3 ms·
You can debate that with investopedia if you think their definition is inaccurate, but I've never seen a definition of free markets that builds in a requirement
by flagrant_taco 3y ago
You can debate that with investopedia if you think their definition is inaccurate, but I've never seen a definition of free markets that builds in a requirement for government controls.
Functionally we have few, if any, modern examples of free markets but the same goes for communism. Practically we never really implement either concept and we erroneously call what we do implement by this names, but that doesn't change the original idea or definition.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoIt's not about the definition, it's about reality. The reality is that markets free of all regulation have all sorts of problems, and so in order to keep them functional and retain (almost all of) the benefits of "free markets", the participants invite/consent/tolerate the "intrusion" of government. It doesn't really matter if that is a part of the definition or not.
- flagrant_taco 3y agoSure I totally agree we don't actually implement free markets, whether right or wrong we decided they are too idealistic and some level of regulation is important. That just means we don't have free markets though, not that the definition of a free market should be changed to match what we have. It's the same problem with communism. No country has actually implemented Marxism or communism, we only have countries ruled by oligarchs and/or monarchs that call themselves communist because it sounds better. I'm not saying I think communism would work, but we've yet to see it actually tried at the state level.