Another way to look at it is markets are very powerful local optimisers - so if you rely on them exclusively you end up trapped in a rut.
Everyone hooked on naturally produced molecules that activate opioid receptors via your dark reward patterns, or indeed on synthetically produced and injected versions is not necessarily a globally optimal solution.
The job of government is to make sure the external costs, that are not immediately felt by the markets, are applied.
So the cost of addiction is put back on the sources of it, or the costs of pollution makes it's way back to the polluters.
That's what in essence good regulation is.
Obviously centrally deciding what's best for everything is of course doomed to failure - it's a massive under utilisation of talent and too centralised control is far too easy to lead to corruption and stagnation.
The trick is to find the right balance - and the right balance is a pragmatic one - not a clean ideological one - but you have to embrace that complexity, not try to over simplify.
So "wasting" money - with multiple people working on the same thing, or things that fail - is actually essential for innovation - markets work.
But at the very same time, it is important to have the confidence to state the obvious and take centralised action.
So if you leave the dealing of climate change to short term capital markets alone - you are signing up to it being much much worse before it get's any better. Something that you can avoid with collective action.
Another way to look at it is markets are very powerful local optimisers - so if you rely on them exclusively you end up trapped in a rut.
Everyone hooked on naturally produced molecules that activate opioid receptors via your dark reward patterns, or indeed on synthetically produced and injected versions is not necessarily a globally optimal solution.
The job of government is to make sure the external costs, that are not immediately felt by the markets, are applied.
So the cost of addiction is put back on the sources of it, or the costs of pollution makes it's way back to the polluters.
That's what in essence good regulation is.
Obviously centrally deciding what's best for everything is of course doomed to failure - it's a massive under utilisation of talent and too centralised control is far too easy to lead to corruption and stagnation.
The trick is to find the right balance - and the right balance is a pragmatic one - not a clean ideological one - but you have to embrace that complexity, not try to over simplify.
So "wasting" money - with multiple people working on the same thing, or things that fail - is actually essential for innovation - markets work.
But at the very same time, it is important to have the confidence to state the obvious and take centralised action.
So if you leave the dealing of climate change to short term capital markets alone - you are signing up to it being much much worse before it get's any better. Something that you can avoid with collective action.