>>7228
Real world markets do not generate Pareto efficient results. You have to be literally brain-damaged to believe otherwise. Of course, you don't really believe that, the term is just a buzzword you heard from others who also were just mindlessly repeating. You don't know what Pareto efficiency means. A Pareto improvement is a change that nobody is against. A Pareto efficient distribution is one that cannot be Pareto improved. A current owner and potential seller of a thing can have a threshold price X in mind, selling at that price or higher he feels is a benefit to him. A potential buyer can also have a threshold price Y in mind, and considers buying at that price or lower a benefit. If X≤Y, there exists a possible price where both would feel a trade beneficial. But does that mean the trade must occur? No, because neither side knows the threshold for the other person and neither side has an interest in meeting in the middle, the interest of one is to push the price as high as possible within the interval, and for the other it is to get as low as possible. This back and forth between offers can burn a lot time and it can happen, and it does happen regularly, that one side finally says fuck that and so the possible trade that would be beneficial to both doesn't occur.

Now, I know what "argument" you want to bring up next (because you are copypasted soulless automatons): that this inefficiency is not the fault of the market, but the fault of the people. This is called moving the goalposts. And it's no better than a tankie saying a byzantine socialist bureaucracy is perfect, just the people in it are making mistakes. And of course you didn't even read Hayek, else you wouldn't have combined his mug with the pseudo-mathematical certainty of the Pareto claim and instead would have just appealed to intuition and experience.

Why do you feel the need to fake knowledge even when you are anonymous?