5 ms·
I'm not sure how "free" a market can be if you're not free to acquire capital.
by VMG 11y ago
I'm not sure how "free" a market can be if you're not free to acquire capital.
- atemerev 11y agoThere is a button directly at the top of this page: "apply to S2016 YC batch". Boom! Capital acquired. There are other ways, too.
- js8 11y agoWord "free" in "free market" refers to choice of producers by consumers and competition. You can conceivably have that even if there is a restriction on capital accumulation.
- WalterSear 11y agoOr to buy a monopoly on the market for that matter.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoYou are free to acquire capital much as both beggars and kings are free to live under bridges. Acquiring capital isn't easy. Why should it be?
- VMG 11y agoI know, I'm challenging the idea of "capitalism != free market". In my opinion it is.
- catnaroek 11y ago"Free market" is a technical term in economics - for a very idealized situation that hardly ever occurs in practice, and just happens to be simple to analyze. Its meaning isn't a matter of opinion.
- VMG 11y agoInteresting. Does the technical definition of the term allow for a "free market" where there are restrictions on the accumulation of capital?
- oarsinsync 11y agoYes. Markets are a method of exchange, and free markets have a choice of producers by consumers and competition. Restrictions (or lack thereof) on capital accumulation are not relevant.
- catnaroek 11y agoI don't see how the state could implement restrictions on capital accumulation, without regulating certain markets and industries (primarily the financial industry).
- bad_user 11y agoFor a market to exist, it must facilitate trading of things that have value. When value is lost and a market no longer possible due to the environment, is that really a restriction? In other words, if the state placed restrictions on capital accumulation, then there wouldn't be a need to restrict the "financial industry" as such a thing would cease to exist. Just like how a fish market wouldn't be possible without any fish left on earth.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- catnaroek 11y ago
- parenthephobia 11y agoThe freedom of the free market doesn't denote the universal freedom of its participants, but rather the freedom of the participants to agree on the price of goods without interference. That's the only specific freedom guaranteed to a free market. e.g. One is not usually free to trade stolen goods in a free market. In economic theory, capital is that which can be combined with labour to produce money. It is the "means of production". It isn't just any money, or just any accumulation of goods. In a socialist free market, the vendors can set their prices, and the consumers can choose which prices they'll accept, and/or negotiate a better deal, just like any normal free market. The only (necessary) difference is that the capital - i.e. the means by which the goods being traded were produced - is communally owned. One possible policy is all consumers get the same basic income, and vendors - in the form of worker collectives - are given control over capital by lot or election. Profit would be reinvested in the capital, and/or returned to the state to be redistributed. The consequences are similar. With enough vendors and consumers, prices would tend to the marginal cost of goods. Vendors who consistently fail to sell their goods at or above cost will, rather than running out of capital, have their control over the shared capital taken away by the state/community (e.g. via a recall process).