An interesting exchange takes place in the comment thread on Prof. Anderson’s article about food deserts. One participant contends that Anderson’s article shows that the market is “bad” at providing a reasonable and balanced lifestyle. This raises an important question that every pundit, scholar, and observer should ask: “bad” by what standard? What are the alternatives, and will they work?
History testifies in favor of the market and against the state: Americans are as well-fed as they want to be, and when Chairman Mao tried to improve on food production and distribution by socializing it, over 30 million people starved to death. If we’re interested in real-world comparative political economy (as opposed to comparing the market outcome to nirvana), the free market is clearly “better” than the alternatives.
