5 ms·

You in no way responded to the content in my post. "free speech" and "free markets" are completely separate topics which may or may not be mutually exclusive,

You in no way responded to the content in my post. "free speech" and "free markets" are completely separate topics which may or may not be mutually exclusive, both of which are studied well academically. I make no claims on free speech. I simply provided a basic academic background to markets in microeconomics. Then you provide random sayings to try to discredit my post which have no logical connection to my content. There is a lot of ignorance in economics. And while ignorance is okay, I am ignorant in a lot of fields, ignorance without recognizing what you do not know is dangerous. This is a well studied field and America's founders even agreed government should have some say in markets. Here is a well cited source for that, search for "free markets". Of note definitions are important and clearly the authors of the link below include government regulation in a "free market" which the definition I gave and the one you responded to do not. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-economic-principles-americas-founders-property-rights-free-markets-and# https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-econom...

jlcoff 5y ago
You can argue as must as you want about the legitimacy of my comment. "Regulations" and "free market" are mutually exclusive.
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  Consider this: a) literally zero government intervention. b) some government intervention, to keep the market competitive, as described above. c) total government control. What do you, jlcoff, call a)? If I understood you correctly, it's "free market". What would you call b) and c) then? There is no doubt that a) is strictly incompatible with any government regulation or intervention. Label those two concepts however you want, but I don't think anyone argumented against that. A lot of people seem to use "Free Market" for b) instead of a) and that is confusing. I agree with Diesel555's idea of calling b) a "competitive market" as it avoids a labeling confusion between a) and b).
  - jlcoff 5y ago
    b) and c) are either socialism or cronyism, or a variant of fascism (which is in its core a non-USSR controlled / nationalistic socialism).
- unionpivo 5y ago
  Market is regulated by its very definition. If it was completely unregulated, the person with the biggest gun would just take everything he wants. It was always abut where to draw the line.

jlcoff 5y ago

You can argue as must as you want about the legitimacy of my comment. "Regulations" and "free market" are mutually exclusive.

A_non_e-moose 5y ago
Consider this: a) literally zero government intervention. b) some government intervention, to keep the market competitive, as described above. c) total government control. What do you, jlcoff, call a)? If I understood you correctly, it's "free market". What would you call b) and c) then? There is no doubt that a) is strictly incompatible with any government regulation or intervention. Label those two concepts however you want, but I don't think anyone argumented against that. A lot of people seem to use "Free Market" for b) instead of a) and that is confusing. I agree with Diesel555's idea of calling b) a "competitive market" as it avoids a labeling confusion between a) and b).
- jlcoff 5y ago
  b) and c) are either socialism or cronyism, or a variant of fascism (which is in its core a non-USSR controlled / nationalistic socialism).
unionpivo 5y ago
Market is regulated by its very definition. If it was completely unregulated, the person with the biggest gun would just take everything he wants. It was always abut where to draw the line.