3 ms·

> In an ideal marketplace the best product is selected on it's merit. > Brand loyalty, vendor lock-in, financial leverage, etc. are all attempts to interfere w

> In an ideal marketplace the best product is selected on it's merit. > Brand loyalty, vendor lock-in, financial leverage, etc. are all attempts to interfere with free market, to prevent a consumer moving to a competitor As I understand it, the only way to prevent vendor lock-in is regulation. Regulation is considered anathema to a “free market”. Subsequently, I’ve come to expect that a free market _guarantees_ that vendors will attempt to lock their customers in. I suspect your “ideal market” is not merely an idealised fantasy but also self-contradictory and thus impossible. I’d love it if you could explain otherwise because it’ll probably help me understand basic economics better.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
My take is this: Ideal market is certainly a fantasy, we have an entire branch of behavioural economics dedicated to irrational behaviour. On regulation, general consensus is that at least some regulation is needed to enable fair market to exist at all. In most countries in a state of disorder you get market manipulation, Pump&dump schemes, monopolies, cartels, financial pyramids, snake oil salesmen, etc. That's not conductive to economic growth. Obviously it is hotly disputed where is the line between ensuring fair competition or, on the contrary, stifling the market. Cosider car repair - is it the manufacturer's right to decide who they sell parts to, or are they leveraging a position in market A (selling cars) to secure an unfair advantage in market B (car repair)
johncowan 6y ago
Without regulation you don't have a market at all, you have war, where the best and cheapest way to beat your competitors is to murder them. Even the Mafia found it was better to establish a council to work out beefs and reduce inter-family violence. Market law goes back to the Middle Ages in Western Europe, where it was international in scope and enforced by private courts paid for by the merchants themselves. We don't have actual war yet. But we do have a world of duopolies, in which two (or three or four) control almost all of the business between them. That's not good for customers or suppliers or retailers; it's only good for the rent-seekers who own those companies. Unfortunately, the U.S. has for several administrations now basically not enforced the antitrust laws unless a short-term rise in prices is visible. Long-time rises in prices, as well as knock-on effects like reduction in quality, are simply ignored.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

My take is this: Ideal market is certainly a fantasy, we have an entire branch of behavioural economics dedicated to irrational behaviour. On regulation, general consensus is that at least some regulation is needed to enable fair market to exist at all. In most countries in a state of disorder you get market manipulation, Pump&dump schemes, monopolies, cartels, financial pyramids, snake oil salesmen, etc. That's not conductive to economic growth. Obviously it is hotly disputed where is the line between ensuring fair competition or, on the contrary, stifling the market. Cosider car repair - is it the manufacturer's right to decide who they sell parts to, or are they leveraging a position in market A (selling cars) to secure an unfair advantage in market B (car repair)

johncowan 6y ago

Without regulation you don't have a market at all, you have war, where the best and cheapest way to beat your competitors is to murder them. Even the Mafia found it was better to establish a council to work out beefs and reduce inter-family violence. Market law goes back to the Middle Ages in Western Europe, where it was international in scope and enforced by private courts paid for by the merchants themselves. We don't have actual war yet. But we do have a world of duopolies, in which two (or three or four) control almost all of the business between them. That's not good for customers or suppliers or retailers; it's only good for the rent-seekers who own those companies. Unfortunately, the U.S. has for several administrations now basically not enforced the antitrust laws unless a short-term rise in prices is visible. Long-time rises in prices, as well as knock-on effects like reduction in quality, are simply ignored.