4 ms·

1) Market != Country. There are plenty of free markets within the U.S. 2) There are multiple ways to maximize profits in a free market depending on the market.

1) Market != Country. There are plenty of free markets within the U.S. 2) There are multiple ways to maximize profits in a free market depending on the market. Not all markets allow you to create monopolies. Monopolies only exist, in practice, were market dynamics are compromised. For instance, power companies are able to be monopolies because power delivery infrastructure is constrained and supply cannot be increased (imagine if anyone who wanted to throw up a power poll was allowed). 3) Choice is literally the defining characteristic of a free market. If customers aren't able to choose, you aren't talking about a free market. This is kind of moot for this topic though, as colleges are very clearly something one can choose. > How would you describe an economy in which customer satisfaction actually matters? Regulated free market? Free market with guard rails? Regulations can make markets freer the same ways they make people freer. You are free to walk on sidewalks because laws say cars cants drive there. > Or do you really think that a 100% unregulated market is at all supportive of human benefit? The counter point to "free markets can help this problem" is not "you must think laws are stupid and money is everything."

danaris 4y ago
Gotta be careful when talking about "Free Markets". Thing is, there are generally two different things that people can mean when they say "free market": 1. A "market economy", as contrasted with a "command economy"—ie, more or less the way the US does things, as opposed to the way the Soviet Union did things. 2. An "ideal free market", as described by Adam Smith, which can, in theory, ensure that many systems find a stable, efficient equilibrium that balances consumer desires with producer desires. The problem is that, however much many (particularly of the Libertarian bent) wish to believe in it, the latter is not real. It is a thought experiment, and it requires a bunch of conditions that don't always apply (eg, perfect information, commoditization, etc). The other problem, of course, is that as I said, the two are often called "free markets" interchangeably without clarification, which leads to much confusion. You seem to be referring to #1 when you say "there are free markets within the US"; however, what WalterBright is talking about is clearly #2, since he's referring to ways that idealized free markets theoretically operate.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > perfect information I don't know where this requirement comes from. It is completely unnecessary for a free market. The free market prices in lack of perfect information - i.e. "risk". Complaining that free markets not being perfect is like complaining that friction in an engine isn't zero. You can't make it zero, but you can get pretty close to it.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  I don't think either is quite right. I was using free market in a practical sense, as in a market (a pairing of buyers and sellers) that has functional supply and demand dynamics. I wasn't relying on any larger context, like an economy. I didn't interpret WalterBright's comment as invoking some 'ideal' market either. I don't think talking about 'ideal' anything is even useful outside of an academic context, so I don't assume anyone here, that isn't explicitly talking about theory, is invoking an 'ideal' version of whatever they are talking about.

danaris 4y ago

Gotta be careful when talking about "Free Markets". Thing is, there are generally two different things that people can mean when they say "free market": 1. A "market economy", as contrasted with a "command economy"—ie, more or less the way the US does things, as opposed to the way the Soviet Union did things. 2. An "ideal free market", as described by Adam Smith, which can, in theory, ensure that many systems find a stable, efficient equilibrium that balances consumer desires with producer desires. The problem is that, however much many (particularly of the Libertarian bent) wish to believe in it, the latter is not real. It is a thought experiment, and it requires a bunch of conditions that don't always apply (eg, perfect information, commoditization, etc). The other problem, of course, is that as I said, the two are often called "free markets" interchangeably without clarification, which leads to much confusion. You seem to be referring to #1 when you say "there are free markets within the US"; however, what WalterBright is talking about is clearly #2, since he's referring to ways that idealized free markets theoretically operate.

WalterBright 4y ago
> perfect information I don't know where this requirement comes from. It is completely unnecessary for a free market. The free market prices in lack of perfect information - i.e. "risk". Complaining that free markets not being perfect is like complaining that friction in an engine isn't zero. You can't make it zero, but you can get pretty close to it.
BobbyJo 4y ago
I don't think either is quite right. I was using free market in a practical sense, as in a market (a pairing of buyers and sellers) that has functional supply and demand dynamics. I wasn't relying on any larger context, like an economy. I didn't interpret WalterBright's comment as invoking some 'ideal' market either. I don't think talking about 'ideal' anything is even useful outside of an academic context, so I don't assume anyone here, that isn't explicitly talking about theory, is invoking an 'ideal' version of whatever they are talking about.