We can’t have a totally free market?

Posted by Solver 3 months, 1 week ago to Ask the Gulch
84 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A free market without rules would be like competitive teams playing sports games without rules.
Agree or disagree?

If you agree, how should the free market be limited?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
    A free market requires the protection of the rights of the individual. That is not what rules in sports are. In a free country one is free to take any action except that which is explicitly prohibited as a violation of rights. Sports rules dictate procedures within a highly delimited realm of physical competition that is not based on trade as exchanging value for value. The sports rules metaphor is more like the regulatory state and unrelated to a free market, which is why it is promoted as a metaphor by statists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
      Would not the courts be sufficiently effective at settling disputes as to the rights of seller or buyer in the event of a trade. What else is there requiring "limiting"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
        The government requires being limited to the protection of the rights of the individual under objective law. Courts interpret and enforce the law defining rights. They cannot operate subjectively in a vacuum.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
          It would be nice if the courts actually uphelld human rights. They go along with the “rules” set forth by collectivists in this country, so they have become my enemy in many ways
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
            They typically do uphold human rights. They often have a big problem with individual rights. Human rights are much more progressively fluid.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
              They uphold the laws, which are increasingly collectivist. It seems to me that courts are NOT my friend in the USA now.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                When we use terms like “human rights” we get things like, right to health care, right to a minimum wage, right to safe spaces, right to not be offended...
                None of these are “individual rights.”
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
                  true. none of those are really rights that are owed to any human. its an abortion of the language actually.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                    Yep. My point is that it is a lot harder for them to corrupt the term, “individual rights.” And that’s why they avoid it like the plague. And that’s why we should be shoving it in their face.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
                      They package rights with entitlements. Calling them individual rights will not stop them. They corrupt the use of all important concepts. The reason to emphasize rights of the individual is to explain and defend the proper concept against altruist and collectivist philosophy. "Shoving it in their face" as a word-slogan will not help.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by giallopudding 3 months, 1 week ago
    Yes, rules are necessary. But they don't have to be imposed by government; just as governments don't make the rules for playing football or baseball. Rules of cooperation and reciprocity are hardwired into the human brain. We are social animals, are largely cooperative and prone to exchange goods fairly. Caveat emptor of course, since there is always a small percentage of nefarious sociopaths who will try to game any system. But government can't rid the world of those. In fact, government is made up of a preponderance of immoral, petty dictators. That is the LAST place we should be looking for rules of how we trade goods.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
      government has no competition and is therefore a very poor regulator. Consumer protection through competition is our best defense against unscrupulous trading.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
      No ideas are "hardwired into the human brain". "Rules" protecting the rights of the individual must be enforced by government, which in turn requires understanding the philosophical basis of individualism in reason required for a proper government. Your post sounds like a plea for anarchism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by giallopudding 3 months, 1 week ago
        Studies have been done of very young children indicating that even in infancy they exhibit a sense of reciprocity and have a sense of fairness. To understand human behavior we must look as much to our genetic inheritance as to the cultural conditions which shape us. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
        I heartily recommend a reading of Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" if you are interested in learning more about our human nature, and how we are wired to behave.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
          Please don't lecture us on "if you are interested in learning more about human nature" with vague "studies have been done". We know what human nature is and it does not include innate ideas. We are not "wired" to behave. Behavior depends on the ideas that people hold, not "genetic inheritance" or "cultural conditions" determining thought and action. A code of morality is required to guide our choices and actions; political philosophy is required to identify and define the proper role of government. The importance of ideas and the choice to think are central to Atlas Shrugged.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 3 months, 1 week ago
    You are making an error here. "Free Market" does not mean no 'rules". but the only "rules" needed are those to protect individual rights. Thus, no trader can be allowed to infringe on the rights of others. Every trade becomes a win/win.
    Governments role is to protect our rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
      So there are rules, and traders respecting individual rights is one of them. I agree, but also add that one of the other proper roles of government is to prevent people, both foreign and domestic, from seriously endangering a nation. So something like a suitcase nuke would not be generally allowed for trade
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by salta 3 months, 1 week ago
        Privately owning nukes being illegal is simply part of protecting rights (same would apply to biologic or chemical weapons). These things have no role for the individual like self defense (as a firearm does).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 1 week ago
    The customers provide the guidelines in the free market and the producers must follow them or lose customers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
      “The customer provides the guidelines...“
      I’ll play devils avocate. Let’s say that customer A has 1000 slave girls to trade with dealer B, who has a suitcase nuke. Both A and B want to trade.

      I suspect it’s more than the customers that provide the guidelines/rules/limits to free trade.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 1 week ago
        "guidelines/rules/limits to free trade."
        I read this discussion up to the last post below. Is it simplistic for me to separate trade from the action. It's not illegal to buy slaves because buying is illegal but rather because slavery is illegal. It's the same with hiring a hitman or buying goods you know are stolen. It's not the buying that's the crime. It's what you're buying that's illegal. You can have a totally free market, but that doesn't mean everything is legal as long as it's in some way marketed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 1 week ago
        The problem here isn't the "market". If both the 1000 slave girls and the suitcase nuke are acceptable items for A and B to possess, then if they wish to trade that's fine.

        You are confusing the determination of items that are dangerous/immoral with trade.

        You don't think that anyone should own 1000 slave girls or a suitcase nuke. I'm certainly inclined to agree with you on the slaves and probably the nuke as well but that's not quite as solid.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
          I believe that the limit in preventing the trade of the thousand slave girls is, individual rights. The limit preventing the trading of suitcase nukes is, the proper role of government. The idea of having free markets without any limits is akin to the idea of a socialist utopia. Both utterly unreal.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 1 week ago
            So, you don't think someone should trade a thousand slave girls, but you are ok with them owning a thousand slave girls?

            A market is trade. Presumably you must have the right to own the thing you are trading. So what you are talking about is the ownership of these items it has nothing to do with a free market.

            And to further your analogy you can play sports without externally specified rules -- so long as the two teams agree to the rules they are going to use.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
              So you admit that rights are a limiting factor. I agree. A free market should limit people from trading stolen goods. That limit would be based on, property rights.

              I don’t think someone should be able to own 1000 slave girls. It does not mater much what I think if some rulers that make up their own laws in some country owned a thousand slave girls and wanted to trade them. What would limit them from doing so in a free trade market?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months, 1 week ago
                I don't think you understand the meaning of the word market. A market is where people exchange things they own. If you accept that someone owns something than they can trade it in a free market.

                Your problem is with people owning things that you don't want them to own, and especially when it comes to slavery I don't thing you should own people. But a market has nothing to do with that. You shouldn't own them and not trade them either.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                  Market: a meeting of people for selling and buying.

                  I would say more accurately, a market is where people are exchanging things they possess.

                  Many people will trade what they did not earn.
                  So back to the original question, can a free market operate without rules?
                  No rules means anyone can trade anything they want to. Let’s pretend we have a real free market.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 3 months, 1 week ago
    As soon as the decision is made to 'limit' free markets you invite all the despots large and small to begin forcing (using violence) the market to benefit those who use force; i.e. the lawmakers. The only rules that need apply are for prevention of crime against others rights, not perceived ethereal rights that are used to describe a perceived wrong because someone used the wrong pronoun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
    Regulation by anything other than the free will decision making by the customers just doesnt work. It would require someone or group to "decide" what was OK and what wasnt. But, there is nothing that would correct any mistakes or hidden agendas they had.

    If I dont like what facebook does, which I dont, I can just abstain from using it. Same with TV and news media. I do this all the time. I am the customer from HELL, who makes up his own mind (for better or worse). If everyone else did that, the marketplace would serve the people better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 3 months, 1 week ago
    A free market with rules...is not a free market. The only place for rules is to protect life and property from crime, fraud and the breaking of contracts
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 months, 1 week ago
    A free market like a free anything creates its own laws that are unbreakable because otherwise, they don't work. Take supply and demand. You can try to cheat it all you want, but it won't do you an iota of good. The problem is humans need to give up being greedy and using coercion. If the use of force was wiped out of human culture there'd be no need for books of laws and their use. Unfortunately, we haven't advanced that far.-- yet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 3 months, 1 week ago
    Mankind has been trading for all of its existence...long before "government" stepped in. This just shows that it doesn't require a government to ensure fair trading between honest people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 1 week ago
    A rules-free market allows monopolies and trusts to form, which can stifle the element most important to trade, competition. Adam Smith's concept of a free market assumes a degree of consumer power, by favoring the sellers with the best product for a reasonable price. Once trusts and the accompanying price fixing are allowed to be formed, the only power the consumer has is to stop buying the products.

    Monopolies favor only the seller, who has no incentive for product improvement. Some of us are old enough to remember the Bell telephone monopoly, and how the breakup of that monopoly helped create the dynamic, competitive environment for communication services we experience today.

    At a minimum, there should be rules that prohibit the formation of monopolies and trusts. In medieval Europe, the rules were established among merchant societies and craftsman guilds, who could take violators before courts, with often unsatisfactory outcomes. That alone points to a need for a common enforceable set of rules, with sufficient authority to force participants to abide by them. That almost inevitably puts enforcement in the hands of government. The question then becomes at what level of government the rules are to be enforced.

    Part of the problem with health care, as one glaring example, is that we've allowed the constitutional restriction on inhibiting interstate commerce to be violated by states. Each state sets the rules for health care, including what any health insurance has to cover. creating wild variances in the cost of health care from state to state, and inhibiting trade in medical goods and services between states. That would indicate that the rules of commerce in the U.S. should be set at the highest level in order for the efficient free flow of goods and services
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
      A monopoly cannot be maintained without force. The justification of a free market is the rights of the individual, especially private property rights, not a collectivist utilitarian "efficient free flow". Subjectively outlawing "monopolies" is a violation of rights. So were the medieval guilds, guild socialism, and syndicalism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
        I disagree with the first sentence only.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
          No one can prevent competing activity without force.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
            “A monopoly cannot be maintained without force.”
            Sometimes something comes to market that is unique. That business may start out as a monopoly. A monopoly that could be maintained as long as the completion can not duplicate a similar product at a similar value.
            No force needed during this stage.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
              Private property is not "monopoly" and must not be banned. They are different concepts. You own your own home; you don't "monopolize" it. A dominant market share cannot be maintained without force. No one can prevent competing activity without force.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                Not what I said, on both your points in the first sentence. Strawman argument.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
                  It is not a strawman. You rejected the principle that "A monopoly cannot be maintained without force". The "stage" of a new idea that was not previously available is not monopoly. A new idea that is suddenly available is not sustained monopoly, immune from any competition: As soon as someone else creates an alternative he can compete unless he is prevented by force. To equate anything unique and still unchallenged that someone does with his own private property for any period of time with "monopoly" maintained without force obliterates the meaning and purpose of the concept.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                    You stated that, “Private property is not "monopoly" and must not be banned.“
                    I agree with both points yet they were not any part of my last argument or any of my arguments, but you counter argued as if they were. So I stopped after that first sentence, well above, and called it a strawman. Everything after that I pretty much ignored.
                    My last argument is either valid or invalid but it seemed to have been just ignored.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
                      You rejected the principle that "A monopoly cannot be maintained without force". The rest is discussion of why, including as one part the fact that private property that happens to be unique is not monopoly.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                        I’ll repost that last part [with some clarification],

                        “A monopoly cannot be maintained without force.”
                        Sometimes something comes to market that is unique [that people want]. That business [which created it] may start out as a monopoly. A monopoly that could be maintained as long as the completion can not duplicate a similar product at a similar value.
                        No force needed during this stage.

                        If you are trying to say, “A monopoly cannot be maintained forever without force.”, you would, by default, be correct.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
                          Don't tell me what I am "trying" to say. Nothing is "forever". A "stage" when a new product is first introduced is not maintaining a monopoly.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months, 1 week ago
              "Sometimes something comes to market that is unique."
              Peter Thiel's Zero to One is about this. He says we generally think of competition as good, but what's really good is creating something no one can compete with. It's a quick read and worthwhile.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
                Yes, it is very good, contrary to those who think in terms of floating abstractions with their notions of "perfect competition" as an end in itself. But such superior creations -- whose proper market protection is based on property rights regardless of demands to "protect" a false notion of free market -- do not last and cannot be used to maintain a monopoly without force.

                Over time someone always comes up with a newer creation as an alternative. In real markets everything takes a finite period of time to develop. Accusations of a sustained "monopoly" because competition is not instantaneous are another form of floating abstractions misusing concepts outside of their meaning in reality.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
        I dont agree in principle that force is required to maintain a monopoly. I think it can be maintained IF all the possible preferences of the customers are provided for. Its VERY expensive to do that of course, which is why is hardly ever occurs. But, it CAN be done through very hard work !!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
          Anyone is free to compete at any time and cannot be stopped except by force. If something is so permanently unimportant and undesired that no one ever bothers to offer any alternative then no one is dependent on it and no one cares. To say that here in reality a monopoly cannot be maintained means that someone is challenging it. Fantasizing someone permanently operating at a loss to provide everyone what he wants for the sake of not having anyone else provide it or an alternative is word games, not reality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
            It is theoretically possible to maintain a stable monopoly position without losing money. Or relying on force
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
              That "theoretical possibility" is word manipulation typical of academics who do not connect concepts to the facts that give rise to them. It is meaningless and irrelevant. Whatever you imagine someone "theoretically" doing while imagining no one else does anything about it, they cannot sustain a monopoly against a challenge without force.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
                Why would you state that its impossible to sustain a monopoly. I agree it would take a lot of work and determination, but I really doubt its impossible. "theoretical possibility" means that if certain conditions are met, it CAN happen. In this case, the real question would be if someone or group of people even wanted to go through the work of maintaining a monopoly position over a long period of time, but I stick to my position that its theoretically possible.

                Maybe I need to understand WHY you take the position that force is REQUIRED. I would agree that force is HELPFUL for sure to maintain a monopoly,
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
                  That kind of rationalistic imagined "theoretical" is unrelated to the problem. The "possible" is not what you can imagine with "if conditions". Maintaining a monopoly is meaningless if no one challenges it. The economy is not static. No one is immune from competition with any alternatives in a changing economy without force to prevent it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
                    I think you are missing the situation where one company could during a period of time could in fact provide whatever the market wanted in terms of some product or service to such an extent that no other company chose to waste their resources challenging it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                      Sirius (XM) satellite comes to mind. They’ve maintained a monopoly on public satellite radio listening for years. They had built custom satellites just for this purpose. Sirius XM continues to be the only choice for listening to satellite radio in cars in most areas.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 1 week ago
                        There is "sirius" competition from streaming services, so much that Sirius is investing in Pandora (which is declining itself) hoping to get subscribers from Pandora's base who are defecting in droves to other free streaming services.
                        I can't imagine paying to listen to talk radio in my car. Probably causes an increase in high blood pressure and road rage ;^)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
                          Right. Proving you can’t maintain a monopoly on popular products and services forever. Without the use of force, competition will eventually swoop in and the monopoly will become more and more narrow until it eventually disappears.

                          Still, Sirius XM had maintained a monopoly on various services for years. Just to maintain a monopoly on the Howard Stern show costed them hundreds of millions.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
                            I suspect actually that Sirius has some sort of FCC granted monopoly. NOt sure about that. though.

                            Sirius is a pain in the ass really. I routinely cancel service, and then take their $5 a month retention deal (for years now !!). Its not worth the $18 a month regular price. They have commercials for sirius radio constantly on their supposedly commercial free music stations. LIARS they are.

                            They dont very good service. choice of music is not good, and the rest of the stations are replete with commercials. Might as well listem to regular FM radio.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by freedomforall 3 months, 1 week ago
                              Been using free Spotify for about 9 months on my phone and laptop. Occasional ads aren't very intrusive (mute or accept ads.) Pandora free has ads about every 5 minutes- too frequent for my liking. (But it's free so they can set the rules until customers leave like I did.)
                              I also listen to various internet radio stations on my computer. Many are good quality and few ads. I have a device that streams those stations (and music on network drives) direct to my hifi using my wifi. Works well with very good quality and no subscription fees.
                              I'm working with a friend to manufacture (in USA) a hi-fi tube preamp for sale later this year that will likely include wi-fi connectivity and built in DAC. Great quality and reasonable price coming soon;^)
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 1 week ago
        An "efficient free flow" of goods and services is one that creates the best opportunity for the individual seller and consumer. The rules are the same for everyone, so talent, creativity, and an understanding of the market are the elements of success.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
          Collectivist utilitarianism is not the moral standard and is ultimately incoherent. Protection of the rights of the individual and private property rights are "rules the same for everyone". No government coercion in the name of creating a so-called ideal market is justified.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 1 week ago
            Labels. Explain in detail "collectivist utilitarianism." Without some guidelines, bribery, establishing monopolies and trusts, shutting out new entrepreneurs to the detriment of real competition, and you're OK with that?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
              Utilitarianism is a well known and unfortunately influential ethical position in philosophy due primarily to Bentham and Mill, not just a "label". The "greatest good or the greatest number" is the collectivist version. Not only is the premise false, it is impossible to implement.

              I am not "ok" with violating private property rights for the sake of the collective. Lumping bribery and a vague "shutting out" with market dominance is another invalid package deal exploited here for government controls ambiguously passed off as "some guidelines". Protecting the rights of the individual, especially private property rights, in the market is "real competition". Government coercion violating freedom while claiming to provide "free flow" and "opportunity" in a rationalized floating abstraction of a "market" is not.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
      As far as I can tell there are basically two ways to obtain and keep a monopoly. One is to keep producing the best value of quality products and services that the customers want. Two is using force to favor the monopoly and/or to keep away competition. With Bell telephone it was method two, helped by big government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 months, 1 week ago
        It is VERY difficult to maintain a Monopoly, especially in a market populated by consumers who have different tastes. Over time, the market is fragmented by groups of consumers who want different things. A monopoly would have to offer all the options in order to keep competition out, and that is difficult. My little company has this problem. We used to make one 6 foot led lighted whip for off road use, but now we offer 2,3,4,5,6 and 8 foot lighted whips in three different brightnesses for example. Business is split up among the offerings by the preference of the customers.

        Look at Mc Donalds- in the beginning it was cheeseburgers, fries, and shakes. Now, check out their menu, and in spite of that Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Taco Bell, Del Taco, etc., etc.

        And None of them have a monopoly
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 1 week ago
        It isn't necessary to use force to create and maintain a monopoly. Control of intellectual property can make it difficult for a competitor. Buying out potential competitors (Microsoft method) creates a very strong hold on a market that can be difficult to break.

        Trusts can create an "impenetrable" market. The big three auto manufacturers collectively bought all the excess steel to attempt to prevent new competition. They hadn't counted on Henry J. Kaiser, who built his own steel mill to produce the Kaiser and Fraser autos. However, unless a similarly wealthy individual or corporation can fight a trust, it pretty well closes out competition. No force required.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 months, 1 week ago
          So you think free markets should have some anti-trust rules. Do you think that three or more separate companies can continue to act as one, and that one of them will not break away and do what is best for its own self interest?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months, 1 week ago
            It depends on the market. People aren't always secure in holding market share, and if a big company guarantees not to shut out a smaller one if it agrees to price fixing, inventory control, or some other market control strategy, there's a danger in breaking away. There's a dark side to competition, and it isn't frequently in favor of an honest operator or the consumer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 months, 1 week ago
              That is not a "dark side to competition". Is the way some people behave with or without a market. In a free market such arrangements do not last.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months, 1 week ago
    And what exactly are the rules of a free market? I think it can be summed up pretty easily: act the way you want others to act. You want your rights and privileges protected and respected, so do the same towards others. Be honest. Play by those rules and I don't see a whole lot of problems.

    The problems come when people decide that they need to make rules for other people because they don't respect others. This is usually those in government seeking power. That's when you start getting favorable treatment towards some groups, cronyism, etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo