3 ms·

> I dismiss "free market" on the premise that it doesn't exist and it never existed (and furthermore: that it can never exist). As soon as you have a government

by astine 14y ago

> I dismiss "free market" on the premise that it doesn't exist and it never existed (and furthermore: that it can never exist). As soon as you have a government and regulations you don't have a free market. That's silly, freedom is a matter of degree. A market with some simple rules governing violence and the enforcement of contracts is certainly more free than a Soviet style planned economy. You can neither have a perfectly free market nor a perfectly controlled market. Even North Korea has a black market. Generally when talking about about the 'freedom' of a market, the measure which matters is not the arbitrary number of regulations which exist but the ability of players (both individuals and firms) to freely and knowingly enter into contracts and transactions. Laws which prohibit coercion, theft, and deception can aid in making the market more free in the ways that matter.

coldtea 14y ago
>That's silly, freedom is a matter of degree. A market with some simple rules governing violence and the enforcement of contracts is certainly more free than a Soviet style planned economy. You can neither have a perfectly free market nor a perfectly controlled market. No -- but the ideology of the free market sidesteps the issues of huge imbalances and influencing and maintains BS about invisible hands and "egoism working for the better" long after they have been proven dead and burried. Now, if that was only spread by some naive "free market" bloggers and the like that would be ok. But the bullshiting includes most of the souped down political economy that is fed to the masses and to policy makers by "financial experts" and "economy advisors" (and even most university classes on economy).
- firebrand39 14y ago
  Coldtea has a point. 'Too big to fail' banks, coercive patent litigation and so on, indicates to me that 'free markets' are nothing but an ideological cover up for coercive powers in the hand of private actors instead of the state. That's no real freedom either. This is no middle class lefty thought but an observation.

by astine 14y ago

coldtea 14y ago

>That's silly, freedom is a matter of degree. A market with some simple rules governing violence and the enforcement of contracts is certainly more free than a Soviet style planned economy. You can neither have a perfectly free market nor a perfectly controlled market. No -- but the ideology of the free market sidesteps the issues of huge imbalances and influencing and maintains BS about invisible hands and "egoism working for the better" long after they have been proven dead and burried. Now, if that was only spread by some naive "free market" bloggers and the like that would be ok. But the bullshiting includes most of the souped down political economy that is fed to the masses and to policy makers by "financial experts" and "economy advisors" (and even most university classes on economy).

firebrand39 14y ago
Coldtea has a point. 'Too big to fail' banks, coercive patent litigation and so on, indicates to me that 'free markets' are nothing but an ideological cover up for coercive powers in the hand of private actors instead of the state. That's no real freedom either. This is no middle class lefty thought but an observation.