Free Market

[PureX]

We have never been self sufficient. Social animals don't really evolve to be that way. Solitary animals do, but social critters evolve to benefit and flourish in their group.

Which is why our modern delusion of "free trade" is even more delusional.

But to your (irrelevant) point: the small cooperative bands in which we humans lived were self-sufficient. And their well-being was effectively a collective issue. So they functioned much as an individual would in our society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which is why our modern delusion of "free trade" is even more delusional.

But to your (irrelevant) point: the small cooperative bands in which we humans lived were self-sufficient. And their well-being was effectively a collective issue. So they functioned much as an individual would in our society.

They were collectively sufficient, and they couldn't function as an individual would in our society because our level of selfishness, self centeredness, and individualism would cause dysfunction within the group to a greater extent than it does today. Today we can say "me, me, me, me" and there is someone else to pick up the slack. "Back then," such a mentality would mean others don't eat.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

This world is a like a never ending game forced to play and participate in, in order to survive and receive rewards. Everything has the subtle appearance of being ‘free’ but isn’t. All rigged.

Even if you resign from playing most games, you are still forced to participate in a few games.

 

[Jollybear]

Yeah you did miss. Because A market economy with no government intervention means companies can do whatever they wanna do. Even it means Polluting the environment or violating peoples rights. But hey, it’s all about "freedom" right?

You ARE missing the point. Freedom WILL work those problems out WITHOUT government intervention.

Heres how: workers negociate wages/benefits with there employer. If the employer wont work with them, then they go work elsewhere or strike. This will cause the free market to not only compete with prices, but also compete for workers.

We dont need government intervention. You hate freedom, except when it deals with your own freedom of course.

 

[LiveBetterLife]

The people are doing things in the free market.

That is absolutely shredding insight!

 

[Heyo]

How do they cooperate?

Usually by fixing prizes. Sometimes by not competing in certain areas (The US is known for often having only one or two telcos at a given location.) Anything that prevents them from having to sell at the market equilibrium.
And of course by jointly bribing politicians to prevent regulation. The NRA is a prime example.
There are more ways to cooperate. When the government auctioned off air wave frequencies, they found a way to not bid against each other. That is all a logical result from Nash's game theory.

 

[Heyo]

In a free market corporations are constantly competing with each-other. That creates price war, because whatever you have to sell they have to sell. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you.

There is no such thing as a "free market" in a world where you can call your competitor and fix a prize. Why should they compete when cooperation yields a higher profit?

 

[Jollybear]

Usually by fixing prizes. Sometimes by not competing in certain areas (The US is known for often having only one or two telcos at a given location.) Anything that prevents them from having to sell at the market equilibrium.
And of course by jointly bribing politicians to prevent regulation. The NRA is a prime example.
There are more ways to cooperate. When the government auctioned off air wave frequencies, they found a way to not bid against each other. That is all a logical result from Nash's game theory.

Sell at the market equilibrium. What do you mean by this?

 

[Prometheus85]

You ARE missing the point. Freedom WILL work those problems out WITHOUT government intervention.

Heres how: workers negociate wages/benefits with there employer. If the employer wont work with them, then they go work elsewhere or strike. This will cause the free market to not only compete with prices, but also compete for workers.

We dont need government intervention. You hate freedom, except when it deals with your own freedom of course.

You continue to misuse the word "free"

In fact your using the word "free" independently form "free market"

You clearly don’t know anything about a free market and how it works since u believe it’s a good thing.

The essence of free markets is competition and this applies equally to wages as to prices. The wage level for any job is determined by what employers are willing to pay for that job. In theory the system is fair, because the broader market and competition can keep individual companies honest, but in practice, a handful of major players set the wage level for smaller competitors as well. The reason, simply, is pricing power. When Walmart, for example, decides to pay its workers a dollar per hour less so that it can reduce prices, small retailers who are already struggling to compete with the economies of scale that big firms enjoy have no choice but to reduce their own prices - and therefore their workers' pay, to maintain their margins. The free market then is no longer 'free' since a handful of powerful players set both prices and wages that smaller competitors have no choice but to adopt.

Similarly, if a smaller retailer wanted to maintain its existing wage levels, it could do so only by reducing its workforce or replacing its inventory with cheaper quality goods in order to match Walmart's lowered prices, but that can harm the retailer's relationship with its customers and its sales, and so it will opt for reducing wages instead. In fact, there cannot be a free market for wages when a handful of top players exercise a virtual monopoly over a sector and therefore are the market.

Basically the free market system
a systemic, structural condition, so you or anyone who says they believe in "free markets" is either lying, stupid, or hasn't thought the whole concept through properly.

 

[Heyo]

Sell at the market equilibrium. What do you mean by this?

The market equilibrium is the prize that is to be expected in a free market economy where corporations compete with each other. (Also sometimes called a Nash equilibrium.) It is the prime cost plus a mark-up which is reasonable to work for. It's compared to the monopol equilibrium. That's the prize you can sell for when you have no competition.
If you have a field of corporations that 1. is small enough to get all producers at one table and 2. there is a high hurdle to enter into a competition, it is more profitable for the corporations to not compete and instead fix a prize that leaves a high margin for everyone or divide the market to avoid competition.
An economist could compute the market and the monopol equilibrium but you can estimate if you pay a market prize. Is the product much cheaper in an other country? Does the corporation give a high dividend on their stock? If yes, the prizes have been fixed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How doesnt it make the market un free? There still regulated. Thats the oposite of free.

Not at all. Just as you as you can consider yourself essentially free, even though you do not have the right to freely murder another person, businesses can freely compete with one another if the playing field is level...that is, whatever rules there might be apply equally to all of them. I'd go further and apply that to things like false advertising as well. If the Florida orange grower is not allowed to say "my oranges cure cancer," and the same rule applies to the California orchard, well they can still compete freely by finding true things to say in the advertising.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You continue to misuse the word "free"

In fact your using the word "free" independently form "free market"

You clearly don’t know anything about a free market and how it works since u believe it’s a good thing.

The essence of free markets is competition and this applies equally to wages as to prices. The wage level for any job is determined by what employers are willing to pay for that job. In theory the system is fair, because the broader market and competition can keep individual companies honest, but in practice, a handful of major players set the wage level for smaller competitors as well. The reason, simply, is pricing power. When Walmart, for example, decides to pay its workers a dollar per hour less so that it can reduce prices, small retailers who are already struggling to compete with the economies of scale that big firms enjoy have no choice but to reduce their own prices - and therefore their workers' pay, to maintain their margins. The free market then is no longer 'free' since a handful of powerful players set both prices and wages that smaller competitors have no choice but to adopt.

Similarly, if a smaller retailer wanted to maintain its existing wage levels, it could do so only by reducing its workforce or replacing its inventory with cheaper quality goods in order to match Walmart's lowered prices, but that can harm the retailer's relationship with its customers and its sales, and so it will opt for reducing wages instead. In fact, there cannot be a free market for wages when a handful of top players exercise a virtual monopoly over a sector and therefore are the market.

Basically the free market system
a systemic, structural condition, so you or anyone who says they believe in "free markets" is either lying, stupid, or hasn't thought the whole concept through properly.

There's another side to the wage question, though, which is that some employers can decide to actually pay their workers more (or find other means to incent them, which usually means additional cost), if they find that such incented employees actually are more productive, less prone to absenteeism, and so forth. That kind of freedom allows for the creative entrepreneur to find many ways to increase his access to the market for the sale of his product.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, in a FREE economy, government sets NO PRICES on bananas at all. Sorry pale!

So do you think that government should have absolutely nothing to say about how a business is run? For example, should slave labour be allowed in a business? That would certainly make him more competitive than others in the same business who have to pay their employees. So, either they would have to use slaves as well, or go out of business while the slave owner gets the whole market for his product to himself. On the other hand, by simply saying, "no slaves may be employed in producing goods," all businesses are required to obey that rule. That even works, like it or not, with the idea of a minimum wage. So long as that minimum is the same for all, at the very least they are all playing on the same level field, and must find other, acceptable ways to differentiate themselves from the competition.

Laws governing monopolies also help to ensure that competition can work in favour of the consuming public. And this does not have to be at the expense of those marketing products, either, since they are all bound by the same rules.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So free means fairness?

Why should there be fairness if one company is stupid?

Why should there be fair regulation on emitions? In other words, why should there be regulation on emitions in the first place?

Please forgive me first for pointing out that the correct spelling is "emissions."

If it can be determined that emissions are , causing harm to the global climate, possibly even with the potential to destroy life on earth, would it not be wise to regulate them?

By the way, I may grant you the possibility (but it is a very small possibility) that some creative company could capture a larger share of the market for his product by actually working at reducing emissions and making that a strong part of their marketing strategy. And if people care about having breathable air for their children more than they care about spending an extra couple of dollars to fill their gas tanks, they might actually buy into it. (As I said, that's a small possibility. I can sometimes be a little too Utopian for my own good.)

 

[PureX]

They were collectively sufficient, and they couldn't function as an individual would in our society because our level of selfishness, self centeredness, and individualism would cause dysfunction within the group to a greater extent than it does today. Today we can say "me, me, me, me" and there is someone else to pick up the slack. "Back then," such a mentality would mean others don't eat.

I agree. But their clans were small. One member could not avoid seeing the result of his own selfish behavior on others. Our clans are very big and complex, now, and we can easily avoid having to face the results of our selfish behavior. It's so easy, in fact, that most of us are oblivious to it. We think our selfishness is a virtue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agree. So free, dont mean fair or fair regulation.

To say it doesn't seems again to distill the complexity of "free" into a single
word with somewhat different meanings & connotations. Why do this?

Because thats what you indirectly did.

No.
I merely used the word "fair" as one of many words in an explanation.

Does it do that though? Engineering (aka, freee market can address that problerm, not government).

Engineering hasn't eliminated tailpipe emissions.
And the free market cannot readily address damage
to one person caused by breathing the products of
combustion from another. Tort solutions are simply
not amenable to widely distributed causes & effects
that aren't attributable to any particular individual.

 

[Jollybear]

You continue to misuse the word "free"

In fact your using the word "free" independently form "free market"

Your using the word market independent of the word free.

These words have meanings.

You clearly don’t know anything about a free market and how it works since u believe it’s a good thing.

So by that stupid logic milton friedmon dont know anything about a free market and how it works since he believes its a good thing?

The essence of free markets is competition and this applies equally to wages as to prices. The wage level for any job is determined by what employers are willing to pay for that job. In theory the system is fair, because the broader market and competition can keep individual companies honest, but in practice, a handful of major players set the wage level for smaller competitors as well. The reason, simply, is pricing power. When Walmart, for example, decides to pay its workers a dollar per hour less so that it can reduce prices, small retailers who are already struggling to compete with the economies of scale that big firms enjoy have no choice but to reduce their own prices - and therefore their workers' pay, to maintain their margins. The free market then is no longer 'free' since a handful of powerful players set both prices and wages that smaller competitors have no choice but to adopt.

Yea, and if the smaller business gives better costumer service and has better location, they grow and outbeat the bigger business. In fact, theres other ways the little business can still sell a product for cheaper, pay there workers MORE and still maintain profit, by cutting costs in another area of there business.

Similarly, if a smaller retailer wanted to maintain its existing wage levels, it could do so only by reducing its workforce or replacing its inventory with cheaper quality goods in order to match Walmart's lowered prices, but that can harm the retailer's relationship with its customers and its sales, and so it will opt for reducing wages instead. In fact, there cannot be a free market for wages when a handful of top players exercise a virtual monopoly over a sector and therefore are the market.

You dont have to get poorer products to sell in your business. You can get the same quality products for cheaper to sell. Just as costumers shop around for better deals, so too businesses can shop around as well. They can cut costs in other areas as well.

Basically the free market system
a systemic, structural condition, so you or anyone who says they believe in "free markets" is either lying, stupid, or hasn't thought the whole concept through properly.

You or anyone who says they DONT believe in "free markets" is either lying, stupid, or hasn't thought the whole concept through properly.

 

[Jollybear]

Not at all. Just as you as you can consider yourself essentially free, even though you do not have the right to freely murder another person, businesses can freely compete with one another if the playing field is level...that is, whatever rules there might be apply equally to all of them. I'd go further and apply that to things like false advertising as well. If the Florida orange grower is not allowed to say "my oranges cure cancer," and the same rule applies to the California orchard, well they can still compete freely by finding true things to say in the advertising.

The rule itself takes away freedom.

Heres the thing. In free market prediction, the lier who says these oranges cure cancer, he will lose business once people realize his oranges arent producing that result.

So, in a free market, its in business owners best interests to tell there costumers the truth.

 

[Jollybear]

To say it doesn't seems again to distill the complexity of "free" into a single
word with somewhat different meanings & connotations. Why do this?

I define free by freedom of action, provided i harm no one else.

No.
I merely used the word "fair" as one of many words in an explanation.

How do you define free?

Engineering hasn't eliminated tailpipe emissions.
And the free market cannot readily address damage
to one person caused by breathing the products of
combustion from another. Tort solutions are simply
not amenable to widely distributed causes & effects
that aren't attributable to any particular individual.

Ok, why is regulating pipe emmesions important? Ive never got sick from smelling that ****. Ive never seen anyone else have it happen either. So why regulate vehicles farting when i see no harm in them farting.

 

[Revoltingest]

I define free by freedom of action, provided i harm no one else.

A definition containing the word defined?

How do you define free?

"Define" is ambitious.
I'll describe it, subject to change, & including but not limited to....
As no unreasonable restriction of action.
With reasonable being about avoiding harm to others.

Ok, why is regulating pipe emmesions important? Ive never got sick from smelling that ****. Ive never seen anyone else have it happen either. So why regulate vehicles farting when i see no harm in them farting.

It's not about just you.
Let's consider what happened when leaded gasoline was ubiquitous.
Ref...
Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented | Smart News | Smithsonian
It has some nasty effects, eg, lowering the IQ of children.
So it makes sense to regulate emissions, eg, banning leaded gasoline in vehicles.
Alas, it's still used in private (piston engine) aircraft, & is a major source of airborne lead.
Tort remedies are impractical for reasons stated earlier.