Also known as "business as usual", and "natural state of markets that aren't regulated strongly, correctly and responsively enough".
A free market isn't the equilibrium state. Even if a particular idea - like adding or removing some regulations - looks like it would create a free market in some sector, that's only a static picture of conditions just after applying the idea. When you look at that market evolving over time, you'll see it rapidly shedding its "free" status.
I'm not sure you fully grasp what your opponent means and why they mean it when they say "free markets." As an ideal in the market place of ideas, free markets as a concept aren't ever created by ADDING regulation. Free markets generally imply that a system left to itself will eventually regulate itself through market forces and will produce both more output and more freedom as a result. Unfortunately, most people learn that we have free markets in America. What we really have is nothing like a free market. It's some strange mixture of chrony capitalism, elitism, and government regulation. I know this isn't a healthcare post, but it's a perfect example of a misaligned system that sometimes tries to use the word "free market." If the market were actually free, the government wouldn't pick winners that abandon a motive based on patient and public health outcomes in favor of profit. Now that we aren't forced to buy a garbage product anymore, family doctors have been leaving HIPPA behind lately and doing a subscription model with patients and making HEALTH OUTCOMES the priority and not profit. That is a free market competitor... Not the government itself or it's regulations. Free market ideals give money to common people and let them choose. Otherwise, they are just "free" slaves and not participants in the market.
That's the No True Scotsman Fallacy. The only absolutely "free" market is a state of nature, without laws and where might is right. Once you impose laws, it's not completely free.
The US telecom market could be more "free" than it is, but there are lots of options, none of which are perfectly "free".
It's not a free market or anywhere near and implying such is dishonest. Coops would be everywhere if it wouldn't be for rediculous city, county, state and federal regulations. Not to mention the miles and miles of dark fiber all over the country held up in ownership litigation, not to mention the federal government created this problem in the first place by heavily subsidizing bell and continuing to do so.
The telco industry has always been a regulated monopolistic market and that is primarily caused and was created by regulation..
Often the term "free market" is used when one means "competitive market" or perhaps an "open market" or a "market without market failure".
Also, for there to be a free market, there needs to be some sort of market which probably requires a sense of property rights. Whether property rights are in the "natural" state of things is an argument for the philosophers I suppose.
TeMPOraL|6 years ago
A free market isn't the equilibrium state. Even if a particular idea - like adding or removing some regulations - looks like it would create a free market in some sector, that's only a static picture of conditions just after applying the idea. When you look at that market evolving over time, you'll see it rapidly shedding its "free" status.
cl0rkster|6 years ago
rectang|6 years ago
The US telecom market could be more "free" than it is, but there are lots of options, none of which are perfectly "free".
defnotashton2|6 years ago
The telco industry has always been a regulated monopolistic market and that is primarily caused and was created by regulation..
James_Henry|6 years ago
Also, for there to be a free market, there needs to be some sort of market which probably requires a sense of property rights. Whether property rights are in the "natural" state of things is an argument for the philosophers I suppose.
MereInterest|6 years ago