5 ms·
No. Not at all. I really wish people understood what "free market" means. Just like "free software" is used by people to mean open source, free as in libre n
by mynewwork 13y ago
No. Not at all. I really wish people understood what "free market" means. Just like "free software" is used by people to mean open source, free as in libre not gratis, "free market" does not mean anarchy.
A free market is one which is free from government price intervention - subsidies, price floors, price ceilings but also free of monopolies and cartels. In practice, a government may need to step in to break up a monopoly or stop an anti-competitive cartel to maintain a free market.
- javert 13y agoThat is false. A free market is properly defined as a market where the use of force is barred by the government. So when the government itself initiates force in the market, it is not a free market. There is no such thing as a monopoly without the use of force. You can temporarily have companies that have a very large share of their respective markets, but monopoly is not properly defined as "a very large company." A cartel is just an opportunity for other people to make money by undercutting the cartel. For instance, if the cartel is maintaining artificially low wages, the competitor can take advantage by paying "normal" wages and getting the best employees. Hence, a cartel is not stable. (Unless it has government force backing it---as all modern successful cartels do.)
- rayiner 13y agoThis bizarre fixation with the "use of force" as a critical dividing line is to my mind incomprehensible. "A free market is free except for the arbitrary restrictions I think are fundamental."