3 ms·

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 re

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.

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.