3 ms·

Free markets don't really exist. Market information and capital is highly siloed and almost exclusively used for advantage by market incumbents.

adventured 12y ago
First, your premise is invalid, because your definition of a free market is wrong. The concept of a free market does not require perfectly equal distribution of knowledge or capital, such that in the absence of that said free market ceases. "Free market" != perfectly equal distribution of resources. Second, your premise is invalid because it rests on the notion that both capital and information are static quantities, when in fact they can be created and accumulated by new entrants very easily, and historically this is exactly what occurs. If you were right, the silo would act to vigorously prevent new entrants. The exact opposite proved to be true under Capitalism in the US: the US became the greatest business / startup creation engine in history precisely due to its original highly free market orientation.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Please point to the authoritative definition of "free market" so that I may appropriately rebut you.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Sure, let's go with Merriam Webster, given they're a very prominent authority on definitions. We can look at other prominent resources too, since their definitions are all similar enough that you should have no problem rebutting my position: that a free market does not require equal distribution of resources among participants, and that incumbents can create their own new information and capital (ie information and capital in a free market are not static resources). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market "an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government" http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control."
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Ok, well now we've gone from two ill-defined terms to a handful of ill-defined terms: "economic market or system", "prices based on competition", "private businesses", "control", "government", "market economy", "supply and demand", "little". I don't think these definitions are that rigorous or well-founded, however I will accept that they represent a colloquial understanding of the terms however "incorrect" they may be. I say "incorrect" because I'm not sure you could use those definitions to point to real-life instances of what my understanding (and what I believe is implied in this thread/forum) of a "free market" is: Entities exchanging *things*, free of coercion. >you should have no problem rebutting my position Ok, so you've already signaled defeat... > that a free market does not require equal distribution of resources among participants To be clear, I never claimed that it does. I claimed that free markets don't really exist. It is actually very easy to disprove my claim, it merely requires one to produce a counter-example, that is, point to an instance of a free market. If you can provide a counter-example, I will respond, as I believe I will be able to show you a market that is (likely) rife with coercion. What I claimed is that existing markets are typically extremely asymmetrical in regard to how information and resources are distributed among the participants. Most participants in the "free market" that is the USA have comparatively no information or resources vs. the largest participants. Additionally, many of those who lack information and/or resources are survivally dependent in some way on the largest participants which is typically where the coercion is allowed (or designed) to creep in. Some research[1] has found that even seemingly small amounts of asymmetry lead to large systemic effects. In the cited case, it was found that those who update their market strategy (who to bid against and at what price) fastest will cyclically be able to achieve much higher values of money than those who update their strategies at a slower rate. When you map these results to their real-world analogues, it is established participants (corporations) that are able to update their strategies faster (analytics, espionage, acquisitions & mergers, political purchasing) while individuals are unable to update as quickly. For example, I can't really negotiate with and/or continually swap between competitors of: PG&E/AT&T/NBCComcastUniversal/TimeWarner/Verizon/etc/etc. To some extent I can swap (update my strategy), but not at the same rate that they are able to update theirs (for example, an airline can change prices on demand, multiple times per day). Typically I can't even access historical market pricing, while the incumbents have access to (and exploit) almost all historical market data. [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798v3.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798v3.pdf Edit: If you are going to down-vote, please provide a counter-example.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  I've an alternative hypothesis regarding the US and business/startup creation: it is the most resource-rich country on the planet that is also almost entirely unscathed by the ravages of decades or centuries of war. It wasn't until after WW1, and in reality after WWII--which left basically the entire rest of developed civilization in a shambles--and lots of government intervention in the "free market" that the US became the economic power that it is.
  - adventured 12y ago
    That's incorrect. The US became the economic power that it is today, after the Civil War, due to industrialization and vast business creation. Between 1870 and 1900 it became the world's largest economy (and for those decades was consistently the world's fastest growing economy, by far). By WW1, the US had arguably a more powerful economic position than it does today (and it already had as great a share of global GDP as it does today). http://www.quora.com/Economic-History/At-what-point-did-the-US-become-the-biggest-economy-in-the-world http://www.quora.com/Economic-History/At-what-point-did-the-... It's also worth noting, what largely made the US the world's largest economy between 1870 and 1900, was value added manufacturing and not merely possessing vast natural resources (obviously possessing those resources made it far easier to manufacture; but many other resource rich nations did not accomplish the same outcome). As that Quora link references, the US was producing more steel than the combined output of Germany, France and Britain. The US was one of the primary leaders of the technology + science revolution that we refer to as the industrial revolution. By the time WW1 rolled around, the US was already the dominant manufacturing power.

adventured 12y ago

First, your premise is invalid, because your definition of a free market is wrong. The concept of a free market does not require perfectly equal distribution of knowledge or capital, such that in the absence of that said free market ceases. "Free market" != perfectly equal distribution of resources. Second, your premise is invalid because it rests on the notion that both capital and information are static quantities, when in fact they can be created and accumulated by new entrants very easily, and historically this is exactly what occurs. If you were right, the silo would act to vigorously prevent new entrants. The exact opposite proved to be true under Capitalism in the US: the US became the greatest business / startup creation engine in history precisely due to its original highly free market orientation.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Please point to the authoritative definition of "free market" so that I may appropriately rebut you.
- adventured 12y ago
  Sure, let's go with Merriam Webster, given they're a very prominent authority on definitions. We can look at other prominent resources too, since their definitions are all similar enough that you should have no problem rebutting my position: that a free market does not require equal distribution of resources among participants, and that incumbents can create their own new information and capital (ie information and capital in a free market are not static resources). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market "an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government" http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control."
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Ok, well now we've gone from two ill-defined terms to a handful of ill-defined terms: "economic market or system", "prices based on competition", "private businesses", "control", "government", "market economy", "supply and demand", "little". I don't think these definitions are that rigorous or well-founded, however I will accept that they represent a colloquial understanding of the terms however "incorrect" they may be. I say "incorrect" because I'm not sure you could use those definitions to point to real-life instances of what my understanding (and what I believe is implied in this thread/forum) of a "free market" is: Entities exchanging *things*, free of coercion. >you should have no problem rebutting my position Ok, so you've already signaled defeat... > that a free market does not require equal distribution of resources among participants To be clear, I never claimed that it does. I claimed that free markets don't really exist. It is actually very easy to disprove my claim, it merely requires one to produce a counter-example, that is, point to an instance of a free market. If you can provide a counter-example, I will respond, as I believe I will be able to show you a market that is (likely) rife with coercion. What I claimed is that existing markets are typically extremely asymmetrical in regard to how information and resources are distributed among the participants. Most participants in the "free market" that is the USA have comparatively no information or resources vs. the largest participants. Additionally, many of those who lack information and/or resources are survivally dependent in some way on the largest participants which is typically where the coercion is allowed (or designed) to creep in. Some research[1] has found that even seemingly small amounts of asymmetry lead to large systemic effects. In the cited case, it was found that those who update their market strategy (who to bid against and at what price) fastest will cyclically be able to achieve much higher values of money than those who update their strategies at a slower rate. When you map these results to their real-world analogues, it is established participants (corporations) that are able to update their strategies faster (analytics, espionage, acquisitions & mergers, political purchasing) while individuals are unable to update as quickly. For example, I can't really negotiate with and/or continually swap between competitors of: PG&E/AT&T/NBCComcastUniversal/TimeWarner/Verizon/etc/etc. To some extent I can swap (update my strategy), but not at the same rate that they are able to update theirs (for example, an airline can change prices on demand, multiple times per day). Typically I can't even access historical market pricing, while the incumbents have access to (and exploit) almost all historical market data. [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798v3.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798v3.pdf Edit: If you are going to down-vote, please provide a counter-example.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
I've an alternative hypothesis regarding the US and business/startup creation: it is the most resource-rich country on the planet that is also almost entirely unscathed by the ravages of decades or centuries of war. It wasn't until after WW1, and in reality after WWII--which left basically the entire rest of developed civilization in a shambles--and lots of government intervention in the "free market" that the US became the economic power that it is.
- adventured 12y ago
  That's incorrect. The US became the economic power that it is today, after the Civil War, due to industrialization and vast business creation. Between 1870 and 1900 it became the world's largest economy (and for those decades was consistently the world's fastest growing economy, by far). By WW1, the US had arguably a more powerful economic position than it does today (and it already had as great a share of global GDP as it does today). http://www.quora.com/Economic-History/At-what-point-did-the-US-become-the-biggest-economy-in-the-world http://www.quora.com/Economic-History/At-what-point-did-the-... It's also worth noting, what largely made the US the world's largest economy between 1870 and 1900, was value added manufacturing and not merely possessing vast natural resources (obviously possessing those resources made it far easier to manufacture; but many other resource rich nations did not accomplish the same outcome). As that Quora link references, the US was producing more steel than the combined output of Germany, France and Britain. The US was one of the primary leaders of the technology + science revolution that we refer to as the industrial revolution. By the time WW1 rolled around, the US was already the dominant manufacturing power.