickery, and everyone needs to know that. We all have to navigate this system in order to maintain our dignity and integrity, and we all have to find inspiration to go on despite craziness all around us. We wrote this essay for consumers, who need to be vigilant against a multitude of tricks played on them. We wrote it for businesspeople, who feel depressed at the cynicism of some of their colleagues and trapped into following suit out of economic necessity. We wrote it for government officials, who undertake the usually thankless task of regulating business. We wrote it for the volunteers, the philanthropists, the opinion leaders, who work on the side of integrity. And we wrote it for young people, looking ahead to a lifetime of work and wondering how they can find personal meaning in it. All these people will benefit from a study of phishing equilibrium — of economic forces that build manipulation and deception into the system unless we take courageous steps to fight it. We also need stories of heroes, people who out of personal integrity (rather than for economic gain) have managed to keep deception in our economy down to livable levels. We will tell plenty of stories of these heroes.

Products of Free Markets

The late nineteenth century was a busy time for inventors: the automobile, the telephone, the bicycle, the electric light. But another invention of the time has received much less attention: the “slot machine.” Slot machine in the beginning did not have its present-day connotation. The term referred to any sort of “vending machine”: you deposited your coin in a slot; you got to open a box. By the 1890s slot machines were selling chewing gum, cigars and cigarettes, opera glasses, chocolate rolls in individual paper wrappers, even quick looks at the precursor-to-the-phone-book city directories— all manner of things. The basic innovation was a lock activated by the deposit of a coin.

But then a new use was discovered. It wasn’t long before slot machines began to include gambling machines. A newspaper of the time dates the appearance of slot machines in this modern sense to 1893. One of those early machines rewarded winners with fruit candy rather than money; it was not long before everybody ascribed special meaning to that rare coincidence: the appearance of three cherries.

Before the 1890s were over, a new kind of addiction, to gambling slot machines, had been born. In 1899 the Los Angeles Times reported, “In almost every saloon may be found from one to half a dozen of these machines, which are surrounded by a crowd of players from morning to night…. Once the habit is acquired it becomes almost a mania. Young men may be seen working these machines for hours at a time. They are sure to be the losers in the end.”

Get Evonomics in your inbox

Then the regulators stepped in. Slot machines were ruining so many people’s lives they had to be outlawed, or at least regulated, along with gambling more generally. They disappeared from public life, relegated almost entirely to the fringe: to special places designated as casinos, and to loosely regulated Nevada, where slot machines are widely to be found in supermarkets, gas stations, and airports; the average adult spends 4 percent of income on gambling, nine times the US national average.  But even in Nevada there are some limits: in 2010 the Nevada Gaming Control Board rejected a proposal to allow convenience store customers to take credit on a slot machine, rather than their usual change.

With computerization, the slot machine has entered a new career. Following the title of the 2012 book by MIT’s Natasha Schüll, the new machines are addictive by design. Mollie, whom Schüll met at Gamblers Anonymous in Las Vegas, demonstrates the human side of this addiction. Mollie drew for Schüll a map that represents how she sees herself. It shows her as a lonely stick figure, standing by a slot machine, surrounded— entrapped— by a circular road. That road connects six of the most important places in her life: the MGM Grand, where she works as a reservationist; three spots where she gambles; the site of Gamblers Anonymous, where she tries to cure her gambling; and, finally, the site where she picks up medicine to fight her anxiety disorder. Mollie is fully aware of her problem: she does not go to the slots with an expectation of winning. She knows she will lose. Rather, she is drawn by a compulsion. And when she gets there on her binges, she is solitary; the action is rapid and continuous. Mollie goes into what she calls “the zone.” Press the red button. The lights and the show come on. She wins or loses. Press the red button one more time. And one more time. And one more time. Again. And again. And again … until the money is all gone. Mollie is not some outlier in Vegas. Ten years ago deaths due to cardiac arrest were an especially serious problem in the casinos. The emergency crews could not get through. Finally, the casinos created their own specially trained defibrillation teams. One surveillance video shows why such special training was necessary. In the video, as a squad from the casino defibrillates the heart arrest of a fellow player, the surrounding players play on, their trance unperturbed, even though the victim is literally at their feet.

What Markets Do for Us

The history of the slot-machine-good/ slot-machine-bad from the 1890s to the present illustrates our dual view of our market economy. Most fundamentally, we applaud markets. Free markets are products of peace and freedom, flourishing in stable times when people do not live in fear. But the same profit motive that produced those boxes that opened and gave us something we wanted has also produced slot machines with an addictive turn of the wheel that takes your money for the privilege. Almost all of this book will be figuratively about slot-machines-bad, rather than about slot-machines-good: because as reformers both of economic thought and of the economy we seek to change not what is right with the world, but rather what is wrong. But before we begin, we should reflect on what markets do for us.

To do so, it is useful to take a long perspective and return to that era of the late nineteenth/ early twentieth century. In December 1900, in The Ladies Home Journal civil engineer John Elfreth Watkins Jr. participated in the sport of predicting what life would be like one hundred years hence. He predicted we would have “hot and cold air [coming] from spigots.” We would have fast ships that would get us “to England in two days.” “There will be airships,” mainly used by the military, but sometimes for passengers and freight. “Grand opera will be telephoned to private homes and will sound as harmonious as though enjoyed from a theatre box.” The predictions go on.

Watkins described his predictions as seeming “strange, almost impossible”; but, remarkably, free markets, with their incentives to produce what people want, as long as a profit can be made, have made his predictions come true, and more.

However, free markets do not just deliver this cornucopia that people want. They also create an economic equilibrium that is highly suitable for economic enterprises that manipulate or distort our judgment, using business practices that are analogous to biological cancers that make their home in the normal equilibrium of the human body. The slot machine is a blunt example. It is no coincidence that before they were regulated and outlawed slot machines were so common that they were unavoidable. Insofar as we have any weakness in knowing what we really want, and also insofar as such a weakness can be profitably generated and primed, markets will seize the opportunity to take us in on those weaknesses. They will zoom in and take advantage of us. They will phish us for phools.

Of Phish and Phool

The word phish, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was coined in 1996 as the Web was getting established. That dictionary defines phish as “To perpetrate a fraud on the Internet in order to glean personal information from individuals, esp. by impersonating a reputable company; to engage in online fraud by deceptively ‘angling’ for personal information.” 11 We are creating a new, broader meaning for the word phish here. We take the computer definition as a metaphor. Rather than viewing phishing as illegal, we present a definition for something that is much more general and goes much further back in history. It is about getting people to do things that are in the interest of the phisherman, but not in the interest of the target. It is about angling, about dropping an artificial lure into the water and sitting and waiting as wary fish swim by, make an error, and get caught. There are so many phishers and they are so ingenious in the variety of their lures that, by the laws of probability, we all get caught sooner or later, however wary we may try to be. No one is exempt.

By our definition, a phool is someone who, for whatever reason, is successfully phished. There are two kinds of phool: psychological and informational. Psychological phools, in turn, come in two types. In one case, the emotions of a psychological phool override the dictates of his common sense. In the other case, cognitive biases, which are like optical illusions, lead him to misinterpret reality, and he acts on the basis of that misinterpretation. Mollie is an example of an emotional phool, but not a cognitive phool. She was remarkably self-aware of her situation at the slots, but she could not help herself.

Information phools act on information that is intentionally crafted to mislead them. Enron stockholders are an example. The rise of Enron was based on the adoption of misleading (and then later, fraudulent) accounting. Its extraordinary profits were the result of its “mark-to-market” accounting, whereby future expected profits from an investment could be booked when the investment was made. The more usual practice is to wait until the profits are actually realized. From 1995 to 2000 Fortune named Enron the country’s Most Innovative Company. Fortune was right; its editors just failed to understand the nature of the innovations.

Whether or not businessmen have good (or bad) morals is not the subject of this essay, although sometimes both of these sides will appear. Instead, we see the basic problem as pressures for less than scrupulous behavior that is incentivized in competitive markets. They are terrific at incentivizing and rewarding businessmen heroes with innovative new products for which there is real need. However, unregulated free markets rarely reward a different kind of heroism, of those who restrain themselves from taking advantage of customers’ psychological or informational weaknesses. Because of competitive pressures, managers who restrain themselves in this way tend to be replaced by others with fewer moral qualms. Civil society and social norms do place some brakes on such phishing; but in the resulting market equilibrium, if there is an opportunity to phish, even firms guided by those with real moral integrity will usually have to do so in order to compete and survive.

How Could We Know?

We anticipate that our book will be unpopular (to say the least) with those who think that people all but invariably make the best decisions for themselves. Who are Bob and George, they will ask, to say that individual people are not themselves— always and invariably— the best arbiters of the decisions that affect them? Like a great deal of economics, this argument makes sense in the abstract. But when we examine this question as it describes real people making real decisions, we find that to a remarkable extent they are phished for phools: and, in consequence, they are making decisions that, applying just a bit of their own common sense, they would know are not to their benefit.

We do not have to be presumptuous to see that people are making such decisions. We know because we see people making decisions that NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY WANT. Henry David Thoreau remarked that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Remarkably, a century and a half later, in the United States, almost the richest country the world has ever known, too many lives are still led in quiet desperation. Just think about poor Mollie in Vegas.


Four broad areas indicate how widespread are the NO-ONE-COULD-POSSIBLY-WANTs, regarding personal financial security; the stability of the macroeconomy (the economy as a whole); our health; and the quality of government. In each of these four areas we shall see that phishing for phools has significant impact on our lives.

Personal Financial Insecurity. A fundamental fact of economic life has never made it into the economics textbooks. Most adults, even in rich countries, go to bed at night worried about how to pay the bills. Economists think that it is easy for people to spend according to a budget. But they forget that even if we are careful 99 percent of the time, the remaining 1 percent, when we act as if “money does not matter,” can undo all that prior rectitude. And businesses are keenly aware of those 1-percent moments. They target the events in our lives when love (or other motivations) trumps our budgetary caution. For some, this is an annual Christmas potlatch. For others, it occurs at rites of passage: such as weddings (where the wedding mags assure brides that the “average wedding” costs almost one half of annual per capita GDP); funerals (where the parlor director carefully lays out the caskets to induce the choice, for example, of the Monaco “with Sea Mist polished finish, interior richly lined in 600 Aqua Supreme velvet, magnificently quilted and shirred”); or births (where Babies “R” Us will give a “personal registry advisor”).

But rites of passage are not the only life punctuations where sticking to budget is presented as being mean. It is thus no coincidence that, as rich as we are in the United States, for example, relative to all previous history, most adults still go to bed worried about their bills. Producers have been just as inventive in getting us to feel we need what is produced as they have been in filling the needs that we really have. No one wants to go to bed at night worried about the bills. Yet most people do.

Get Evonomics in your inbox

One source of our angst about those bills comes from rip-offs: as consumers we are especially prone to pay too much when we step outside of our comfort zone to make the rare, expensive purchase. In some 30 percent of home sales to new buyers, total— buyer plus seller— transaction costs, remarkably, are more than half of the down payment that the buyer puts into the deal. Auto salesmen, as we shall see, have developed their own elaborate techniques to sell us more car than we really want; and also to get us to pay too much. Nobody wants to be ripped off. Yet we are, even in the most carefully considered purchases of our lives.

Financial and Macroeconomic Instability. Phishing for phools in financial markets is the leading cause of the financial crises that lead to the deepest recessions. Regarding financial crises, the now-famous phrase “This time is different” is simultaneously both true and false. In the boom that precedes the crash, phishers convince buyers of the assets they have to sell that “this time is different.” It is, for example: Swedish matches in the 1920s (Ivar Kreuger of Kreuger and Toll); the dot-coms in the 1990s; subprime mortgages in the 2000s (Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide). Yes, every time it is different: the stories are different; the entrepreneurs are different; their offerings are different. But, also, every time it is the same. There are the phishermen; there are the phools. And when the built-up stock of undiscovered phishes (called “the bezzle” by economist John Kenneth Galbraith) gets discovered, asset prices crash. The investment managers who purchased the packages with the bad mortgages in the buildup to the 2008 crash could not possibly have wanted them. And then, painfully, when the phish was revealed, terrible side effects occurred: confidence was lost throughout the economy; stock prices halved; employed lost their jobs; and the unemployed could not find them. Long-term unemployment reached levels not seen since the Great Depression.

Health. Even regarding health, which is probably the strongest need for those of us who are already well fed, well clothed, and adequately housed, the purveyors of medicines phish us for phools. Back in the 1880s, when Daniel Pinkham, off in New York, noticed that women there were greatly worried about kidney problems, he wrote home that they should be added to the list of ailments for which the family’s Pinkham Pills would be a remedy. Advice taken. Today the Pharmaceuticals can no longer just add a disease to a list. In the United States, they must run two gauntlets. They must obtain the approval of the Food and Drug Administration, which requires randomized controlled testing; they must also convince the doctors to prescribe their pills. But they also have more than a century of learning how to get past these barriers. Some drugs that successfully run both gauntlets are no more than marginally beneficial. Worse, a few are genuinely harmful, such as Vioxx (an anti-inflammatory like Aleve) and hormone replacement therapy. In its five-year career, from 1999 to 2004, Vioxx is estimated to have caused 26,000 to 56,000 cardiovascular deaths in the United States; failure to notify women of suspicions about hormone replacement therapy, by doctors and Pharma, is estimated to have caused some 94,000 cases of breast cancer. No one wants bad medicine.

The effects on health go far beyond bad medicine. Consider phood and its consequences. About 69 percent of American adults are overweight; and more than half of them (36 percent of Americans) are, furthermore, obese. A cohort study of more than 120,000 gives a surprisingly precise picture. The interviewees, who were mainly registered nurses, were followed up at four-year intervals, from the late 1970s through 2006. The average four-year gain was 3.35 pounds (translating into a twenty-year gain of 16.75 pounds). Statistical analysis associates the 3.35-pound gain with 1.69 pounds for potato chips, 1.28 pounds for potatoes (mainly French fries), and 1 pound for sugar-sweetened beverages. Figuratively, those nurses could not stop noshing on their potato chips (salt and fat) and French fries (fat and salt) or slurping their colas (sugar). They made those choices voluntarily. But beyond the nurses, and more generally, we know that Big Phood commissions scientific laboratories to calculate consumers’ “bliss points” that maximize their craving for sugar, salt, and fat. Yet no one wants to be obese.

Tobacco and alcohol are other health-related phishes. But there is a remarkable difference between the two. No one now thinks that it is smart to smoke. As he is writing this paragraph, George works in a large office building in Washington, HQ 1 (Headquarters 1) of the International Monetary Fund. There is a ban on smoking inside. But as he arrives in the morning, he passes a scattering of smokers outside. The smokers all pointedly avoid his gaze. Without a word spoken, they know that he is thinking that they are risking their lives: for a pleasure hardly worth it. As a result of this censure and self-censure, the fraction of smokers in the United States has fallen by more than half since the bad old days when people who should have known better were arguing that smoking really was good for your health: it helped you lose weight.

There is another legal drug, besides tobacco, that is quite possibly yet more deleterious; but it provokes far less censure. David Nutt and colleagues in the United Kingdom, and Jan van Amsterdam and Willem van den Brink in the Netherlands, convoked groups of experts to evaluate the relative harms of drugs in their respective countries. Taking account of harm to others— rather than just harm to self— Nutt and his colleagues judged alcohol the worst of all; van Amsterdam and his associates viewed it as second to crack, but only by a slim margin. We shall see later (from lifelong studies) that alcohol abuse is quite possibly the single greatest downer in American lives. Yet the bars and the restaurants and the airlines and our friends at parties all push us to have a drink, and then sometimes another, and another, …. There is little consideration that having another drink is a choice that is already all too easy. No one wants to be an alcoholic. Yet rather than dissuasions, there are persuasions.

Bad Government. Just as free markets work at least tolerably well under ideal conditions, so does democracy. But voters are busy with their own lives; it is thus all but impossible for them to know when a politician deviates from their true wishes regarding much legislation. And also just because we are human, we are prone to vote for the person who makes us the most comfortable. As a result, politics is vulnerable to the simplest phish, whereby politicians silently gather money from the Interests, and use that money to show that they are “just one of the folks.” Our later chapter “Phishing in Politics” will describe a 2004 election campaign of Charles Grassley of Iowa, who at the time was the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and who had gathered a multimillion-dollar war chest and showered the state with TV ads, in which he is just “one of us,” back home, on his tractor lawnmower. There was nothing terribly unusual about the role of money in this campaign. On the contrary, we have chosen it because it is so typical. But (almost) no one wants a democracy where elections are bought in this way.

Excerpted from Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception by George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller. Published by Princeton University Press. Reprinted by permission.

6 January 2016

Donating = Changing Economics. And Changing the World.

Evonomics is free, it’s a labor of love, and it's an expense. We spend hundreds of hours and lots of dollars each month creating, curating, and promoting content that drives the next evolution of economics. If you're like us — if you think there’s a key leverage point here for making the world a better place — please consider donating. We’ll use your donation to deliver even more game-changing content, and to spread the word about that content to influential thinkers far and wide.

 $3 / month
 $7 / month
 $10 / month
 $25 / month

You can also become a one-time patron with a single donation in any amount.

If you liked this article, you'll also like these other Evonomics articles...


We welcome you to take part in the next evolution of economics. Sign up now to be kept in the loop!

  • Pingback: Akerlof and Shiller: Everything You Need to Kno...()

  • Swami Cat

    Let me say it clearer….

    There are multiple problem-solving domains. Three of the most significant are politics, science and markets. Each is imperfect within its domain in the best of conditions, and terrible when applied to problems outside its proper domain or when the institutions controlling this domain misfire.

    In every society we need to balance and mix these problem-solving domains to optimize the general welfare. From reviews of these authors’ recent book, my guess is that I would disagree vehemently with them on most, though not all, recommendations for improving these three institutions. in general, the disagreement comes down to “who decides” and I do not trust the authors to tell me what size slurpee I can buy or whether I should be restricted from buying Cinnamon rolls at the mall.

    • rorysutherland

      Do they also consider the possibility that further education in the United States is no less a senseless version of a luxury goods arms race than the wedding industry?

      • David Whitlock

        But “education as a luxury good” does not “use up” and dissipate education resources. The cost of education is primarily the labor of educators.

    • quill67

      “Who decides” is the key to this issue.

    • Proof of work

      So you’re going to consume and ingest garbage for the principle of declaring yourself free.

      • Swami

        This is your take-away from my comment? Seriously?

  • X-7

    Greetings Dr. Akerlof and Dr. Shiller,
    I contend the problem with markets — complex relationships largely mediated by humans using monetary code — is far more fundamental.
    Sure: “But (almost) no one wants a democracy where elections are bought in this way.”
    And almost no one wants a sky converted into a lethal gas chamber, largely a gas chamber of commerce.
    Verily, what’s up with our culture code yielding suicidal relationships with the sky and ocean?
    I contend our current cultural genome resembles dinosaur genetic code, i.e., it’s non-selectable code per the new environs.
    And the new environs? They’re largely generated by exponentially accelerating complexity.

    This comment is memetic speciation; it regards code in a physics / evolution context, including monetary code.
    I think this context is fundamental, hence vital to passing our endless natural selection tests. Those tests? They’ve also become more complex for many species. Genetic codes remain on the exam; human culture codes have been added.
    For example, elephant and dolphin survival are no longer merely a function of their biological genomes, but also a function of the human cultural genome, that is, of moral, legal, monetary and other codes.
    Here are some knowledge nuggets that I’m hooking up:
    “The most fundamental phenomenon of the universe is relationship.” Jonas Salk – “Anatomy of Reality”
    “The story of human intelligence starts with a universe that is capable of encoding information.” Ray Kurzweil – “How to Create a Mind”
    Some physics: “Any final state contains information about the system’s initial state and about what has happened to it since. So, the motion of any physical system, because it obeys definite laws, can be regarded as information processing.” physicist David Deutsch

    Code is a “constructor” (Deutsch again). Code is physics generated (sometimes by human constructors) and physics efficacious infrastructure for relationships in bio, cultural & tech networks: genetic, epigenetic, legal, religious, monetary, moral, language (spoken, written), math, software, etc.
    Code is an information technology that functions as an app: it processes relationship information.
    Wedding, funeral? Cue religious code, the religion app, to process / order / navigate that relationship information.
    A dominant, cultural information-processing mechanism is: human beings using monetary code.
    I contend that this information-processing technology lacks reach, lacks speed, accuracy and power.
    “A technology can only be pressed so far before it runs into some limitation.” Brian
    Arthur – “The Nature of Technology”
    I contend that exponentially accelerating complexity has rendered much of our cultural genome, including monetary code, as too limited in its information processing capacity. Humans using monetary code can’t generate functional relationships in and across geo eco bio cultural & tech networks, nor across time. Christmas Eves of 72 degrees in NYC; myriad etc.
    Let’s add some relatively recent evolution of mathematical code: geometry to equations to algorithms.
    As I learned in a talk by complexity scientist Brian Arthur, algorithmic math code has
    significantly more applications than equation math code. That is, algorithmic code has greater reach than equation code.

    Monetary code is equation code that again, lacks reach at these levels of complexity.
    Gentlemen, the externalities of monetary code wax exponential. And they’re devastating.
    Re processing speed, accuracy & power:
    Software code is to monetary code as alphabet code was to pictograph code.

    I got an alphabet-coded thought-structure titled: Culture, Complexity and Culture.
    It argues this with more context.
    It’s been submitted for publication, but willing to send to almost anyone.
    Thanks for reading . . .

  • rorysutherland

    I think the most interesting insight from the book is simply that markets will – at least for a time – disproportionately reward and thus expand certain practices which successfully hack the mind’s usual defences EVEN THOUGH there is no particular ill-intent present on anyone’s part.

    I have worked in the advertising industry for 25 years. I have yet to come across someone emitting an evil laugh and devising a particular idea to mug the populace (For the most part it is quite difficult enough to get people to buy new things which are genuinely and inarguably good – social copying and habit being two very strong forces in human behaviour). I have on one or two occasions heard at third hand of a nefarious idea, but such instances are rare, and such ideas are usually not pursued for reasons of reputational concern.

    So evil intentions are not perhaps as common as we may assume – nor are they necessary for bad things to happen.

    Take the practice of placing sweets (candies) in a supermarket right next to the check-out counter. It is assumed this practice arose because someone realised that this would maximise a child’s pester power over a parent. Or perhaps because someone else surmised that, having spent $100 on essential foodstuffs, we all might frame a $3 treat as less of an extravagance than if it were to appear at the entrance to the supermarket. (It is for this reason, I suspect, that alcoholic drinks usually appear towards the end of the retail journey).

    This MIGHT have happened. More likely, I think, is that by a simple process of random trial and error, retailers simply discovered that when the sweets (candies) were next to the checkout counter, you sold lots more sweets. So that’s where the sweets stayed – and over time everyone else simply copied the practice without anyone ever knowing or inquiring into the reasons.

    We tend to see bad things as the result of bad intentions. Actually in this case no bad intentions were necessary. The normal mechanisms of variation and selection will sometimes create these effects without any need for intent or design.

    By the way, I do think economists slightly miss the plot here, as they tend to assume that life is some kind of optimisation problem. No-one hates the expensive wedding fetish more than I do (over the years, I can see no real correlation between how much a wedding costs and how enjoyable it is to attend) but a life without some extravagances and indulgences is a pretty poor lot. Moreover most useful innovations begin as extravagances: I recently read an anti-consumerist tract from the UK in 1960s in which people were derided for “being seduced into squandering their money on washing machines and dishwashers”.

    • quill67

      As an economist let me say thank you for bringing some sanity to the discussion. Akerlof and Shiller have done some wonderful work, however, not every idea is golden (or even good) If what the authors contend is true that we would be happier with different choices then we could simply hire a disinterested party to make our decisions for us.

    • robertmkadar

      Hi Rory,
      I like this point a lot! However, it should be noted that the same can be said about cultural beliefs. Most people who take part in unscrupulous business practices don’t do so because they are evil or intentionally want to hurt others. They generally believe what they’re doing is good for them and everyone else. And If by blind trial and error, individuals become extraordinary wealthy because they believe in X ideology, it’s easy enough for X to become the acceptable norm and for others to copy.


    • ari9999

      You make a good point. The road to hell is often paved if not with good intentions, at least neutral ones from a moral perspective.

      Further, systems, policies and processes influence human behavior and outcomes. These dynamics work as relentlessly and dispassionately as the law of gravity.

      People (phisherpersons?) commonly use these tendencies, as the authors point out, to have us end up with outcomes we don’t want. But that’s not always the case. For instance, a tenet of total quality management (a la W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran) essentially says, “Don’t blame people; instead, fix processes.”

      When processes change, behavior changes. A 1980 CBS-TV special on quality management spotlighted a US television factory plagued by 150 errors per 100 tv sets. New management with new, more enlightened processes — but mostly the same workers — reduced the rate to 4 per 100 (though still laughably high by today’s standards).

      The Stanford Prison Experiment and Marsh Chapel Experiment each revealed different aspects of the same dynamic: individuals behave differently and make different choices, given different circumstances and processes. This inexorable truth explains why Ayn Rand ideologues’ notions of untrammeled “free will” — and “free markets” — are such nonsense.

    • Rory states: “markets will – at least for a time – disproportionately reward and thus expand certain practices which successfully hack the mind’s usual defences EVEN THOUGH there is no particular ill-intent present on anyone’s part”

      That may be, but I didn’t see that as the main point. Rather it was, legitimate markets are filled with people who do have evil intents.

      For a period of almost 10 years, I interviewed several hundred people who lost money to business opportunity fraud criminals.

      And the hot buttons that these criminals were able to push to sell a fake business opportunity are very similar to the hot buttons that real franchise sales people push to sell a legitimate business opportunity.

      The faculties which allow us to reason also allow us to rationalize.

    • John Ash

      In my first Advertising class the professor said “Anyone in here think you’re honest?” [many hands go up] “Okay, get out, I’ll sign your drop slip. The rest of you, I’m going to teach you how to lie without breaking the law.”

      I think he was just being dramatic and funny, but he was also kinda being honest.

  • ari9999

    The authors say: “…in the United States…too many lives are still led in quiet desperation.” This dismal reality is reflected in recent decades’ soaring growth of the predatory payday loan industry. Studies show that most payday borrowers know it’s a terrible deal, but are desperate to stave off immediate, harsh consequences like eviction or a utility shutoff. They make choices that would seem irrational (phoolish) under other circumstances, without this context.

    Most of these desperation borrowers have nowhere else to turn. The annual report of a top payday loan company actually boasted of it. Strong demand, after all, is what smart investors look for in a company.

    This epidemic of demand, born of desperation, stems from a rigged economy driven by corrupt public policy.

    The typical answer to predatory payday lending is to choke off supply by cracking down on lenders. This approach almost completely ignores urgent demand by the millions of hardworking paycheck-to-paycheck families who face chronic financial stress.

    Therefore policymakers should also focus on eliminating root causes. In other words, it’s not really about predation. That’s just a symptom. It’s about epidemic levels of financial desperation. Policies and processes producing desperation as an outcome need to be addressed.

    Seeking root causes and striving to change processes are core ideas of modern quality management in major companies worldwide, vital to continuous improvement.

    It shouldn’t be any different in the public sphere. Any Fortune 500 CEO focused on quality management principles and practices — and many are — could understand the necessity of applying the same principles to public policy. Epidemic demand for instant small loans would be a great place to start.

    Reducing the incidence of financial desperation and resulting demand could, in turn, starve out predatory payday lenders even without further regulatory action. Less regulation, in turn, would delight many smaller-government advocates.

    • rorysutherland

      One solution to this is for employers (who are more certain of repayment, since they get to wirite next month’s paycheck) to make payday loans to their own staff at more generous terms.

      • ari9999

        Rory, I think that’s a great idea and should be promoted among employers willing to do it.

        Similarly, along with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren I’m a big supporter of postal banking, the public option for giving hardworking families access to low-cost small loans between paychecks — whether or not their employers happen to like the idea.

        While necessary and important, please keep in mind that such approaches do not solve the underlying problem: huge and rising demand for these small loans in the first place.

        Corrupt public policy in a rigged economic system is the underlying cause. It leads inexorably to the results we see today. Without it, we wouldn’t have millions of “desperation borrowers” because most folks would be earning enough to make ends meet.

        That was the case decades ago, and — with progressive public policy in place and big money out of politics — could be again. *Must* be again.

        What we are doing is unsustainable. Sanders’ soaring presidential campaign reflects a growing recognition that this is true.

  • “Capital is a social relation” (K. Marx)
    Enough said.

  • planckbrandt

    Repayment of debt is another big reason people lie awake at night. When all the money in the economy comes from somebody borrowing that money into existence, that is a lot of people lying awake at night simply to keep the economy going. Plus the interest due on all of this debt when it compounds beyond any relationship to the time it takes to work to repay debts, we have lots of reasons for people to break rules before the banks slow down or stop lending and therefore shrink the money supply. Beating those money supply shrinkages by grabbing fast has got to be the number one reason for rule breaking, cutting corners, and screwing workers or suppliers. There are some pretty clear system dynamics arising from this debt based money system we’ve got here. We need to get to the point of replacing it with alternatives.

  • Arno

    Deceptive title…ironic…

    “We also need stories of heroes, people who out of personal integrity … have managed to keep deception in our economy down”

    So it ís down to people and culture determining how evil te market is.

  • Papzy Kapitalas

    > Implying that the opposite, a regulated market, governed from politicians and the democratic clusterfuck, does not involve any deception or manipulation.

    For all intent and purposes, even if the free market rewards deception and manipulation, you do understand that all economies around the globe, even those of Hong Kong and Singapore that are considered the least regulated, are regulated one way or another and we still get deception and manipulation. Or lets go to the absolute regulated economies like Venezuela and North Korea or even China and lets see how deception and manipulation does there.

    Deception and manipulation exist with a free or a regulated market.

    Deception and manipulation exist when you go to the gym to make muscles so the female can be attracted to fitness in order to mate with you even though you can’t fight anything else other than a pile of iron.

    Deception and manipulation exist in your girlfriend’s carnival kit when she masquerades into a ceremonial clown in order to attract attention for a while – hopefully long before the morning sun, so you can find her desirable and maybe sprinkle your jizz in her cunt.

    The whole article is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) seasoned with anti-capitalist sensationalism. We are deceptive and manipulative whether it is the savoir vivre at the table, making the right friends, lying in court or promoting an advertisement for our company. They are all lies to get what we want. We all profit whether emotionally, financially or socially. It’s a give and take trade we all engage since the dawn of our bipedalism.

    This is why critical thinking is essential and why this group exists. We are not here to make a revolution against….a ghost…the…”others”. Who the fuck do you think you are fighting when you fight rich people, politicians? You are fighting something vague. This is why no revolution changed fundamentally anything. Humans are deceptive and manipulative. We are also selfish and crave individuality. Thing is, most of us suck and all the losers, round up against those who prevailed. This is how and why the 1% always persists. Because simply they are the wet dream of the 99% that formulate the system in such a way to preserve deception and manipulation.

    You either pick up your balls and adopt to the world as an individual or perish under some dickhead that will govern your life in order to accomplish their dreams. This is why most people love the word “free” but hate what follows. responsibility. independence. initiative.

    Most people hate freedom and rather find lame excuses like the one given above in the article rather than assume responsibility for their own lives. But hey, we still progress as humanity, slow but steadily, under this semi regulated predicament.

    So I guess let the 99% get fucked asking for more regulation while the 1% that supplies this very freedom, enjoys this retarded revolution of the 99% that joyfully fasten their own chains and feel proud about it.

  • Freddy

    The way to help capitalism and free market is to stop being a loyal customer. If you question the products you buy each time you buy them and stop taking everything for granted, then the big brands would have to start paying more attention and respect to their customers:

    • Proof of work

      Tell that to my wife and children.

  • Pingback: Tonterías selectas | intelib()

  • Naomi Klein and the author of “When Corporations Rule the World” David C. Korten have both suggested that Public Citizen may be the place to check for public consultation records on how the self regulating investment tribunals have been treating complaints in practice. This is a message I sent to Bart Naylor at Public Citizen yesterday:

    Thank you very much Bart, for getting back to me –

    I am wanting to find out if Public Citizen has been compiling the input into Public Consultations that relate to the governance of banking and investment in the United States. When I asked Naomi Klein, when she spoke in Kelowna BC on Feb 18/2016 on the LEAF Manifesto, when she was outlining the problem of privatization and deregulation destroying the capacity of governments to meet their obligations on major crises issues, I informed her of my research on the investment system governance that is in the SRO self regulating organization model. I told her that I have concluded over the past 9 years of investigation, that the SRO model is utterly destroying the investment-worthiness of securities transactions, and that this in my view is a contributing factor to our diminished capacity to tackle the major questions that confront civilization. On this past weekend’s TPP teleconference that is conducted by Trade Justice, the guest was David C. Korten, author of “When Corporations Rule the World” – he also recommended contacting Public Citizen on this matter. The link below is an example of this kind of review that was conducted by the Ombudsman on Banking, Securities and Investment in Canada. It is a noteworthy report, because it outlines the experiences with the governance system on investment from the experience of 12 parties that have submitted their observations from experience. The general theme demonstrates 1) that there is a great dissatisfaction with a lack of dialogue between those who have reviewed the system and the people who staff the OBSI and other governance/and/or mediation bodies. 2) What the services amount to at present is a growing culture of impunity and disregard for rule of law. This has created enormous concern for the basic sense of trustworthiness within the system.

    The link for the OBSI summary of Public Consultation responses:

    Thank you very much for any information you may be able to provide regarding Public Citizen’s experience with these investment governance public consultations. If you as an organization have not been compiling this information, but if you know of an organization that is maintaining records on these reviews, this information would be much appreciated.

    Thank you very much for your co-operation on this matter,

    Alan Blanes

  • Pingback: Nobel Prize says free market rewards deception and manipulation – The behavioral Approach()

  • Pingback: Center for a Stateless Society » Does “Free Market” Even Mean Anything? – An Outsider's Sojourn II()

  • geonomist

    There is no Nobel for economics, a non-science. The Nobel family has asked you to quit ripping off their name. When Levy complains about pirated jeans, you comply, because you put Third Worlders beneath you. But when bankers pirate a good name, you turn a blind eye, because you put your masters above you. That’s cowardly. It makes everything you write not trustworthy.

  • geonomist

    Please learn to distinguish between markets and lobbying. Huge difference between markets — consensual trade — and capitalism — partnership of elite and state. Thanks.

  • Lexi Mize

    *** When open markets make sense ***

    When profits align with positive outcome, free or open markets make sense.

    When profits align with negative outcome they don’t. In these cases a
    social system is better for society. And in the end, bettering society
    should ALWAYS be the goal.

    Pencils are good for society. If your company makes a higher quality
    pencil and more people buy your pencil, your profits go up AND society
    gets a better pencil. If you make a same quality pencil but for less
    cost (more efficiently), your profits go up AND society gets a good
    quality but cheaper pencil. Profits and outcome are aligned. You make
    money and society benefits.

    If your company makes antibiotics what do you want to happen for you
    to increase profits? Naturally you want more people to get sick so you
    can sell more drugs. I’d say that was a negative impact on society. If
    you make a super effective, but more costly antibiotic who will buy it?
    The wealthy-sick? I would venture that would be a bad business model. If
    you decreased your production costs and lowered the price, you can sell
    more drugs to more people, but again, once you’ve (theoretically) cured
    everybody — where’s your profit going to come from? What company would
    ever enter into such a business model? Yeah, exactly! (And it’s a real
    growing problem.)

    It turns out there’s a simple rule of thumb to determine when open
    markets make sense, namely, when profits align with a positive societal

    Cars are good for society. The company that makes the best, lowest cost car will profit.

    Airlines are good for society. The airline that transports the most
    people, for the lowest cost, safely and comfortably will profit.

    Smartphones are good for society.

    Surfboards, skis, yachts, clothes, shoes, food, drink, furniture, hotels, restaurants, and so on and so forth.

    If society benefits from the service or product, the company that
    provides those services or products at the lowest price and the highest
    quality — will profit. In each of these cases true capitalism and the
    associated free/open markets make sense.

    Profit + positive outcome = free markets.

    So, when do free/open markets NOT make sense? Well, as noted above,
    if there’s a negative in the equation, anywhere in the equation, then
    free/open markets do NOT make sense.

    For instance, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and health insurance
    corporations only profit when you are sick and are forced to pay for a
    cure or protection. The sicker you are, or society is, the more money
    healthcorps make. A negative for society equals a positive for
    corporations. A bad equation.

    In correlation, if society became illness free, if somehow a company
    created a drug that cured every disease, this would be great for you and
    me and everyone but would destroy that company’s as well as all other
    healthcorp’s profits; a rather big negative.

    There are other inverted benefit sectors (negative = profit):

    Fire. A corporation that benefited from putting out fires would naturally want more fires burning. More fires = more profit.

    Police. A corporation that benefited from providing police services
    would naturally want more unrest, more violence, more mayhem in society.
    More chaos = more profit.

    Hospitals. A corporation that benefited from fixing people’s injuries
    and illnesses would naturally want lots and lots of sick and injured
    people. More illness = more profits.

    There are many other negative = profit (or positive = loss)

    • Disasters are bad for society (and their response and recovery aspects).
    • Crime and corruption are bad for society.
    • Poverty is bad. Air pollution. Water pollution. Loss of open-space.

    If a thing is bad for you, me and society, then making a profit from
    it is NOT a good use of free and open markets. In fact, I would say that
    making money off of society’s misery, of any kind, is down right evil.

    When there’s a negative in the equation the only solution is to build and manage a social system around it.

    • Socialism is not all bad. Open markets are not all bad.
    • Socialism is not all good and neither are open market systems.

    We need a mix. The rule of thumb above can help us figure out which
    to apply when. Right now, healthcare is a for profit system making money
    on a negative affect on society. This is exactly why we must socialize

  • BetterFailling

    Some interesting ideas are being mentioned here but I’m afraid the authors failed to name the real culprits here.
    Free market competition is an environment. It cannot reward, nor punish, anything.
    It is us who, because of greed and/or lassitude, allow the bad things to happen.