[bkirkby]

the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government (including those politicians you reference). so when we bring in more government then it's less free market. how close we are getting to a free market depends on who is in power and calling for reduced government intervention/regulations for businesses.

as far as control of media, traditional media is becoming increasingly irrelevant and when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free.

and small players seem to disrupt all the time. openai being the most obvious recent example. twitch being another notable example before that.

i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions, but your use of bicameral confused me a little. did you mean to say binary?

[TaylorAlexander]

> the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government

It is extremely common for large private firms to have weighted control in an economy. Sometimes their control is bolstered by government and sometimes it is hindered by it. But in a completely unregulated market it would be common for monopolies to pop up which could then control large sections of the economy. There simply is no simple linear relationship between "free markets" and government intervention.

> when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free

Sadly the loudest "free speech proponents" who run social media firms are actually just interested in allowing the speech they want. They will still do everything they can to limit the speech of those they disagree with.

[bkirkby]

i see control and influence as being two separate things. mainly, control is forced by the controller while influence is granted from the influenced.

[gryn]

> when we bring in more government then it's less free market.

Let's go to the extreme with your logic. If you completely remove the government you end up with the mafia textbook. The easier way to win at the game is taking out the competition with lethal force. Once that's done there's no one to compete with you, no "free market", congratulations you won.

Why compete in bringing value when you can just use your money to takeout the competition.

[specialist]

Rules make the market. A "free market" without rules is neither free nor a market.

[defrost]

Bicameral was used by Jaynes in the sense of distinct seperate chambers of the mind, rather than political chambers; I can't say I agreed with his thesis but I always enjoyed his argument and the apropriation of the word.

> i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions

These were specific questions to tease out why you're presenting free market OR planned economies as the only choices- it smacked of certain type of central north american libertarianism that uses Heinlein's early teen reader simplifications.

OpenAi being described as a small player is laughable, small players don't appear with one billion US pledged in backing and sheperded by core established technocrats.

BTW, the question was: "Is the US as it operates today a free market?"

Do you have a clear answer there?

[bkirkby]

i don't think anyone has a clear answer for "winning the argument" since definitions can be endlessly debated.

i think a more useful question is "what about the existing US economy is what makes it work/effective?" another useful question is "what about other economies make them less effective than the US economy?"

to answer the first question, the US economy works better when it's a freer market. magatte wade gives a convincing answer to the second question about africa when she points out it's generally very difficult to start a business in african countries.

i'm curious about what alternative you are interested in promoting and how. are you against free markets or do you have ideas on how to make markets more free?