3 ms·

Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market. If consumers had a choice, they'd consume different news, under

by klyrs 4y ago

Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market. If consumers had a choice, they'd consume different news, under his theory. But the market is captured by a small handful of billionaires. The US is not a free market.

jjoonathan 4y ago
Monopolies are to free markets like evil/incompetent dictators are to socialism: they might not be a core tenant of the philosophy, they may even be antithetical to the core tenants of the philosophy, but they sure seem to be encouraged by the practical mechanics of the philosophy.
kube-system 4y ago
What people really want when they says "free markets" are competitive markets first, and free markets second. If we have freedom at the expense of competition, we'll end up with neither. The most "free" markets are not the ones with the least regulation, as some might presume, but the ones with just right amount of regulation.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I guess the problem is that monopolies naturally form in a completely unrestricted market. So to make Adam Smith's free market, some kind of restrictions are required. But a lot of people think a "free market" is one with few restrictions. Either way what we really have is capture of the government by a wealthy elite, and what they try to use the government for is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Whatever pure theories there are out there and no matter how much sense they make, the practical effects of private wealth concentration is elite control of the government.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Whether this would be possible under a more sophisticated implementation of democracy seems like a useful thing to contemplate, but we shan't discuss modifying our most sacred institution, as only far right Russian trolls think of such things as we all well know from our training courses.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  The freedom of "Free market" was _freedom from economic rent_ not 'free of all restrictions'
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    London was founded as a trade port where, in exchange for military protection and market advantages, you pay tax and more tax and yet another tax -- if I understand it. There are theories of law and commerce that extend from that.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    What? Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and nearly every informal conversation I've ever had on the subject all agree that "free market" means free of restriction, not free of rent. In practice, of course, free of "restriction" means chock-full of business entities squatting on each and every rent opportunity, strip-mining the market for maximum extraction and paying off the political establishment to keep the hustle going. I would love to live in a world that believed in freedom from economic rent, but nobody with any power interprets "free market" in that way.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      I think they mean "to the government." Because no matter how badly megacorps treat people, folks still think that privatization of everything is the panacea.
klabb3 4y ago
Even Milton Friedman said that prevention of monopolies was a legitimate and even necessary cause for government intervention, in order to preserve the free market. Free market ≠ corporate capitalism. At least it didn’t use to be. Free market rhetoric is almost always using small businesses in their story telling, in which there is a lot of competition and an implicit level field. How to handle the vast concentration of power and wealth is basically outside the scope of most of these theorizers, which is unfortunate because it’s our biggest practical issue, imo.
greggarious 4y ago
>Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market... The US is not a free market. The last time I pointed out the above in DC, I was called a communist and literally hounded out of the bar. (What is it with people who don't understand economics often also wanting to abuse the label of "service animal"? Someone should commission a study IMHO.)

by klyrs 4y ago

jjoonathan 4y ago

Monopolies are to free markets like evil/incompetent dictators are to socialism: they might not be a core tenant of the philosophy, they may even be antithetical to the core tenants of the philosophy, but they sure seem to be encouraged by the practical mechanics of the philosophy.

kube-system 4y ago

What people really want when they says "free markets" are competitive markets first, and free markets second. If we have freedom at the expense of competition, we'll end up with neither. The most "free" markets are not the ones with the least regulation, as some might presume, but the ones with just right amount of regulation.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

I guess the problem is that monopolies naturally form in a completely unrestricted market. So to make Adam Smith's free market, some kind of restrictions are required. But a lot of people think a "free market" is one with few restrictions. Either way what we really have is capture of the government by a wealthy elite, and what they try to use the government for is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Whatever pure theories there are out there and no matter how much sense they make, the practical effects of private wealth concentration is elite control of the government.

mistermann 4y ago
Whether this would be possible under a more sophisticated implementation of democracy seems like a useful thing to contemplate, but we shan't discuss modifying our most sacred institution, as only far right Russian trolls think of such things as we all well know from our training courses.
- JetAlone 4y ago
droopyEyelids 4y ago
The freedom of "Free market" was _freedom from economic rent_ not 'free of all restrictions'
- mistrial9 4y ago
  London was founded as a trade port where, in exchange for military protection and market advantages, you pay tax and more tax and yet another tax -- if I understand it. There are theories of law and commerce that extend from that.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  What? Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and nearly every informal conversation I've ever had on the subject all agree that "free market" means free of restriction, not free of rent. In practice, of course, free of "restriction" means chock-full of business entities squatting on each and every rent opportunity, strip-mining the market for maximum extraction and paying off the political establishment to keep the hustle going. I would love to live in a world that believed in freedom from economic rent, but nobody with any power interprets "free market" in that way.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    I think they mean "to the government." Because no matter how badly megacorps treat people, folks still think that privatization of everything is the panacea.

klabb3 4y ago

Even Milton Friedman said that prevention of monopolies was a legitimate and even necessary cause for government intervention, in order to preserve the free market. Free market ≠ corporate capitalism. At least it didn’t use to be. Free market rhetoric is almost always using small businesses in their story telling, in which there is a lot of competition and an implicit level field. How to handle the vast concentration of power and wealth is basically outside the scope of most of these theorizers, which is unfortunate because it’s our biggest practical issue, imo.

greggarious 4y ago

>Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market... The US is not a free market. The last time I pointed out the above in DC, I was called a communist and literally hounded out of the bar. (What is it with people who don't understand economics often also wanting to abuse the label of "service animal"? Someone should commission a study IMHO.)