There is No Such Thing as a Free Market

In part 1 of INET's interview with Ha-Joon Chang, he tells us that "market objectivity" is a myth, because in reality supposedly free markets are all regulated in some fashion

[Hypertask]

This is so true, I've always thought this when right-libertarians talk about the free market as if it were a perfect platonic form. Even if you removed all government executive/regulatory agencies and scaled back taxation to create a minimal state there would still be no "free" market. The boundaries and understanding of the market would still be determined by the Courts and legal system of the state. The nuances of contract law in particular would (and do) determine the character of the market.

[vincentcerasoli]

Exactly spot on. And very shocking for alot of people to hear. Equally shocking would be a few alternate titles to this video: "There Is No Such Thing As Individualism." or "There Is No Such Thing As Meritocracy."

[SaulOhio]

So you create a complete strawman of what real economists call a free market, point out that it cannot exist, and think you have won.

All a free market means is that the INITIATION of force is banned. Retaliation under a rule of law is acceptable, and even necessary.

It is true that there are a lot of regulations, which means we do not have a free market. Which is why advocates of free market say we should end those regulations. The markets do not depend on the regulations. The regulations distort and damage the markets.

"You supposedly have a free labor market in America"

ACCORDING TO WHO? Nobody says we have a free labor market in America.

NOBODY!

All strawman arguments. This "economist" is incompetent. I wouldn't trust him to explain the division of labor.

[DrSanity]

The standard economic solutions from the right and left are either to raise or lower taxes; to increase or decrease social welfare expenditures; to invest more or less in education or infrastructure; to clamp down or loosen up on business. But none of them addresses the essence of the problem: the huge concentration of capital ownership and capital income.

Free markets ≠ capitalism. 'Free markets' refers to a voluntary market system of economics; whereas 'capitalism' historically refers to a particular mode of production within a market economy, wherein the caput (Latin for 'head') or chief of a company owns the means of production and ultimately controls it. The word 'capitalist' was initially used to describe land owners and merchants under the highly centralized mercantile system of 17th century Europe. Classical economists, who opposed mercantilism, never referred to themselves as 'capitalists', or to their proposed system of economics as 'capitalism'; and their idea of the labor theory of value would greatly influence early socialism. According to the famous classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, the "capitalist mode of production" was undesirable, and should be replaced with economic democracy and worker ownership. These concepts were shared by libertarian socialists, including individualists who advocated for free markets (Benjamin Tucker, William B. Greene etc.). Possibly the first thinker to use 'capitalism' in a positive way to refer to classical economics was Hartley Withers, in his book "The Case for Capitalism" 1920, wherein he fantasized about a world wherein every worker would own the capital that they used; much like how his individualist and libertarian socialist predecessors had envisioned. He even spoke highly of the co-operative movement; which just so happens to be the historic root of both socialism and individualist anarchism (Robert Owen, Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon).

[trollconfiavel]

The idea of a "free" market is a contradiction in and of itself.
The competitive dynamics of a market create a tendency for accumulation of market share and consequently control of prices and the production of goods, meaning less "freedom" for others to participate and join the market.
This tendency of centralization can only be fought by external "players" with enough power to control how resources are allocated for the production of society. This is what governments do, or at least should.
The only possibility to have freedom in market dynamics is by eliminating the motive of profit and substituting it for the motive of supply, and as such change would destroy the structuration of the market, the freedom and the market cannot coexist.

[EYTPS]

Man, I thought not being a Kendrick Lamar fan was controversial, but damn.

[khafreahmose]

I agree with him. I think the ONLY way a truly free market economy could work is in a highly educated and moral society. This would keep both producers and consumers in check.

[johnpatterson]

Intersting.The problem with the free market is that (1)We expect the market's gonna be fair and honest.
(2)Markets can be manipulated.
Think of the Hunt Brothers trying to corner the silver market in the early 80's.
(3)If they truly beleived in free.markets they wouldn't ask for subsidies and tax breaks.

[davidevans]

Think outside the servitude to inanimate objects other people control your life with.

[sidhuprakash]

EJJATLY.The gun decides the price. No gun no fare price. Even Nobleman uses the gun.

[MrDefiance]

This man knows what he is talking about.

[juliancochran]

Yes, it really is nonsense. Amazingly few people realise that just about every component in your iPhone and the original early, non-profitable, innovative and risky work, from the state sector or firms funded by state customers earlier on (particularly the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s). Just about every internet protocol, satellites themselves, Algol-69 from which just about every language is now derived as a minor modification, VN machine, the silicon chip design, silicon chip manufacturing, GDP, you simply cannot easily name any part of the phone that came out of the private sector other than the profitable low-risk incremental work, yet we are constantly cheering how wonderful the free market is. It is quite the opposite, with nearly all the innovation in the state sector, and then when the hard work is handed over to the private sector, the profitable and more predictable incremental low-risk work takes place there.

[johnnyw]

Not only that, but developing nations that don't have simple safeguards and regulations in their marketplaces (eg. no child labour, minimum wage laws, etc) aren't international economic powerhouses.

[serenditymuse]

If it is regulated by government then it is not a free market. 100% agree. But that there is not such a think now does not mean it is undesirable or impossible or should not be created.

[EricPham-grpg]

There is nothing wrong with either system only different between devil and nobility

[sizzla]

Luke 16:13 No servant is able to serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and he will love the other, or he will be devoted to one and he will despise the other. You are not able to serve God and mammon."

[davidevans]

Your missing sight of the free market because you're examining the present legalized market. If you need help identifying the free market, I'd be happy to show you, and even give a transitional solution to Humans joining that free market, just as the species was usurped into the form of servitude of present day, all the way back a good 14, 000 years.

[sheribritton]

Shouldn't you be able to take something back if it doesn't fit. Why shouldn't their be laws and regulations put in place. Am I missing something?

[revolt]

Here we go again. Economists equating free markets with capitalism. Not the same thing.

[davidevans]

Political is having a free mind, but money isn't a prerequisite for cooperation.