I choose free markets because I cannot think of anyone or any group, past or present, with the knowledge and foresight to plan any economy. Only I know what goods and services I need to purchase, and therefor only I am the one competent enough to make that decision.

The great thing about "markets" are that they represent the space in which goods and services can be bought and sold. Without markets there is no such space.

The idea of a centrally planned economy was destroyed in 1989. The idea of free markets was destroyed even earlier, in 1929. Since then most of the world has realized that you need a vehicle that can turn both left and right.

I choose free markets — NOS4A2

As long as all costs are internalized among those who voluntarily agree to assume them, and are paid to do so in good faith and fair dealing, then I'm good with that.

Only I know what goods and services I need to purchase — NOS4A2

I'd just like to take this opportunity to interject a distinction between "want" and "need." If you want a cheep piece of Chinese plastic shit, then I don't care what you want, or if the markets will allow you to get it; You should be denied. I'd be happy to centrally plan that denial. I've got the knowledge and foresight to do that. I'm competent to tell you that you don't need that. Because, really, you are just benefiting from communism and we all know you are not a communist. This analysis extends likewise to the purchase of products from sellers who benefit from dictators, fascists, misogynists, homophobes, corporate polluters and others who externalize their costs in the product of the widget that you want. Yeah, I can do that. Make me King and I'll make sure you do run afoul of your own standards or my standards.

The real question is: What's so great about "markets" to being with? — Xtrix

What's so great with central planning?

In fact, the real question is why are the most successful and wealthy countries mixed economies?

Start with the facts, not ideology.

(Ok, I get it, this is a philosophy forum. But still guys.)

You lack the data to make such decisions. That's ok, though, everyone lacks that knowledge.

The great thing about "markets" are that they represent the space in which goods and services can be bought and sold. Without markets there is no such space. — NOS4A2

And what's so great about buying and selling things?

I choose free markets because I cannot think of anyone or any group, past or present, with the knowledge and foresight to plan any economy. Only I know what goods and services I need to purchase, and therefor only I am the one competent enough to make that decision. — NOS4A2

But we already have a planned economy. It's planned internally, in the corporation, and by massive intervention by the state in the form of subsidies and bailouts. It's planned -- it's just planned by the wealthy. The "decision" you give is an illusion. The public largely favors public transportation, which isn't an option. Your choices are between Ford, Toyota, GM, etc. The largest voting bloc in the US are independents -- yet we get the "choice" of two factions of a business party.

Your ideas reduce the individual to be a consumer/chooser of what's presented to him. That's a mistake, in government and in business.

The idea of free markets was destroyed even earlier, in 1929. — litewave

And rose again in the 1970s, and which has dominated corporate and political governance ever since. From the boardrooms of Wall Street, to Capitol Hill, to the White House, this ideology of "free enterprise" has prevailed. To stop our historical analysis with the crash of 1929 and its aftermath is incomplete.

What's so great with central planning? — ssu

Nothing whatsoever -- in fact I'm against it.

In fact, the real question is why are the most successful and wealthy countries mixed economies? — ssu

Some of the poorest are also mixed economies. Why? Because nearly every economy in the world is mixed -- from China to India, to Japan and New Zealand, to Canada and Belize.

Start with the facts, not ideology. — ssu

That's exactly what I did, by pointing out that the choice between centrally planned economies and free market economies is a false one.

And rose again in the 1970s, and which has dominated corporate and political governance ever since. From the boardrooms of Wall Street, to Capitol Hill, to the White House, this ideology of "free enterprise" has prevailed. — Xtrix

Interspersed with collectivist stuff like Obamacare and now Biden's infrastructure bill.

You lack the data to make such decisions. — NOS4A2

Data! Data! I don't need no stinking Data!

Trade has been an important aspect of humanity since time immemorial. It's probably hard-wired into our DNA. Whether good or bad its just what we do.

I'm well aware that there is no free trade in the world, but that isn't to say that there should or shouldn't be. The fact that slavery was commonplace was no valid argument that abolition wasn't possible.

And rose again in the 1970s, and which has dominated corporate and political governance ever since. From the boardrooms of Wall Street, to Capitol Hill, to the White House, this ideology of "free enterprise" has prevailed.
— Xtrix

Interspersed with collectivist stuff like Obamacare — litewave

Obamacare isn't "collectivist." Obama was a neoliberal as well. Notice what the country really wanted -- a public option -- was quickly removed from the table. Obama is just as much dominated by this free market ideology as Clinton.

Trade has been an important aspect of humanity since time immemorial. — NOS4A2

So has rape. I didn't ask about its ubiquity or its history.

It's probably hard-wired into our DNA. Whether good or bad its just what we do. — NOS4A2

And I'm asking: "What's so good about it?" Or is it good at all? Plato and Aristotle had some things to say about them, things which were far different from people you often parrot -- Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc -- had to say about them.

Market fundamentalism has destroyed this country over the last 40 years. Right along with shareholder value theory and trickle-down economics. All in the name of "freedom" and "individualism."

Meanwhile, the only result is the very wealthy have gotten wealthier. And they can always count on the false consciousness of people like you in continuing to defend it.

I honestly think a decentralized planned economy sounds much more appealing than a centralized one. If you go by the libertarian socialist lines of thought loosely organized communities can probably determine what they need and what to produce more than a central government. Gift economies are also very interesting but I can only imagine such a loose and voluntary form of exchange existing in small neighborhoods or rural communities.

I’m looking through this thread and I don’t understand how some here are saying current policies are “collectivist” (whatever that means). Capitalist economics is extremely planned with constant input from governments, central banks, venture capital or private equity firms like Bain Capital or Goldman Sachs. Even further down the supply chain most stores know how much production is needed to fulfill certain requirements of production, my time in grocery stores we knew pretty much down to the hour the amount of stock we would need to fulfill the needs of the people that walk through the door. What makes those levels of administration and direction any more promoting of freedom than government or networks of distributors and administrators?

Obamacare isn't "collectivist." — Xtrix

Well, it's funded with increased taxes and mandates insurers to accept those with preexisting conditions without extra charging.

I honestly think a decentralized planned economy sounds much more appealing than a centralized one. If you go by the libertarian socialist lines of thought loosely organized communities can probably determine what they need and what to produce more than a central government — Albero

I generally agree, but this gets back to the debate the framers had in the 1780s. Given our current economy, you cannot avoid disaster without a central bank.

What the real problem is isn't markets, but ideology -- namely, our current conceptions of capitalism. Socialism and communism -- and slavery, and feudalism, etc -- had markets. Markets existed in ancient Greece and Rome.

What we have suffered under since the 70s is free market fundamentalism. Ideas like the "efficient market hypothesis," and things to that effect. All of it has lead to exactly the facts we see around us: huge income inequality, stagnant real wages, loss of unions, more precarious work, gig economies, corporate consolidation, stock buybacks, shadow banking, government bailouts, etc.

Well, it's funded with increased taxes and mandates insurers to accept those with preexisting conditions without extra charging. — litewave

Yes, when it should have done what the people wanted, and joined the rest of the civilized world: universal health care or, at least (and as promised), a public option. Neither of which happened, thanks to the pressure from insurance companies.

For me trade is good because it is the only means with which I can buy and sell goods and services. There are other means to acquire goods and services, for instance through robbery and coercion, but I oppose such activity for moral reasons. Perhaps you have a better idea? Or do you expect things to fall in your lap?

I still see nothing wrong with wealth. A wealthy person presents an opportunity to me. Wealth isn't a zero-sum game so you shouldn't have much to fear save for your own envy.

For me trade is good because it is the only means with which I can buy and sell goods and services. — NOS4A2

I know what trade means. I'm asking why it's good. Your answer: "trade is good because it's trade."

Nevermind -- go back to sleep, as usual.

Or do you expect things to fall in your lap? — NOS4A2

Wealth isn't a zero-sum game so you shouldn't have much to fear save for your own envy. — NOS4A2

Can't help dragging out tired slogans from your brainwashed cold war youth, can you?

Yes, it must be that I am envious of wealthy people and expect things to "fall into my lap." :lol:

The real question is: What's so great about "markets" to being with? — Xtrix

I think theyre lauded for their self regulation.

Think of a village that collects water. In order to help them, you build a large asphalt highway between the village and the creek.

Later, to your dismay, you find that the villagers never use your feature. Instead, they walk through the forest where it's cool and pick persimmons and rabbit tobacco on their way.

The wisdom you learn is to watch what people do naturally instead of trying to dictate their actions. What they do naturally evolves in keeping with the environment.

I choose free markets because I cannot think — NOS4A2

Now that's progress! Another couple of years of therapy and maybe you can go outside. Btw, can you describe your last experience in or with a free market - or any such experience?

Just for the heck of it, in this discussion of markets, free or planned, how much do you pay for a gallon - in a gallon container - of milk? I pay about USD 2.60. Some brands (can) cost a lot more. By the quart (where I live, NE Massachusetts, USA ) 1.10, and the half-gallon, 1.90.

Each are tools that are used for specific problems based on the culture and needs of your society. Free markets at their extreme are simply the idea that I can sell anything I want to anyone else without regulation or taxes.
A friend says, "Hey, mind selling me that coffee mug?" I say, "Sure, 3 dollars", and we both have full free will to accept, amend, or reject the trade.
This is a pretty good thing. Imagine a world in which I had to also add 8% tax, fill out a form and receipt, and make sure the cup passed some standard regulation before offer of sale.
Now does a completely free market scale as you introduce more people? Of COURSE not. But when we can keep aspects of free markets where possible, it makes trade more manageable for the seller. Since its less work to sell, less time and effort is needed to do business, thus increasing profits.

Some of the poorest are also mixed economies. Why? Because nearly every economy in the world is mixed -- from China to India, to Japan and New Zealand, to Canada and Belize. — Xtrix

Then perhaps it's better to make a more specific questions. Let's look at markets. They can either function well or not so well in an economy. And there can be a plethora of reasons why it is so. Is the market controlled by a monopoly or by monopolistic competition. Are there functioning institutions or not? Are there logistical problems? Who are the suppliers and how do they perform? How integrated the market is to the outside? Are there subsidies or other forms of assistance, transfer payments being given or gotten? What are the political aspects of the market?

The question how much the government controls or supervises some market is only one limited question. It broadly starts from issues like just how well the society itself functions.

In looking at the title to this thread, and the words "free markets", it brought to mind something I was taught a long time ago as a little boy: Nothing is free.

I never said that. Trade is good because it is one of the few means to acquire goods and services without resorting to immoral behavior.

The “wealthy get wealthier” is a play on a saying from Hanoverian England. “Trickle-down economics” is a democrat sneer from the 80’s. “Market fundamentalism” is a neologism from the 90’s. Your sloganeering is quite diverse.

Now that's progress! Another couple of years of therapy and maybe you can go outside. Btw, can you describe your last experience in or with a free market - or any such experience?

I’ve never experienced the free market.

Pretend that current conditions are such that economies are a mixture of state intervention and private trade. You don’t like the current conditions, so you’d like to see it go in a different direction. Which direction would you like to see it go?

Pretend that current conditions are such that economies are a mixture of state intervention and private trade. You don’t like the current conditions, so you’d like to see it go in a different direction. Which direction would you like to see it go? — NOS4A2

Fair question. Imo, government has got to be at least in part in the wealth redistribution business. That is, a guarantor of health care, housing, food, transport and transportation, and access to other basic life needs. And that around the world, internationally.

The alternative is haves and have nots. Historically, most of the haves have usually been able to isolate from the have nots. But the writing has been on the wall for a while that is increasingly untenable.

I take routine eyedrops for old-folks' eye problems. 2.5 mL at 0.005%(!). Average retail is $140. (Price with insurance much less.)

I'll do the arithmetic. One liter, or about one quart, of the medicine itself costs $140 x 400 x 20,000 = $1,120,000,000. Or almost $4.5 billion dollars per gallon. And this not unusual. Those prices are an invitation to those who cannot afford them to do their own market fix. Like the French in 1792.

When those price pressures reach necessities, which for some some things in some places has already happened, haves will understand first hand why communities understand the communal benefits of care for those at need and practice it.

I think theyre lauded for their self regulation. — frank

2008, for example. Self regulation did wonders there.

Btw, can you describe your last experience in or with a free market - or any such experience? — tim wood

There are no free markets in the modern world. So don't hold your breath.

Then perhaps it's better to make a more specific questions. — ssu

Markets are another word for transactions between people. There's nothing wrong with trade. My problem is with free market fantasies, and the very idea that markets are something to be worshipped. They should be one small part of a society, and nothing more.

Markets are elevated to the point of holiness by a merchant mentality, where everything is about transactions, monetary value, and profits. I think we can aspire to more than that.

I never said that. — NOS4A2

Said what?

There is a quote feature.

2008, for example. Self regulation did wonders there. — Xtrix

So that entirely refutes the argument?

Socialism doesn't work because USSR. Zing.

Free markets are vital so when I go to Walgreens to pick up toothpaste I am confronted with 60+ options

And “free to choose.”

So that entirely refutes the argument? — frank

Yes. They’re not lauded for their self regulation, as was your claim. When an industry is deregulated, you see what happens over and over again. The financial sector is an obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

But I’m talking about the real world, not about a hypothetical village somewhere. So there’s that defect, I suppose.