Talk:Free market/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Criticisms

I've re-workered the section a bit, buyt the only bit that requires justification is my removal of the catholic position. Specifically, I removed it because it didn't constitue criticism of the market- all but the last statement was pro-markets, and the last is irrelivant- just becuase you are against A being used to excuse B doesn't mean you are against A (or, in fact, B...). For example, I support economic growth, but don't allow it to be used as an excuse for slavery or human rights abuses. Larklight (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would advise to keep the section: first, each and every article dealing with political science or economic theory should include a criticism section in order to put forward ongoing debates; it's a matter of coherence and intellectual integrity; secondly, there are critics related specifically to "free market" rather than "capitalism" as a whole (see Martin J. Whitman supra). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaolian (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a little disturbed by the initial definition of free market. There is a tendency to use this term interchangably with laissez faire. It is not the same thing. The way this is defined only furthurs this misunderstanding. The definition needs to be more general. By the way this is defined it also serves more as propaganda supporting one school of thought over others. It attempts to define this school of thought as status quo, when it clearly is not. Free market is an ideal of what the mechanism of a fair market price might look like. The term says little about how it is achieved. By including the term laissez faire into the definition it makes assumptions that are clearly not agreed upon. To clarify, free market ideals can be embraced while at the same time rejecting laissez-faire. One is not proven to lead to another nor is one proven to be required to achieve the other. They are two seperate concepts thought to be related. This needs to be reworked.--Schnoodler (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. If you can find citations for that position I think those clarification would be greatly beneficial to the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't how one can put this in the article but for some time I have felt that the notion of a 'free market' implies five things about people: (1)people are intelligent, (2)people are knowledgable, (3)people are rational, (4)people are moral, (5)people are ethical. If ANY of these factors are missing, a free maket no longer exists. It is obvious to me that the basic reason for the world-wide economic debacle is the absence of all or most of the preceding factors. What's the solution. Recognition of these factors and regulation to curb excesses.Alloco1 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A competing theory is that "regulation" will cause such debacles unless the regulators are intelligent, knowledgeable, rational, moral and ethical. —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly describes a market where the government does not use laws to regulate the market while the criticisms use strawman tactics against the belief that the government should not take part in the market. The strawman argument "these failures range from military services to roads, and some would argue, to health care" clearly imply a scenario where the government's contributions is completely absent. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion for a resolution here is to rename the § "Negative Perceptions". Renamed the Social Darwinism subsection because Simulation is just a wrong word. Lycurgus (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice a number of weasel words being placed into the criticisms section. It is enough to state the positions. They can be detailed and informative to the reader. This without using phrases like "many may say", "but only" or "they merely." Those are opinions on the positions stated. I saw this as a situtation where WP:WTW seems to be a good guideline. The information still remains provided. 09:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)75.246.54.53 (talk)

ARCHIVE HERE

Suggest cut and paste everything above to archive page, this page over 200K. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Property?

Okay, I'm looking this over and it does not explain HOW property comes into existence in a free market and how it is enforced. It seems that property IS government regulation, or if it can be done without government the mechanisms should be touched upon. Anyway, this is an important area I think.

Moved this to this thread which I created so it doesn't snag archive processing. Lycurgus (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Natural" law of supply and demand

I don't see why we need the word "natural" in the first paragraph. It suffices to say "law of supply and demand" without the "natural". Whether the law of supply and demand is "natural" is disputed by notable economists. For instance, Joseph Stiglitz would argue that the law of supply and demand is a simplification that requires certain idealised conditions to function as a predictable law, conditions that don't always exist in the real, "natural" world. It is not for Wikipedia to judge whether this law is "- we should let the reader decide for him/herself.

I will therefore remove the word "natural", which was introduced in a POV-pushing session "clean up" by JLMadrigal [1] and revert the statement to its original state before 23 November 2007. Cambrasaconfab 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a nod to 'natural law' is quite appropriate. While I understand that you might want to avoid the term natural in front of supply and demand as it can be presumptive out of historical context, the ideal of free market was borne out of natural law or more specifically the natural law of supply and demand. It might actually be something to consider more and expand upon in this page.--Schnoodler (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Supply and Demand are THEORIES not Laws. Check the wiki article on supply and demand and you will see the many theories that attempt to define/observe supply and demand. ----------some idiot

Force and Fraud

I put the part about “force and fraud” back in because it appears someone edited it out. For the original, and long running, Wiki definition you can confirm here: http://www.answers.com/topic/free-market?cat=biz-fin

Kuni Leml (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)User:Kuni Leml

I took out "force and fraud"...defination has proven wrong if the Enron bankruptcy proves anything. Any defination used anywhere should be changed to reflect this inaccurate statement.

So Enron defines all free market workings? This is an ideal system we're talking about. Soxwon (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archival

I took the liberty of manually archiving the contents of this talk page (see the archive box at the top of the page). I left everything from 2008. Hope that helps :) -FrankTobia (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Defining coercion

Coercion is a rather important concept in defining what constitutes a free market, and it wasn't linked until pretty late in the article. I added a link at the first occurrence. I think more coverage is needed about what constitutes coercion in this context. For example, is a worker in a company town coerced into buying at the company store? -- SpareSimian (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because the company store is not physically taking him and bringing him to the store and forcible taking the money out of his pocket, nor does it threaten to attack him physically if he doesn't shop there. That's what's meant by coercion, in the free market concept. It's talking about physical force or threat of physical force. Richard Blatant (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blaming the government is too simplistic

I've noticed that in some articles surrounding the subject of free markets, there's too much emphasis on government being the sole source of market fetters - or, on the presentation that government involvement is the defining feature.

Monopolies and Guilds hardly constitute good examples of free markets; yet they are often no longer protected by the state. Unions have historically had the clout to prevent non-union labor from gaining employment, even when they were illegal - compare Smith's apprenticeships (law of the land) to labor unions in the US (which used to be illegal). Likewise, anticompetitive behavior amongst domestic firms is not so much different from bi-lateral trade agreements, except in the consent and involvement of the state.

An important aspect of advocation for free markets historically, has been the recognition that groups claiming to act in other's best interest, often were not. They can leverage the government in such endeavors, but they can go around it too; they often do both.

Blaming everything on the government sounds a little helpless and innocent. Blablablob (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are lots of sources that disagree with your conclusion. A monopoly as not part of a functioning freemarket by definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as no coercion is involved it's free market. There's nothing logically inconsistent about a monopoly existing in a free market. As long as coercion is not being used to maintain a monopoly, it's still a free market. What's not a free market is when government maintains the monopoly. This is because coercion is being used. For example it's illegal to compete with the U.S. postal service. You seem to be conflating free market with a market of perfect competititon. A free market doesn't have to have perfect competititon. It just has to have no coercion. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coercion in the sense of free markets is different than coercion in the sense of physical domination or intimidation. Coercion in free markets is really about interference in the mechanism of achieving a 'natural' price. A lack of choices (competition) while not being physically coersive can be a barrier when considering a free market. It interferes with a persons ability to go elsewhere and make a better choice. That's not to say a better choice would be available. It allows for the possibility of one party to maximize thier benefit at the expense of another. It is in direct contrast to the free market ideal where upon both parties are maximizing thier benefit and thus opt for the exchange. Price controls no matter if applied by government regulation or monopoly are coersive in a free market sense as it restricts one or more parties from making the best choice. Or in another way to look at it, it can reduce the cummulative value of that transaction. It's no longer a free market while still being free of physical coercion. That's not to say that regulation or industry efforts can't result in a free market or even raise the value of future transactions (ex. joint research, weights and measures etc.) It's so important for intellectual discourse to seperate out the definitions from schools of thought. What is a free market is a vastly different topic than how it is achieved. We must be able to seperate the two to have a basis of dialogue. The definition must be non preferential and non assumptive. --Schnoodler (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to swap redirects

Currently, "unregulated market" redirects here. I propose that we reverse this by renaming the article "unregulated market" and redirecting "free market" to it. Why? Because "free market" is a propaganda term, which tries to equate capitalism with freedom. Since millions of people (myself included) equate capitalism with slavery, such propaganda constitutes an WP:NPOV violation. My proposal is not a violation of NPOV, because what we're talking about when we say "free market" is in fact an unregulated [capitalist] market. All I'm proposing is that we apply the duck test and not use propaganda terms to describe ducks -- even though doing so might be popular in certain circles (WP is supposed to be a resource for everyone, not just pro-this or anti-that).

Now comes the part where the overwhelmingly American and overwhelmingly pro-capitalist editors of the English Wikipedia commence with their overwhelming flood of "Oppose" responses, which will be taken as evidence that my logic is somehow flawed. Begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. "Unregulated" is more specific than "free" and is a better parallel to "regulated market". JudahH (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Free market" as described in this article is a POV propaganda term, along with libertarian usages of "coercion" and "force and fraud". Perhaps there should be two articles: "Free market (libertarian)" and "Free market (economics)" (and the latter would be a redirect from or to "unregulated market". The two ideas would be explained quite differently, even if they were really the same thing. (And they're not the same thing: the libertarian idea is heavily entangled with an enormous number of other issues in their ideology.) Mhuben (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Free market" is analogous to the term "Free Speech." Free Speech does not mean unregulated speech, it means that speech is protected. The same applies with the term free market. The intro to the article specifies two sets of regulations that the concept for a free market endorses, rules against "coercion" and "force and fraud." This would make the term 'unregulated' inaccurate. Also the term 'unregulated' would run afoul of the same WP:NPOV policy that it is claimed that "Free Market" is against, simply substituting a positive connotation for a negative one does not make for a neutral point of view. Also in popular discourse the term used to refer to the ideas described in the article is "Free Market." This is the term that I used to land at the page, and I would suspect the term used for most other people use to land at the page.Epv84 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No Ideal Free Market

I removed a sentence saying, essentially that an ideal free market could not exist because coercion is necessary to uphold property rights and contracts. While this is true, no coercion need be involved in the trading of such rights and contracts. Upholding property rights is the province of government; trading them is the province of the market. Therefore I see no need for distracting qualifiers regarding the "freedom" of the market. JudahH (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Force and Fraud

I put the part about “force and fraud” back in again because it appears that someone edited it out again. The Free Market is not anarchy. For the original, and long running, Wiki definition you can confirm here: http://www.answers.com/topic/free-market?cat=biz-fin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuni Leml (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

I couldn't find an appropriate template message, but the citations throughout the article could use a great deal of cleanup. There are plenty of excesses and repetitions, where simple ref names could be used. A general conformity on the citation style/format would be helpful as well. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

contradictions

I'm going to revert these recent additions. They seem to have WP:POV problems. It's not entirely clear what can be attributed to the reference, and the reference needs more info (book? article? page numbers?) in order to verify. If there's stuff which is in the reference which is important, it can possibly be put into the article more carefully. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how the addition seemed questionable, though I think a full reverse is a little touchy. Its probably better to pass on the slippery slope argument which I deleted, but I moved the contradictions part to criticism, where I meant to put it, and made it more clear that they are the ideas of Klein and Saul. Page numbers might be a little silly as they both point out contradictions many times, Klein a few times and Saul at least twice a chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A full revert seemed (and still seems, though I'll hold of for the moment) the cleanest way to deal with it. The phrasing of the additions is POV, which can probably be solved by more careful phrasing. Maybe, "Klein and Saul argue there are contradictions inherent in the idea of free market capitalist theory..." instead, for instance. Essentially, the material should be put in so that the reader can't tell the article writer agrees with Klein and Saul.

• Is "duo-tri-mego-ogliopolies" an expression from one of those authors? If so, it should be attributed, if not, it should be cut out.
• Page numbers (possibly a small range of numbers, just... something) need to be provided. Someone trying to WP:VERIFY the ideas from Klein and Saul shouldn't have to go blindly to the book(s), not knowing where to find them.
• I'd suggest choosing one book from Klein, rather than both No Logo and Shock Doctrine.
• The <ref> for Saul lists "The End of Globalism". Should that actually be The Collapse of Globalism: And the Reinvention of the World?

CRETOG8(t/c) 05:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This recent version is an improvement. It's still a bit POV in wording, but much closer to neutral. There's still at least two of the problems I mentioned above. (1) What is "duo-tri-mego-ogliopolies"? (2) What's a better ref for Saul List?

perpetuation of ignorance

What communist edited this article? It's supposed to be about what a free market is and how a free market works. But instead it's largely a diatribe about how there's no such thing as a working free market; or free markets are bad; don't work; are the same as anarchy or chaos. This is perpetuation of ignorance, not an encyclopedia. Is there someone who actually knows something about economics who can re-edit this crap? SecretaryNotSure (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The ideology of 'free market' is not something to do with the 'truth' of economics. It is historical and political too. Free market is a blanket phrase. There is no science in it. It is a belief, like the belief in God(s).Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

t.I.H.

The free market is believed to self-regulate in the most efficient and just way. Adam Smith attributed this characteristic to the invisible hand, which he thought was responsible for urging society towards prosperity. Some scholars (like Ludwig von Mises) have argued that this notion possesses features of a divine presence.

Eh? Didn't Smith say "guided by self-interest as if by an invisible hand"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Invisible hands puppeteer! They do not magically maintain freedom! - Why to bring mythologies of invisible hand while one is expecting something 'scientific' or 'neutral' or 'objective' about the idea of free market from this article? Beliefs should be treated as beliefs not as 'truths'.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and my complaint here was that Smith's belief was presented inaccurately. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

opinions stated as self-evident fact

Two prominent Canadian authors (both very hostile to the "Chicago School" philosophy) point out contradictions inherent in the idea of free market capitalist theory in its purest form. While it is argued that the market must be free (of government regulation or intervention) in order to sustain itself, it becomes nessesary [sic] that the government rescue it during its biggest crises and disasters, which is a double contradiction; crises happen without regulation and the government is expected to positively regulate it (enforce basic economic laws) and to negatively regulate it (bail it out). While proponents may argue that different measures need to be taken, a government can never allow an economy to collapse. Naomi Klein illustrates this roughly in her work No Logo and more rigorously in The Shock Doctrine. John Ralston Saul (former Governor General Regent) more humorously illustrates this through various examples in The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World.

It is asserted here as if uncontroversial that "crises happen without regulation", though "crises" is undefined and no example is given; and that "a government can never allow an economy to collapse" although numerous governments have caused economies to collapse. At least some libertarians have vigorously denounced the recent bailouts as doing more harm than they purport to avert; if others insist that such bailouts are necessary, that is hardly a contradiction within free market ideology.

Could the wording be improved? —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

With those three blunders removed, there's nothing left. —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Simulation Of Biological Laws

Hence critics of the free market argue that the imitation of the laws of life in society is awkward, has no solid basis in the natural sciences and may lead to adverse or unpredictable consequences.

It's true that the original Social Darwinists put too much emphasis on competition, both in the natural world and in human society. These "critics of the free market" are aware that cooperation is important in nature, but apparently continue to believe that it does not exist in the market — an essentially cooperative institution! (Every market transaction is a cooperation between buyer and seller.) The section is thus incoherent. —76.28.213.53 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The section does need help. I've removed several things which aren't sufficiently referenced, but that doesn't leave a lot. There are those who put a lot of value on this comparison, and I expect there are likewise critics, so it would be good to have referenced material. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The social world do not function by the 'laws' and patterns of biological or 'natural' world. There is no 'competition' just like that in 'market' in the natural or biological world. The biological/natural world is not a world of rational/irrational individuals with historically embodied beliefs and fictitious norms. The simulation is naive. It is wrong. There is nothing 'neutral' about the loaded arguments of 'evolutionism' or 'funtionalism' with which free-market is justified. Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Drono

Thanks for your contribution, I think its something like your recent writing on the type rather than existence of government intervention that can help bring some balance and consensus between free market writers and those antagonistic to pure free market ideas. Shabidoo | Talk 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfree Market?

Can a market that is not freed from monopoly interests or forces of fraud and deceit be called "free market"?Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede says that "A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property" so the answer to your question is "yes, of course" on that definition. ;-)

However, that is effectively defining one end of a spectrum. In practice, most markets are somewhere nearer the middle of the spectrum; specifically, they have some form of regulation which aims to prevent or mitigate harm caused by monopoly interests, fraud, and deceit (and certain other externalities). Such regulation is, in "freer" economies, often much better at preventing harm than in less-free economies. License raj, and all that...

You'd have to be pretty radical to argue that an economy can't be "really" free as long as it has laws preventing fraud, insider dealing, or monopoly abuse. bobrayner (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is not "freedom" itself a 'pretty radical' idea? Is freedom an anti-thesis of regulation? Many philosophers juxtapose "freedom" with "unfreedom"- say for instance poverty, unemployment, lack of human dignity, being deceived, cheated, controlled, dominated, over-powered... Is it not- the ideas like "private" or "property" are fluid concepts,--and-- essentially political? Is the 'license raj' prevalent in the software rights far restricting and enforcing 'unfreedom' than 'free-software'? Is it freedom to license 'private' interests in 'public' or beyond public resources- like the forest, or oil fields etc? Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Free Market something 'natural' or truth in itself?

'Free-market' can only be discussed as a theoretical fiction or an ideology. It is not an objective social fact. At the best it is a dream- just like communism or socialism. It is a belief. The 'natural' or 'evolutionary credentials' of free market is as shallow as that of Nazism. 'Free market' is not a prevalent "truth" or description of a "reality". An article on free-market should concentrate on what is done with the claims of 'free market'. Writing on "free market" cannot follow the style of a writing on the newton's second law or about electromagnetism.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot to say on the subject. However, this is not a forum. If you can find any reliable sources that support your beliefs, we might be able to update the article accordingly. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Similarly, there is no way of conceptually distinguishing “monopoly price” from free-market price. But if a concept has no possible grounding in reality, then it is an empty and illusory, and not a meaningful, concept." (Rothbard, Murray Newton (2004) "Man, economy, and state with Power and market: government and economy" Ludwig von Mises Institute; Page 698)

Friedman, Kenneth S. (2003) Myths of the free market is another reference work. On better WP:RS ground is Lappé, Frances Moore (2006) Democracy's edge: choosing to save our country by bringing democracy to life Wiley pg 64-65 which shows that "The free market doesn't exist."

For those looking using Google books here is a little trick to limit the nonsense: use inpublisher:"wiley", inpublisher:"sage", inpublisher:"Oxford University", and other similar limiters separate the wheat from the chaff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Forum vs. Conversation

Look, I am no fan in any way of the myth of pure absolute free market ideology, but this is a talk page about the article and what the ideology is, not about if free market ideology is true or not. There is ample space in "criticisms of" section of the article. These conversations should not be about trying to convert people but, if you are inclined to be against the free market, how to best write in the "criticisms of" section, how to make it concise, represent the general opinions of writers with text that can be referenced and address everything else said in the article (in a concise way as its only a small part of the article).

If you want to let go, I invite you to write more on the "anti globalization" page. Shabidoo | Talk 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

another bad example

In World on Fire, Amy Chua argues that free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of the "market-dominant minority". <ref> "A few rich people, many of them aristocrats, own 69 per cent of the land in Britain. As a result, house prices are so high, millions can't afford to buy a home. The NS launches a campaign to end this feudal system" </ref>

I don't suppose "this feudal system" could have anything to do with, I dunno, several centuries of feudalism? Or with more recent state (non-market) actions expressly designed to create concentrations of land ownership, such as the enclosures? —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tamfang. As per section above, the talk page is not a forum for globalization bashing. While I may agree with you on a lot of the things you say, I think it would be better to work on the anti globalization page, or the criticisms section on this article and how to improve it. I think everyone here knows that a small amount of people are very rich and they have a lot of control on the world. What you are saying is nothing new to anyone here and does not improve the article. I would also invite you to become an activist and give lectures and campaign for what you believe in and what not (you can do a lot of good if you get up and go do something), but this is a talk page on an article about the free market, not a soap box. —Shabidoo | Talk 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chua's book actually focuses on a slightly different area - where democracy is a new introduction, where there's already an ethnic minority and some clear haves/havenots on ethnic lines - and I think the Spectator has rather missed the point. The book might be a good source for a related article, but not this one, I think.

I'd agree with Tamfang on one point; in the UK the concentration of much land in a few hands was present (and, I suspect, worse) under feudal conditions, and this concentration was largely brought about by activities that were emphatically not free trade. So, to blame free markets for this inequality would be silly. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Shabidoo, I know but ... do we have to admit transparent nonsense without comment, just because someone once published it? — Why do you think it would be better to work on the anti globalization page, and how? —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Later I wonder why Shabidoo thinks my complaint had anything to do with "globalization". —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pareto efficiency and Distribution of wealth

Guys, the last paragraph on the Distribution of Wealth section don't follow from the previous paragraph. The paragraph I am referring to is the one starting with "On the other hand more recent research".

It confuses two different concepts that happen to have similar names. Pareto distribution is a type of statistical distribution that is sometimes used to represent "wealth" inequality. Pareto efficiency refers to government policies that improve everyone's well being without hurting anyone. Granted, a Pareto optimization (one step in Pareto efficiency) may affect the distribution of income -- but that's not how it's being used. Just delete that last paragraph.--Rpmcruz (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a confusion between Pareto efficiency and Pareto distribution which created those problems, since there seemed to be a lot of non-distributional stuff there. I pulled it all out, leaving the section pretty small. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Index of Economic Freedom section problems...

The last quote in this section is taken completely out of context. I've read the cited article, which is written by two professors of economics who DO think that economic freedom INCREASES economic growth (they state this in the paper as having been settled already both empirically and theoretically). This quote, which says that there is no consensus about the relationship between POLITICAL SYSTEMS and economic growth, has nothing to do with this section of the wiki article, since it is about the relationship between ECONOMIC SYSTEMS and economic growth (which is also what the cited paper is about, with that one sentence about POLITICAL systems). Here is the full paragraph from the cited paper which will provide context for the quote in question: "Reports from around the world strongly suggest that countries which have reduced the direct involvement of governments in economic activities show rising rates of growth. These reports often connect such alleged relationship to policies of privatization, changes in laws which make the relevant countries more accommodating to foreign and domestic private business, as well as to other measures which allow citizens to enjoy the fruit of their labor. The degree of implementation of such policies vary among countries partly because of differences in the institutional, social and cultural baggage they inherited and adopted. In recent years a significant amount of work has been devoted to the investigation of a possible connection between the political system and economic growth. For a variety of reasons there is no consensus about that relationship, especially not about the direction of causality, if any." Wilrdavis (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If the article doesn't really reflect what the source says, then feel free to correct the article. Are there any other relevant sources that we could call on? bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The source does not seem to me to be the problem. That essay is highly relevant and comes from a legitimate source, however the conclusions made in it, based on empirical evidence, seem to contradict those implied by this section... Maybe someone else who is better than writing objectively than me could read it and rewrite the section. Here is the link to the essay in question: http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/Ayal_and_Karras.pdf Wilrdavis (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken Bobrayner's suggestion and re-written one sentence from this section to correct this obvious mistake. The newly written sentence reads "Some economists, like Milton Friedman and other Laissez-faire economists have argued that there is a direct relationship between economic growth and economic freedom, and studies suggest this is true." It is cited with the paper which was originally taken out of context and used as evidence that there has not been a correlation established between economic freedom and economic growth. But since the essay is perfectly relevant, and of high quality, I have used it as evidence for the claim that economic freedom DOES lead to economic growth, which the essay concludes. Also, I removed the citation from the following sentence because it does not support the claim made: "Continuous debates among scholars on methodological issues in empirical studies of the connection between economic freedom and economic growth still try to find out what is the relationship, if any." I want this to be clear because I predict someone will attempt to change it back, given that the liberal bias of people who are predisposed to edit wikipedia will not allow for there to be cited evidence that free markets work, even though there is evidence of this.Wilrdavis (talk)

"free market" or "free-market"?

This article goes back and forth between "free market" and "free-market"

So which is it?

byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2011

As I understand quirky grammar rules, if "market" is the noun, then it should be "free market", but if there's another noun and the phrase "free-market" is being used to describe it, then it gets a hyphen, like in "free-market economy". CRETOG8(t/c) 05:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cretog8 has it right. Some exceptions are made depending on context and readership. For example, health care workers may omit the hyphen from, say, white cell count, because they feel that the term is crystal clear without it. See compound modifier.

The lede should mention how various people's definitions of these terms (both economists' and laypeople's) handle regulation of the technical-specification type

I'm skimming the lede, and it currently seems to go on at length about market-driven trade itself, and any regulation of it (such as price controls), but it doesn't seem to mention regulation of the technical-specification type, for example, technical standards such as the fact that power tools that don't have grounding conductors must be double insulated, or environmental protection regulation (such as that coal-fired power plants need to produce less than X kilos per year of pollutant Y for every Z kilowatts of energy produced) or employment standards (such as that children under 14 must have a work permit in order to work). Can someone with an economics degree clarify this? Thanks. — ¾-10 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The definition

Free market means price is decided freely by the seller and buyer normally through supply and demand. As well, a producer has free choice it what is produced and a buyer has free choice in what is bought, within the confines of what is legal (illegal free market is called a black market).

Capitalism concerns economic rights. Individuals and corporations have rights to their capital protected by the government, known as private property. (not protected by the government is anarcho capitalism). Democratic capitalism involves government intervention when it comes to taxation, regulation, fraud, etc. through an elected government.

"Free countries" Have varying degrees of Free Market Democratic Capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing some change to the article? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin J Whitman

The opinions of one person do not deserve their own four-paragraph section unless that person is a major contributor to the topic. This is certainly not true of Mr Whitman, whose own "biographical" Wikipedia article reads like a manifesto and contains no references to anything not written by him. It seems sensible to me to merge a brief statement of his opinion into the other criticism sections or delete them altogether as it's not clear why his viewpoint is significant. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since that passage also exists in his article, I replaced it with a See also link. —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommend to rework this article.

It is incoherent and filled with fallacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.196.151 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deregulation

The section entitled "Deregulation" (under Laissez faire) espouses a singular perspective which is not representative of the economic science or political history of this subject. It could be dropped without harming the quality this article. The section unnecessarily complicates the subject of Laissez faire. I would like to see some feedback before dropping it. JohnPritchard (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I would like to put forth that "free market" equates to unregulated, no-rules markets. Of course, the degree to which transactions are regulated is a relative measure; thus, what we consider a free market can still be regulated. Also, I believe that whether a free market works to have supply and demand give us prices is wholly separate. It is economic theory that is irrelevant to having a free market or not. Thus, all discourse on supply and demand is tangential to the definition of a free market. It is true that a free, perfect market has merit as an assumption in economic theory.Sigiheri (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia article should not contain original research, and all information has to be verified. If you could cite a source for your edit, you are welcome to change the opening sentence. --Artoasis (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not doing original research. Isn't it obvious that you don't need to discuss "perfect markets" or supply and demand? Why do I need a cite to explain why you don't need to discuss something perfect markets? My question is why do you feel the need to talk about perfect markets here in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think free market is more about free competition than the absence of regulation. The current lead presents a better idea of the concept of "free market" and its conditions, and besides, the wording sounds more encyclopaedic. If you really want to rephraze the lead, I suggest you propose your version here first, and see if you can reach some consensus with other editors. The process may take a while but it is usually how things work here, by consensus building.--Artoasis (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We are debating one issue, which is what does "free" mean in the term "free market". If I am correct and free refers to free from regulation, then my edit should stand, correct? Well, this is what free means in the free market context. Adam Smith, the free market father, was arguing for deregulating markets when he condemned mercantilism and the Economist, the free market magazine, started as a propaganda rag to repeal regulations on grain. There is simply no doubt that free in free market refers to freedom from regulations. Free to compete is the same thing--free from regulations to compete. If you disagree, please provide a cite. Thanks.Sigiheri (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Per dictionary.com Free market---an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (most people disregard the monopolies part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between fact and theory. The idea that an unregulated market necessary leads to supply and demand setting prices is a theory, not a fact. Thus, I propose the theory be separate from the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 08:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If supply and demand don't set prices, what does? "Supply" means how many widgets people are willing to sell at a given price, and "demand" means how many widgets people will buy at a given price; the price at which these two numbers are equal is the "market-clearing" price, to which we expect widget prices to converge. The usual criticism against deregulation is that monopoly/monopsony or collusion (unlike regulation, ha ha) distorts the supply curve or the demand curve, but the resulting curves still determine the price. —Tamfang (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I would argue that you are providing a theory that, if people behave rationally, seems very plausible. But if people do not act rationally, the predictions of the theory may not hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The existence of supply and demand curves doesn't depend on rationality (EDIT: or "perfection"), it seems to me; but perhaps you can suggest an example (real or hypothetical) of what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Supply and demand curves don't depend on absolutely rational actors; they simply require actors who are willing to buy or sell at a certain price, surely..? (Of course there can be other factors apart from price). bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am only trying to distinguish facts from theory. I think that fact is that free markets = unregulated markets. How a free market impacts the economy is economic theory, which is orthogonal to the fact, imo.Sigiheri (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget about "facts" versus "theory". What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Orthogonal? Theories are judged first by their compatibility with fact, so they can't be completely independent of fact. —Tamfang (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One can't understand any complex phenomenon without a theory ... —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are not talking about complex phenomenon are we?08:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

A system consisting of billions of transactions a day, driven by innumerable motivations — nah, nothing complex about that. —Tamfang (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, a free market simply means unregulated market. What happens in an unregulated v regulated market is where the theories, analysis, and complexity comes in. Thus, again, we should make certain to distinguish between fact and theory, esp. since the theory as you mention is complex.09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

Seems to me the lede ought to give some hint as to why a difference between free and other markets is of interest, but have it your way:

The facts are a vast number of transactions; any connexion among them is a matter of theory. "Prices" are transient attributes of these atomic transactions, whose relevance is a matter of theory. "The market" (free or otherwise) is a hypothetical construct, best not mentioned at all. —Tamfang (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Deregulation

The section entitled "Deregulation" (under Laissez faire) espouses a singular perspective which is not representative of the economic science or political history of this subject. It could be dropped without harming the quality this article. The section unnecessarily complicates the subject of Laissez faire. I would like to see some feedback before dropping it. JohnPritchard (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I would like to put forth that "free market" equates to unregulated, no-rules markets. Of course, the degree to which transactions are regulated is a relative measure; thus, what we consider a free market can still be regulated. Also, I believe that whether a free market works to have supply and demand give us prices is wholly separate. It is economic theory that is irrelevant to having a free market or not. Thus, all discourse on supply and demand is tangential to the definition of a free market. It is true that a free, perfect market has merit as an assumption in economic theory.Sigiheri (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia article should not contain original research, and all information has to be verified. If you could cite a source for your edit, you are welcome to change the opening sentence. --Artoasis (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not doing original research. Isn't it obvious that you don't need to discuss "perfect markets" or supply and demand? Why do I need a cite to explain why you don't need to discuss something perfect markets? My question is why do you feel the need to talk about perfect markets here in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think free market is more about free competition than the absence of regulation. The current lead presents a better idea of the concept of "free market" and its conditions, and besides, the wording sounds more encyclopaedic. If you really want to rephraze the lead, I suggest you propose your version here first, and see if you can reach some consensus with other editors. The process may take a while but it is usually how things work here, by consensus building.--Artoasis (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We are debating one issue, which is what does "free" mean in the term "free market". If I am correct and free refers to free from regulation, then my edit should stand, correct? Well, this is what free means in the free market context. Adam Smith, the free market father, was arguing for deregulating markets when he condemned mercantilism and the Economist, the free market magazine, started as a propaganda rag to repeal regulations on grain. There is simply no doubt that free in free market refers to freedom from regulations. Free to compete is the same thing--free from regulations to compete. If you disagree, please provide a cite. Thanks.Sigiheri (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Per dictionary.com Free market---an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (most people disregard the monopolies part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between fact and theory. The idea that an unregulated market necessary leads to supply and demand setting prices is a theory, not a fact. Thus, I propose the theory be separate from the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 08:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If supply and demand don't set prices, what does? "Supply" means how many widgets people are willing to sell at a given price, and "demand" means how many widgets people will buy at a given price; the price at which these two numbers are equal is the "market-clearing" price, to which we expect widget prices to converge. The usual criticism against deregulation is that monopoly/monopsony or collusion (unlike regulation, ha ha) distorts the supply curve or the demand curve, but the resulting curves still determine the price. —Tamfang (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I would argue that you are providing a theory that, if people behave rationally, seems very plausible. But if people do not act rationally, the predictions of the theory may not hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The existence of supply and demand curves doesn't depend on rationality (EDIT: or "perfection"), it seems to me; but perhaps you can suggest an example (real or hypothetical) of what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Supply and demand curves don't depend on absolutely rational actors; they simply require actors who are willing to buy or sell at a certain price, surely..? (Of course there can be other factors apart from price). bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am only trying to distinguish facts from theory. I think that fact is that free markets = unregulated markets. How a free market impacts the economy is economic theory, which is orthogonal to the fact, imo.Sigiheri (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget about "facts" versus "theory". What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Orthogonal? Theories are judged first by their compatibility with fact, so they can't be completely independent of fact. —Tamfang (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One can't understand any complex phenomenon without a theory ... —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are not talking about complex phenomenon are we?08:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

A system consisting of billions of transactions a day, driven by innumerable motivations — nah, nothing complex about that. —Tamfang (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, a free market simply means unregulated market. What happens in an unregulated v regulated market is where the theories, analysis, and complexity comes in. Thus, again, we should make certain to distinguish between fact and theory, esp. since the theory as you mention is complex.09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

Seems to me the lede ought to give some hint as to why a difference between free and other markets is of interest, but have it your way:

The facts are a vast number of transactions; any connexion among them is a matter of theory. "Prices" are transient attributes of these atomic transactions, whose relevance is a matter of theory. "The market" (free or otherwise) is a hypothetical construct, best not mentioned at all. —Tamfang (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Classical economics - Definition of Free Markets

The Classical Definition of Free Markets should be put back in the article. 24.36.13.102 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

This slow-burning edit war has been going on since July. Sigiheri and Big Large Monster, take your fingers off the revert button, please. We have a talkpage which is a perfect place to discuss improvements to the article. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting a review of the edits made by Rothbardanswer

Specifically, for WP:NPOV, like undue weight, bad research, lack of impartial tone and loaded language.

I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, but I urge the editors of this article to review the contributions by Rothbardanswer, who has a history (documented on user talk page) of pushing POV, right up to edit wars and borderline vandalism, to basically spam heterodox economics and 'anarcho-capitalist' dogma as some undisputed gospel of universally-accepted truth, everywhere there's a tiny little hope of a crevice to cram it into. It's honestly testing my patience to keep the article on market anarchism from becoming a brochure for Murray Rothbard, so maybe someone more familiar with Wikipedia policy knows how to proceed when someone uses the site to narrate one's own political views in the third person. I'm tired of picking scare quotes out of a salad of unsourced and unsubstantiated, wildly distorted claims, and pleading that we just use the talk page instead of the undo button. Finx (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1). Finx, I'm not going to get in a political argument with you. Whatever you assume my politics to be is irrelevant. Our only job as editors is to accurately describe and source the most relevant information on whatever the article is about. A free market is a technical issue of economic science. Every edit I've ever made to this page has been given citation to the most relevant and eminent economists. The only edits I've EVER made to the "free market anarchism" page was the lead. That entire article that takes you through De Molinari to Rothbard was written by multiple contributers of which I am not one. You know this, because on the talk page you're harasing multiple editors saying that they should delete their contributions because they conflict with your own personal idea of what anarchism means. But our ideas aren't what's at issue. The fact is that these people, movements, writers and philosophies did or do exists. If you hate Molinari's idea of defence then the proper course is to have a your own refutation published and hope it garners popularity. Even then I think Molinari would still have a place as a historical figure. These articles are about non-neutral subjects. But we ourselves are supposed to be neutral about them. I don't go onto Marxist pages and start arguing about how defunct and evil their ideas are. It isn't relevant to the article. Badgering multiple people on the talk page with your political opinions isn't on. "Free market anarchism" is a well written and cited article.

The main bone of contention you seemed to have with MY EDIT was when I corrected your definition of the individualist anarchists. This was my main source [2], that you deleted without explanation. The point I made was that the individualists had a bifurcation between political philosophy and some idiosyncratic economic theories. Politically they were what you may call "right-libertarians". As individualists they were defined by their moral belief in private property and the labour theory of property (Lockean homesteading) (not to bee confused with the Marxian labour theory of value). But in terms of economics each one had quasi-socialist ideas. What the text I sourced brings out is that these inconsistencies were actually just errors in economic theory. If they had pursued all their political philosophies markets would have worked differently.

I've just looked at the tyrade you posted at me on the "free market anarchism" page and I have to say again I'm not arguing political philosophy with you.

2). My recent edit read: A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of a good or service, wage rates, interest rates, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods is coordinated entirely by market values (price) rather than by governmental regulation or bureaucratic mandate and dictate.

Spylab (I don't know if that name means he monitors editors he may disagree with) changed this too: free market is an economic system in which the costs and distribution of goods and services, wage rates, interest rates — along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods — are coordinated by supply and demand and market values rather than by governments or bureaucracies.

I don't know why this edit was made. This is beginning to become an edit war but 'm really only concerned with validity I don't see why the emphasis has to be on the Marxist phrase "means of production". That's just another word for capital goods. but also the edit actually makes the sentence nonsensical. As I said in an earlier edit wages and interest rates ARE prices. The sentence structure is confused to make out that supply and demand and prices are disparate forces coordinating an economy. But you have to ask; the supply and demand of what?. The supply and demand of labour is determined by wage rates (just another name for prices). The supply and demand of loans and savings is coordinated by the interest rate (the price of borrowing). The stucture of capital and consumer goods is determined by commodity prices. I honestly don't understand why this edit keeps being made. I'm going to correct the lead so that it actually makes sense. If anyone has objection please message back. Rothbardanswer (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the talk page to discuss "free-market anarchism". That article's talk page (which I have politely but in vain asked you to use to explain your edits) can be found here. I am not interested in editing this article, however, so I won't turn this talk page into any more of a forum or soapbox. It was a word of caution to this article's editors about what, at a glance, looked like yet more POV pushing, which those who've done the research on this topic may or may not want to examine. In the meantime, you have been doing yet more POV pushing everywhere, considering you have been warned again for edit warring and blocked from editing a prominent article to spam mises.org (yet again). Finx (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to be told this isn't the place. If you weren't pursuing me across wikipedia we wouldn't be talking about this here. You can take more than a glance next time :) I've only been drawn into edit wars because I don't know how to defend validity when people just delete sources and cited materials. (I've never made more than minor edits to the free market anarchism page. I tried to correct and add citation to your edits) I have represented the works of authors you dislike on their appropriate pages. The pages are about things you also dislike so you've tried to change definitions. Unlike me you have no sources. Look at the lead to free market anarchism now and compare it to older versions... THAT'S POV pushing! Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The language of the content posted by Rothbardanswer is indeed very loaded and referenced by a primary source by Frédéric Bastiat. I have changed the language of the current lede to a more neutral and factual tone. -Battlecry 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A "Free Market" cannot exist without government

Money, private property & property rights, corporations & other forms of ownership, contact enforcement and the rule of law are all creatures of government. Vilhelmo (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Could this be true ?

"Adam Smith discarded subjective value theory and ...". Adam Smith died in 1790 and AFAIK Subjective theory of value began with Carl Menger circa 1871. This needs a citation badly. The tone of the rest of the article has far too much political spin. The length of coverage of "Socialist economics" seems badly out of place here. 107.10.0.181 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The socialist stuff on wikipedia almost always undermines validity and is poorly sourced. (we should remember Noam Chomsky is a linguist and books are better sources than youtube videos) But it's a nightmare to try and make valid because there's always a political war going on with some editors using a page to push a personal point rather than describing an idea accurately (regardless of if they agree with it)! If you look at the recent edits on libertarianism there's now an entire post on something called "Marxist Libertarianism". I know socialist libertarianism is valid, but my understanding is that libertarian socialism was the anti-marxist part of the socialist political debate. And people will censor any attempts to add classical liberal history to the liberalism page AND the classical liberal philosophy to the classical liberalism page! But if they make it impossible to be valid at least we can make their point pushing valid. e.g. I don't think that the meaning of "free" market actually is controversial in modern use (unless someone can source that the meaning is controversial?). But if socialist editors want to introduce the political point that "free" market is ambiguous I thought the best thing was to describe the historical developments in economic thought like Adam Smiths monopoly theory, Marx' exploitation labour value theory, and Menger's redevelopment of praxeology. It's wrong to make wiki articles a political war but we can't act like owners and just delete the whole thing about "ambiguous meaning of free" even if it is point pushing. I think we should give them room but make sure that the information accurately explains the debate and is well sourced without any editor attempting to conclude the debate themselves on the wiki page. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "free market" did not originally mean a market free from government, as if this were even possible. To classical economists like Adam Smith a free market was a market free of economic rent or unearned income. They wanted to free industrial capitalism from the vestiges of fuedalism, freeing markets from unearned income (income due to privilege not work) bringing prices in line with production costs and increasing international competitiveness. They used the LTV to isolate economic rent in order to eliminate where possible and tax where it was not, thus freeing markets from overhead. Vilhelmo (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

that is the opposite of how the term was originally defined

History & Meaning of the term "free market"

To classical economists a "free market" was a market free of economic rent. They sought to free markets from unearned income – the “free lunch” of land rent by Europe’s hereditary aristocracies, and from monopoly rents administered by the royal trading corporations created by European governments to pay off their war debts. Classical economics was the political program of industrial capitalism seeking to free society from the rentier interests as the last vestiges of Feudalism. This history must be reinserted. Vilhelmo (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? -Battlecry 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced edits and warring

Any Other Models are Marxist ? where is the source for this ?

Also knowing your enemy helps please learn to differentiate between Socialism (French) & Communism (Marx) . Is that not taught at "hard On for Self prosperity" Institute ?

I seriously cant fathom the mind that thought any criticism/alternatives to Free Markets is Marxist ?

Generalizing this Page lacks any structure at best seems like its composed by a 10year ole fanboy with a Freedman Textbook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.182.107 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

After discussion a recent edit was made here: [[3]]. It should be remembered that a free market is a technical issue of economic science NOT a political point. Any edits should ideally make reference to economic text books or treatises.

This is plain wrong to separate economics from politics as they were tied together at the time the term "free market" was first in the corn law arguments.Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is plain wrong. Richard Cantillon pre-dates Cobden and they were already isolating economic market processes as distinct from the state back then. "political economy" is a British invention. It's quite hypocritical of you to take umbridge with my hard stance on science when you're doing the same thing for something that's wrong. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm will to consider an alternative view. Please explain Cantillion in the sense that his economics is separate from politics as I am unfamiliar with this view. Thank you in advance.Sigiheri (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do I need to explain economic science to you? Is this what the physics talk pages are like? Is it full of scientists explaining each aspect of positivism so that they can change the lead and say the earth goes round the sun and not the other way around? We don't matter. What matters is the economic writings. I've already made the appropriate edits with all the citations you need. If you are affirmed to change it back you need to read economics. Read Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism if you're interested. (I've already devoted far to much time to protecting the truth here) Rothbardanswer (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

These last edits completely undermine the validity of the article and aren't supported by the source. The phrasing is incorrect and incoherant now. "Setting of prices" means nothing. Prices are qualitatie psychic data that becomes cardinal data through action. A free market can determine an approxomate democratic aggregate but it is never at equilibrium. It certainly isn't "set" by anyone. Unexplained deletion of "Free market anarchism" and sources by User: Battlecry. I looked on his user page and he's openly socialist so this may be political POV pushing.

Ad hominem attacks are NOT appropriate. Who are you to call others names?Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! All his edits are simply deletions of sources and properly structured sentences. I haven't even accused him of anything other than deleting my contributions in what seems a malicious way.

Calling Battlecry names is an ad hominem attack and inappropriate for Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attackSigiheri (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the text so it is correct and I'll give multiple citations to the relevant sources.

Notes: 1). Supply and demand doesn't mean anything without reference. e.g. the supply and demand of labour, savings, goods, services, skills. 2). Supply and demand and the structure and hierarchy of capital and consumer good are coordinated by prices (value) 3). A price is psychic. (subjective value theory). To say that a price is "distorted" by mandate and dictate is not loaded language. it is a technical issue of economic science without any political bias to say that a price is undistorted on a free market. 4). A free market is not a structure. A free market is existence in the absence of state regulation.

What does it mean: "free market is existence..."Sigiheri (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I've said this too many times and it is finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you. Period. What do you think a free market is? Poverty isn't imposed. Economics is the study of human action. A free market is just existnce without a state. It doesn't preclude any of the features of any specific market. Just the absence of the state. I'm not here to defend economic science. I'm here to contribute without getting drawn into defensive edit wars.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rothdardanswer is standing by his post that "a free market is existence in the absence of state regulation". Parsing the sentence, "a free market is existence". How does this make any sense? When questioned, Rothardanswer replies, the question, is, "finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you" Then on his own page Rothardanswer says that he is always very polite to people. I feel he is hurting the editing of this free market page, not helping. Sigiheri (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain economic science to you! Read Cantillon, or Mises. That's either the earliest or one of the latest economists and both understand that the market exists independent of the state. How on earth is it my job to defend economic science. If I add multiple eminent sources and write it well isn't that enough? Surely it's your job to read up if you want to undoo my edits? Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly should I read of Cantillon or Mises. I have several books by Von Mises, so please point me to the book and passage. You do need to explain and defend your assertions to others on Wikipedia if you want to contribute.Sigiheri (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Read Epistemological Problems of Economics Or Theory and History. Your historicist approach isn't economic science. The free market (the subject of the article) IS. What I'm doing now is teaching anyone reading the nature of economic law in order to give the correct definition of a free market. Ok. Well I have one question. How on earth do you think you're neutral. I assume if you don't know physics you don't edit pages on quantum mechanics and then demand to be taught about it? I've already done my part! I've written the correct definition as I see it and started a talk section (which no one used they just started edit warring) and given all the best links. It isn't POV pushing or violation of neutrality because I'm intimating economic science OTHERS have developed. Your historicist opinions don't get to censor my contribution. It could take hours to teach you basic econ. The burden is on you to source and cite your edits.

I disagree that the free market IS economic science. I don't even believe that economics as it stands is a science in the sense that its theories are testable, fyi. And what is "economic law". Is that just the law? Sigiheri (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

5). "Monopolies" is a politically loaded and ambiguous term. A price can't be monopolised on a free market in the absence of government violence, threat or legality. See: [[4]] Rothbardanswer (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to support an economic argument with a youtube video, walking away from the article now is the least unhappy of the possible outcomes for you, and I would strongly recommend that course of action. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't cited a youtube video in the article. The article now has multiple citations to economic textbooks.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is getting worse not better. Can we stop using Dictionary.com as a source. We have the internet and can easily determine the origin of the term "free market". For example, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/richard-cobden-creator-of-the-free-market#axzz2H8IUL6IE

This article shows that the term "free market" was around well before neo-classical economics and the idea that supply and demand set price. Thus, I would argue that "free market" should be discussed in terms of its historical significance in politics (i.e., the corn laws). Also, it should be discussed in terms of classical economics, not neo-classical economics.Sigiheri (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Thus, I would argue that "free market" should be discussed in terms of its historical significance in politics" How is anything I've ever said arrogant and this isn't? WHY should we make give this concept of economic theory a historicist bureaucratic analysis? Historicism was the position that there is no economic law. From the standpoint of economic theory history is in the strict sense irrelevant. You're advocating a hard erroneous position without even knowing it! Is this why you were offended that I would suggest we use economic textbooks to describe an economic concept? Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The free market is an economic concept more than a political one. If you go to the article on gravity you won't find a classical definition from Copernicus in the lead. Have you looked at my edit? [[5]] They've just deleted citation and damaged sentence structure. I don't see how my edit made the page worse and not better?

Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with your analogy on the grounds that gravity is discovered (presumably by Newton) and a free market is invented by people. I believe that the free market simply means, no regulations. Repealing the corn laws in England made the market more "free."Sigiheri (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes well this is my point and this is why I stress the nature of economic science. A free market isn't invented by people any more than value and action are. They have universal existence and laws. Humans have their own values and purposes but we don't create value itself or action or thought themselves any more than we can imagine new colours or change our bodies by thinking. This is the point; we are economies, we don't create economy. You lot are implicitly taking the historicist approach that there is no such thing as economic law. (I can't believe I'm explaining all this!) I think if you lot haven't read economics it isn't authoritative or arrogant to say you shouldn't delete sources and edits because they conflict with your intuition. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that we should use economics textbooks only is preposterous, imo. The term and concept of a "free market", simply meaning without regulation, arose before the neo-classical economic theories.Sigiheri (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This article should reference the Manchester school, imo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_capitalismSigiheri (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't contribute dictionary.com. Cobden is a GREAT source but why do you think the classical economists are better than the more advanced so called "Austrians"? seems silly.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again with the inappropriate remark that my post is "silly". But you are always "polite" aren't you? The reason is that the term "free market" arose prior to neo-classical economics and way before the Austrian school.Sigiheri (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to put all this aggitation aside (but from first to last comment you've been condescending to me and it's all spiralled into LAYERS of demonstrable hypocrisy) but who cares, back to the article! :) I don't think we should use the originator of the phrase as gospel. Why does a historical source trump contemporary sources? Better yet why not have both? They don't conflict.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that providing the historical perspective would be useful. The neoclassical economics theories assumes a "free market" to get there results. But I would argue that economics is orthogonal to the free market as a free market can exist without economic theories. In a nutshell, I disagree that we should tie the article on "free market" exclusively to neo-classical economics. At the same time, I think the article should explain how economists claim that a free market economy affects supply and demand.Sigiheri (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you put your position clearly and stopped insulting me. (I wish you had just done this immediately and not took umbridge with what you thought was arrogance when I defended the scientific position). You're wrong about this. Historicism isn't the method of economic science. You're right to say economy exists without scientific study. Physics exists without positivism. But if we want to write wikipedia articles about what a proton is we give the logical positivist info. The articles on physics aren't full of creationists arguing in the talk section and reverting well cited edits. Economy doesn't exist because of economists. Economic theory can't change economy. Economic theory is the study of economy. What economic theory CAN do is let me write a well sourced lead to this article where I describe a free market acording to the WRITINGS of economists. The whole problem here seems to be you've made the mistake of thinking economists design freedom differently now. They've never been in the business of designing anything. (I shouldn't of had to explain this to you because we're only supposed to intimate economic writings we're supposed to be neutral!). Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)(talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The "free market" exists independent of economic theory. Whether the economic theory is accurate is an empirical question that no one has answered to my knowledge. Vernon Smith showed it in an experiment, but no one has show that people act according to theory in a real world setting. Thus, we should describe free market not in terms of economic theory but in terms of law and society. Then discuss the neo classical economic theory that was developed later, in the late 1800s. The point is that if free market exists without economic theory, describe free market first, then discuss economic theory.Sigiheri (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No it actually isn't an empirical theory. If A squared plus B squared doesn't = C squared on a flat plane right angle triangle you haven't discovered a new shape, you've drawn the triangle incorrectly. I'm sure it isn't my job as edditor to explain the epistemological foundation of economic science to you. If you lot don't know economics the least you could do is stop editing my contributions. PEOPLE DON'T ACT ACCORDING TO A THEORY. We're talking about the study of human action. That's what economics is! What you're saying is backwards. We can't describe protons without using positivism. The free market is just a name we've given something using economic theory AND FOR WHAT I HOPE IS THE LAST TIME HERE IT IS:

You're saying that the conclusions of neo-classical economic theory is fact such that empirical test are unnecessary. And you're also saying that economics is the "study of human action." I would hope that anyone reading treat your edits accordingly.Sigiheri (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of labour, savings, investment, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, services, and profits are coordinated entirely by individual market values (prices, interest rates, wage rates) rather than by governmental regulation, or bureaucratic mandate and dictate. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which supply or demand are distorted by regulation or direct control by government. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy or free-market anarchism.

OKEYDOKEY?

I think that paragraph is not suitable as a lead in for the article. Free markets can exist independent of capitalism or economic theory and the lead in should reflect this. I wrote on the talk page about this (at the top), fyi.Sigiheri (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the material about market socialism emerging as a response to Mises' argument because that does not belong in the lead and is blatant PoV pushing. Criticism of the subject being discussed in the article generally does not belong in the lead, and the language used was loaded (implying that the free-market forms of socialism discussed in the book were "socialist bureaucracies" organized as markets). Bockman's book, which is cited for the inclusion of the socialist tradition of free markets, was not about the Lange-Lerner model and the simulation of markets, it discussed how free-markets have been promoted by early socialists including Pierre-Joseph Prodhoun and later by neoclassical economists such as Jaroslav Vanek and Branko Horvat (who proposed a free market form of socialism, not the Lange model). These forms of socialism were not formed in response to the argument put forth by Mises, and some of these socialist philosophies existed before Mises wrote about socialism.

Rothbardanswer is pushing the same PoV in the market economy article and is gradually transforming the Template:Capitalism sidebar into a sidebar on Austrian school philosophy and methodology.-Battlecry 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for discussing controversial subjects as per WP:NOTAFORUM. The term "intervene" or "intervention" is more neutral than "distortion" because economists have differing views on the nature of interventions - some view it as a means to correct market failures, such as internalizing externalities or improving access to information for market participants to make more informed choices; while others view interventions as distortions rather than corrective measures. The fact is, regardless of what position one may take, a free market is simply defined as a market structure absent from interventions in the formation of prices. Furthermore, free-markets are more of a political and prescriptive concept rather than a technical economic concept. The "technical" economic concept you are referring to is competitive markets or a state of perfect competition, which economists generally agree is pareto efficient and an optimal state for an economy. But again, economists disagree on how this technical optimal state is to be achieved - some believe interventions are necessary in order to move closer toward this optimum state, while others argue that the unhindered "free" market will approximate this state on its own. Advocating for free markets as a means to this end is prescriptive and therefore political in nature.-Battlecry 09:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Markets cannot exist without government. Money, private property & property rights, corporations & other forms of ownership, contact enforcement and the rule of law are all creatures of government. Without a legal & regulatory system to enforce contracts and punish cheaters, trust cannot exist. And without trust markets break down. Not only can't markets exist without government, human society can't either. All human groups have some form of government. Vilhelmo (talk)

In the hunter gatherer societies in which humans have spent the majority of our existence in, markets did not exist. Vilhelmo (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletions from External Links section

User:bobrayner took it upon himself to delete two external links I recently added which, if anything, added balance to an external links section that gives undue weight to Austrian School and libertarian viewpoints on the Free Market. The two links in question were both to reliable sources critical of free market ideas, one being a TED conference with scholar Michael J. Sandel and the other being an interview in the Washington Post with the sociologists Fred L. Block and Margaret Somers. Although the user who deleted these two links claimed to be "trimming the link farm," I attribute these deletions to ideological bias and WP:I just don't like it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition is wrong

The definition at the head of this article is wrong. A free market is not one where there is no government intervention; rather, it is a market in which people are free to buy and sell voluntarily. See: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html Price controls make a market not free, but incentives only distort the market rather than changing its nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angmar09 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"FreeMarketPrinciples.com" POV spam

Elements such as:

1) Individual Rights: "We are each created with equal individual rights to control and to defend our life, liberty and property and to voluntary contractual exchange."

And

5) Spontaneous Order: "When individual rights are respected, unregulated competition will maximize economic benefit for society by providing the most goods and services possible at the lowest cost."

These aren't really "principles" but more "beliefs" regarding what one thinks things should be alongside, or favoring a free-market. But technically the free market itself has nothing to do with "equal rights for self-defense". You can have equal rights of self defense without freedom (legal rights for self-defense don't guarantee the actual means and possibilities of self-defense), and at the same time you can have considerable market freedom with a wide variation in rights for self-defense. Having security itself is more fundamental for a free market to work than the enforcement of that security by means of self-defense. One can argue that it's ideal that people were one-man-armies that can resist any sort of coercion, but that's not a requirement for real world free-market situations. The "spontaneous order" is a theoretical prediction of what would derive from a free market, not a principle from which free markets derive. The item 4, "Government authority must reside at the lowest feasible level" is also not without some arguable high degree of bias, not to mention that the "lowest feasible level" is rather vague. Somalia possibly has what one could describe as "government authority residing a the lowest feasible level", close to "none", but only rarely non-anarchists will see there an ideal example of free-market ideals, more likely they'll find them in highly functional states such as those listed by the Heritage foundation as the freer economies. Which may perhaps provide a better parameter for "lowest feasible level", who knows, but again, that's not immediately clear from this wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.16.47 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Rewrote first 2 paras per rest of article. Displaced previous non-neutral claim that dereg is the definition of free. Some believe so; others believe market power etc. must be regulated to keep a market "free." I merely noted both, without judging which is more accurate. The article was not neutral, previously leaning to deregulation as the primary definition of "free market," especially in the first two paragraphs. While some strongly hold that belief, discussion in the balance of the article makes clear there is a second view. For example, it's suggested later in the article that a fully deregulated market tends towards monopoly and hence is unlikely to be free. Both opinions have adherents so I rewrote for neutrality. (In case anyone cares, my personal view is closer to the latter. I've watched deregulation virtually kill U.S. competition for robust broadband.)

I did my best to write neutrally here. More effective writing welcome, but please do not simply revert to one's preferred view of the subject. I recognize opinions here are strong, reinforced by the writings of Hayek and others. Please stay in the spirit of neutrality because there is a genuine difference of opinion.

The balance of the article should be rewritten to reflect both views. Dave Burstein

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522012501/http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk:80/ema_uk_he_sloman_econbus_3/18/4748/1215583.cw/ to http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_sloman_econbus_3/18/4748/1215583.cw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125034758/http://www.fff.org:80/freedom/0292d.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/0292d.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)