While my understanding of economics is not good enough provide an answer, I do have some thoughts and ramblings. I think we should look beyond the exact definitions of "natural" and "artificial". As it was getting discussed in another comment, dams made by ottars are both natural (cause they happen without human action or intent) and artificial (cause they happen because some living thing does it). But pulling biology into an economic argument here would merely push us down the rabbit hole of seeing if vegetables grown in your garden are natural or not. Here we ain't using the word "natural" in the biological sense. But to denote that it is part of the expected process.
A good lens, perhaps *maybe*, to ask whether the party setting the price is a primary part of the transaction. For example, diamonds are expensive because DeBeers manage to have a great marketing campaign and assign some value to them, leading to its high price. But De Beers is the seller. So while that price is "set" by De Beers, they still have a stake in it.
However, when a price is determined by a Government actor, they are neither the buyer, nor the intermediatory, nor the seller. They are not a part of the "natural" process of the transaction.
PS: By this lens while APMC price would be artificial, PDS shop prices would actually be natural price.
Interesting piece Sam. I enjoyed reading it. Sternberg's classification is confusing to me. Dogs evolved from wolves and arguably wouldn't exist absent human existence. Would it then be fair to call dogs not natural, but rather artificial or spontaneous? In her essay she gives the example of a cat, but dogs illustrate the problem with this approach.
I guess the problem is with the word "natural" itself. Much like chemical-free in food labelling, it doesn't really mean much. Even dihydrogen monoxide, or water, is a chemical.
I think referring to the market price as a natural price is to say this is the price that is not dictated, but responsive to stimuli. But that is just a random thought that occurred to me.
Thanks, Arjun. That's a good question. Perhaps one could define natural orders as those that *can* exist independent of humans. For instance, we can think of monsoon patterns in the absence of humans - which doesn't mean humans don't affect them. So human action is not a necessary condition for natural orders - but this view would maintain humans as part of nature.
But for spontaneous orders and artificial orders, human action is a necessary condition. Which is why I think the concept of "natural price" does not make sense, because price cannot exist independent of human exchange.
While my understanding of economics is not good enough provide an answer, I do have some thoughts and ramblings. I think we should look beyond the exact definitions of "natural" and "artificial". As it was getting discussed in another comment, dams made by ottars are both natural (cause they happen without human action or intent) and artificial (cause they happen because some living thing does it). But pulling biology into an economic argument here would merely push us down the rabbit hole of seeing if vegetables grown in your garden are natural or not. Here we ain't using the word "natural" in the biological sense. But to denote that it is part of the expected process.
A good lens, perhaps *maybe*, to ask whether the party setting the price is a primary part of the transaction. For example, diamonds are expensive because DeBeers manage to have a great marketing campaign and assign some value to them, leading to its high price. But De Beers is the seller. So while that price is "set" by De Beers, they still have a stake in it.
However, when a price is determined by a Government actor, they are neither the buyer, nor the intermediatory, nor the seller. They are not a part of the "natural" process of the transaction.
PS: By this lens while APMC price would be artificial, PDS shop prices would actually be natural price.
I guess I have more questions than answers.
Interesting piece Sam. I enjoyed reading it. Sternberg's classification is confusing to me. Dogs evolved from wolves and arguably wouldn't exist absent human existence. Would it then be fair to call dogs not natural, but rather artificial or spontaneous? In her essay she gives the example of a cat, but dogs illustrate the problem with this approach.
I guess the problem is with the word "natural" itself. Much like chemical-free in food labelling, it doesn't really mean much. Even dihydrogen monoxide, or water, is a chemical.
I think referring to the market price as a natural price is to say this is the price that is not dictated, but responsive to stimuli. But that is just a random thought that occurred to me.
Thanks, Arjun. That's a good question. Perhaps one could define natural orders as those that *can* exist independent of humans. For instance, we can think of monsoon patterns in the absence of humans - which doesn't mean humans don't affect them. So human action is not a necessary condition for natural orders - but this view would maintain humans as part of nature.
But for spontaneous orders and artificial orders, human action is a necessary condition. Which is why I think the concept of "natural price" does not make sense, because price cannot exist independent of human exchange.