>> Basically, war (or the threat of war) is what keeps militaries honest.
> It really does not.
I meant 'honest' in the sense of suffering if they bullshit themselves too hard. Not 'honest' in the sense of dealing with third-parties honestly.
Could you expand on your point?
>> Competition and the threat of bankruptcy keeps companies on their toes.
> Only some companies and some of the time.
Maybe. And that suggests that one goal of public policy should be to subject more companies more of the time to these pressures. Eg by abolishing tariffs, lowering barriers of foreign companies entering local markets or buying subsidiaries; allowing WalMart to become a bank, and banks to sell coffee etc.
>> One defense of free markets notes the inability of non-market mechanisms to solve planning & optimization problems.
> s/notes/falsely claims/
Not sure what you are complaining about here? If you read the rest of the introduction, it's rather clear from context that the author agrees with you here. (You don't even need to read the whole article for that insight.)
It really does not.
> Competition and the threat of bankruptcy keeps companies on their toes.
Only some companies and some of the time.
And from the article:
> One defense of free markets notes the inability of non-market mechanisms to solve planning & optimization problems.
s/notes/falsely claims/
etc.