2 ms·

I don't disagree that everyone wants to corner the market but I do disagree that what would be left would be a market.

• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  the definition of a "free market" is one that evolves "naturally" without (or with only minimal) government controls (aka regulations), so in that sense it would indeed be a market; the ultimate free market is one without any external controls at all
  • epistasis 2y ago
    Huh, regardless of the definition of "free" and whether the rest of the "free market" stuff is true or religion, I wasn't talking about "free." I was talking about whether there's a market. And a market with a sole provider isn't a market in my books, and is in fact kind of the antithesis of a market. That's why we have anti-monopoly laws, so that we can have markets. In recent decades, the interpretation of anti-monopoly has transitioned a bit to focus more on consumerism rather than markets, and the definition of monopoly has shifted from "is there a sole provider" to "is the dominant market player causing consumer harm." But originally, before that shift, anti-monopoly laws were in favor of markets.
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Interesting. I wouldn't categorize a market that has N customers and 1 vendor, or 1 vendor per type of good (as in this case, since a market could have other types of goods and services not sold by a grocery store), as not a "market". It's not a "competitive market", but since a market is by definition, a place where buyers and sellers exchange goods for money (or goods for goods), then I think it still qualifies as such.