The Malevolent Government vs. the Beneficent Markets: The Myth of Free Markets-Op Ed

Good read.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Malevolent-Government-by-David-Model-110618-374.html

By David Model

opednews.com


The theory of free markets is the economic framework in which the U.S. economy operates and has become apotheosized into an unquestioned presupposition in mainstream discourse. Obviously, free market economies are not black or white options but a spectrum along which different economies are positioned. The real question is the decision as to the legitimate role of government and the legitimate role of the private sector. Without a minimum wage, environmental regulations, health and safety standards and protections for consumers from dangerous or fraudulent products, the American people would be at the mercy of corporations whose sole purpose to maximize profits for its shareholders. After all, ideally, the government is simply representatives of the people acting on their behalf to serve their interests. Hence the government can't just step back and leave the public to suffer from the malfeasant machinations of corporations.

Despite proclaiming its mission to achieve free markets in its purest form in America, political and economic leaders have suffused the economy with non-free market mechanisms.

In theory, a free market economy is one in which all markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those people in the market who are seeking to buy or sell their labour or products. In particular, a free market can only exist in its pure form when the role of the state is limited to tax collection and enforcement off private ownerships and contracts.

A number of conditions must exist in order for a market to be free. Prices must only be determined by the decisions of buyers and sellers en masse in the market. Although perfect competition is not necessary for a market to operate freely, at least monopolistic competition must prevail. There must be many competing producers, where no single or small number of producers can control the market price and where there are few barriers to entry to or exit from the market....more

they and their short-term interests would destroy the very system w/o state intervention, to say nothing of workers

so maybe that's one upside

The Libertarian assumption is that markets are "naturally self-regulating" and that all cartels and monopolies stem from "government interference", I disagree. Before the industrial revolution no business could get large enough for any self-destructive tendencies, the increase in scale caused by industrialization changed all that.

Industrial Capitalist free markets are inherently unstable, they collapse into monopolies and cartels that ultimately buy the government they want.