3 ms·

> A free market does not mean a market where a buyer has a choice of not buying something. It only means one where the market choices of agents are not constrai

> A free market does not mean a market where a buyer has a choice of not buying something. It only means one where the market choices of agents are not constrained by coercive intervention of other agents. That's not how I was taught this concept. I know, Wikipedia is a bad source, but I would like to point out how widespread my specific interpetation is amongst the economics textbooks I've read; In a free market, individuals and firms taking part in these transactions have the liberty to enter, leave and participate in the market as they so choose. Prices and quantities are allowed to adjust according to economic conditions in order to reach equilibrium and properly allocate resources. Note, enter and leave. This means both as a producer and a consumer, without this we cannot have efficient allocation. > We need to buy food, but the market for food is still quite free, and consequently, very efficient. The food market is a really good counter-argument to mine, but when I was first making my observations, I found that food is a very different market that was originally constrained in similar ways but isn't. First is that it's a "market" that's nearing globalized post-scarcity (this doesn't preclude localized scarcity). We produce enough food that we can feed the global population twice over https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person (3k+ per capita for developed nations and 2k+ for underdeveloped ones). Humans have reached this state due to government-sponsored research and sponsored application of revolutionary new technologies. Second, our ability to process food has also led to a surplus in stored calories. We can feed ourselves even during catastrophes (though distribution will remain a challenge). And third, historically (as I am not certain about this particular point, but it is consistent with my reading of history), prior to the green revolution, the food market was never this free - it has always been state managed to a varying degrees. From feudal lords and chieftains to the Roman grain dole, food has been a carefully managed resources until our time. Due to its oversupply and heterogeneity, the food market has a very different structure and dynamics that are inherent to it. But, taking my argument at face value, I would argue that it is indeed possible to exit the food market - we can grow our own food! Even a small-ish farm with good practices can feed a family for a year or more using wild seeds, natural compost and herbicides alone.

nitrogen 7y ago
This is an interesting comment, thanks! (Writing instead of just upvoting because the comment is deep in the gray)
- areoform 7y ago
  Thanks! I have done my best to study about this topic as much as I can :) I decided a long time ago that if I was going to be an entrepreneur; I was going to figure out how the whole stack works. And that definitely includes economics. I’m doing my best to learn how to see things clearly and insightfully. :)
CryptoPunk 7y ago
I could be wrong about the definition of a free market, but the main one on Wikipedia seems to align with my perception of it: >>In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities. Note "are free from any intervention by a government or other authority" which conforms with my argument that it's a market where the market choices of agents are not constrained by the coercive intervention of other agents. Other agents being the "government or other authority" referred to, and the "authority" alluding to an agent which exercises coercive power over others. >>Humans have reached this state due to government-sponsored research and sponsored application of revolutionary new technologies. In the US, since the founding of the country, it has been a very market-based sector, with government's most fruitful contributions being in basic research, as opposed to market inhibiting interventions like regulations. That would be like the government funding basic research in healthcare, and leaving everything else mostly to people's free choices in the market. The first places in the world where famine was vanquished were ones with heavily private agricultural sectors with strong contract and private property rights, in Western Europe and North America. >>I would argue that it is indeed possible to exit the food market - we can grow our own food! Even a small-ish farm with good practices can feed a family for a year or more using wild seeds, natural compost and herbicides alone. Most people cannot grow enough food to feed themselves. Saying we can exit the food market because we can grow our own food is like saying we can exit the healthcare sector because we can provide our own medical products/services. We can technically, but practically the vast majority would have a much lower quality of care if they did so.

nitrogen 7y ago

This is an interesting comment, thanks! (Writing instead of just upvoting because the comment is deep in the gray)

areoform 7y ago
Thanks! I have done my best to study about this topic as much as I can :) I decided a long time ago that if I was going to be an entrepreneur; I was going to figure out how the whole stack works. And that definitely includes economics. I’m doing my best to learn how to see things clearly and insightfully. :)

CryptoPunk 7y ago

I could be wrong about the definition of a free market, but the main one on Wikipedia seems to align with my perception of it: >>In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities. Note "are free from any intervention by a government or other authority" which conforms with my argument that it's a market where the market choices of agents are not constrained by the coercive intervention of other agents. Other agents being the "government or other authority" referred to, and the "authority" alluding to an agent which exercises coercive power over others. >>Humans have reached this state due to government-sponsored research and sponsored application of revolutionary new technologies. In the US, since the founding of the country, it has been a very market-based sector, with government's most fruitful contributions being in basic research, as opposed to market inhibiting interventions like regulations. That would be like the government funding basic research in healthcare, and leaving everything else mostly to people's free choices in the market. The first places in the world where famine was vanquished were ones with heavily private agricultural sectors with strong contract and private property rights, in Western Europe and North America. >>I would argue that it is indeed possible to exit the food market - we can grow our own food! Even a small-ish farm with good practices can feed a family for a year or more using wild seeds, natural compost and herbicides alone. Most people cannot grow enough food to feed themselves. Saying we can exit the food market because we can grow our own food is like saying we can exit the healthcare sector because we can provide our own medical products/services. We can technically, but practically the vast majority would have a much lower quality of care if they did so.