Define "highest quality". I'd say "of most utility to the largest number of people." By that metric, the market picks the highest quality of winner pretty much by definition.
Exceptions I can think of are cases where individuals don't have enough info to decide (eg, a product will cause cancer, but the company can get rich before consumers find out) and Tragedy of the Commons issues (eg, every individual has incentive to pollute and only collectively do we have incentive to prevent it).
You might argue that the pollution exception applies here, but I'd still want the market involved. For instance, "the government will award $LargeAmountOfMoney to the first company who sells X vehicles meeting the following efficiency requirements..."
> By that metric, the market picks the highest quality of winner pretty much by definition.
I dunno, Windows and Internet Explorer has been the "winner" for the past few decades ;-) By the metric you mention ("of most utility to the largest number of people."), yes, they are "high quality". By many other metrics, they are not the highest quality products.
Jokes aside, I absolutely want the market involved as well. I think the market is fairly efficient, but it has it's downsides (e.g., the great patent wars - I'd hardly call that market efficiency).
I don't think the government has all the answers - but I don't think the market does either.
>> I think the market is fairly efficient, but it has it's downsides (e.g., the great patent wars - I'd hardly call that market efficiency).
I agree, but since patents are government-granted monopolies, that's really an example of government intervention rather than market freedom
>> I don't think the government has all the answers - but I don't think the market does either.
Agreed. By itself, the market can be ruthless. One proper role of government, in my view, is to ensure fair play.
Another is to provide incentives, when necessary, for research and infrastructure needed by society at large. ARPANET is a good example: a government initiative carried out by private contractors which never would have been undertaken by entrepeneurs.
BTW, Windows has been the market winner for good reason: more usable and universal than Linux, and cheaper than Mac. It's not my favorite, but there you go. IE has ridden Windows' coattails; few Mac users and no Linux users have ever used it.
Exceptions I can think of are cases where individuals don't have enough info to decide (eg, a product will cause cancer, but the company can get rich before consumers find out) and Tragedy of the Commons issues (eg, every individual has incentive to pollute and only collectively do we have incentive to prevent it).
You might argue that the pollution exception applies here, but I'd still want the market involved. For instance, "the government will award $LargeAmountOfMoney to the first company who sells X vehicles meeting the following efficiency requirements..."