4 ms·

Conversely, a free market is free for monopolies to form; is free to charge whatever they want; is free to block other companies from entering and selling to a

Conversely, a free market is free for monopolies to form; is free to charge whatever they want; is free to block other companies from entering and selling to a company via any means short of bribery (although even that could be thought of as free); is free to to do anything when competing short of breaking the law. We do not live in a free society, we are not free to do whatever we want; for example, I don't think anyone says we should be 'free' to murder anyone we want. I think the GP is more accurate with fair. I'd actually say, it's a guaranteed to be 'open market' we want; meaning everyone must play by the same rules. Of course the challenge is that whoever sets the rules, will end up protecting their own interests, and then we end up where we are anyway. Maybe we can turn to AI to be absolutely fair in creating rules to establish open markets... and then AI becomes the pure benevolent dictator, except for that pesky off by one error I left lurking in the code :/

valuearb 10y ago
Free markets means they are free to entry, which means creating a monopoly is impossible.
- pg314 10y ago
  That is nonsense. There are plenty of natural monopolies [1], where competitors are free to enter the market but simple can't compete. E.g. if there are economies of scale (e.g. Google search engine) or network effects (e.g. Facebook). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
shmerl 10y ago
> Conversely, a free market is free for monopolies to form; Which will make it non free. Free market requires mechanisms of preventing monopolies by its definition.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  But what guarantees this freedom? And as I understand it, it doesn't prevent monopolies from forming, it is meant to restrict monopolies from controlling the market. According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market "... are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority." The government is supposed to step in to block monopolies from controlling the market, but that implies that the government is intervening in the market. All I was pointing out is that there is no perfect system where politics, monopolies and private interests won't compete to control the market.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > But what guarantees this freedom? That's up to the society which wants to have a free market. For instance, anti-trust laws is one way of doing it. > The government is supposed to step in to block monopolies from controlling the market, but that implies that the government is intervening in the market. Someone should to step in here, whether it's government or not, is another question. But clearly, if market has no way of preventing a monopoly, it's not really free.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      > Someone should to step in here, whether it's government or not, is another question. Actually, it is the central question, because without a feasible answer all you have is a fine-sounding principle that is utterly infeasible.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        It's the same question of how society is regulating things. It's quite a broad subject, but we were talking about the principle here.

valuearb 10y ago

Free markets means they are free to entry, which means creating a monopoly is impossible.

pg314 10y ago
That is nonsense. There are plenty of natural monopolies [1], where competitors are free to enter the market but simple can't compete. E.g. if there are economies of scale (e.g. Google search engine) or network effects (e.g. Facebook). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

shmerl 10y ago

> Conversely, a free market is free for monopolies to form; Which will make it non free. Free market requires mechanisms of preventing monopolies by its definition.

bluejekyll 10y ago
But what guarantees this freedom? And as I understand it, it doesn't prevent monopolies from forming, it is meant to restrict monopolies from controlling the market. According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market "... are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority." The government is supposed to step in to block monopolies from controlling the market, but that implies that the government is intervening in the market. All I was pointing out is that there is no perfect system where politics, monopolies and private interests won't compete to control the market.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > But what guarantees this freedom? That's up to the society which wants to have a free market. For instance, anti-trust laws is one way of doing it. > The government is supposed to step in to block monopolies from controlling the market, but that implies that the government is intervening in the market. Someone should to step in here, whether it's government or not, is another question. But clearly, if market has no way of preventing a monopoly, it's not really free.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    > Someone should to step in here, whether it's government or not, is another question. Actually, it is the central question, because without a feasible answer all you have is a fine-sounding principle that is utterly infeasible.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      It's the same question of how society is regulating things. It's quite a broad subject, but we were talking about the principle here.