Uh... You're the one who asked the question "Enlighten us then. Tell us how boycotting a business over political reasons is not a sign of a free market?" as if it means anything at all.
You're right. The free market is an entirely theoretical concept that cannot exist in reality. As such, so long as we're talking about the free market, you should be assuming that we're talking about it in a theoretical stand-point.
But, as I've written repeatedly, the theoretical concept of a free market doesn't even take into consideration political and social matters. They're a non-factor. A rational individual within that world acts only in their financial interest.
You're the one who keeps trying to get out of this theoretical world and input values that were never figured into it. It is clear-cut what a rational being within a world of a free market would do.
And, no, a state is not defined as having unlimited powers in within the theoretical arguments regarding free market. I don't even know where you came up with that idea. A state is just some organized government that holds control over a certain group of people.
And that was because you posted theory about free markets. Then you followed up with theory definitions. When pointed out how this didn't agree with your opinion, you switched to reality. Then I followed and you all went back to theory and around and around we went.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
And the next event in the anti-anti-gay campaign... An NFL player expresses his thoughts on Michael Sam kissing his BF on camera and gets slapped with a fine and a suspension. I guess it's a punishable offense to say "omg, horrible" to an on camera public display of affection.
Does anyone else think it's a little crazy how sensitive we're getting to trying to erase all possible offensive remarks (dealing with race and sexual preference) on social media?
You guys need to make up your mind on weather you're arguing about concepts or real life.
If you're arguing about real life then the words free market are nonsensical. If we're arguing concepts then it's assumed the the state is monolithic legal entity of unlimited power. Because that's how it'd be in he textbook where these concepts live.
We are, 100%, arguing about a concept.
The concept of a free market is a very important one in economics because an ideal free market is a perfectly Pareto-efficient place. This means that in a free market, there's no way to rearrange the distribution of resources and make everyone better off.
If we're going to define an abstract concept like a free market, we need to make sure that our definition includes everything it needs to be complete while excluding unnecessary baggage.
I articulated a nine-factor definition of a free market. You cannot exclude any of these factors and still get to Pareto efficiency. (If you disagree with this statement, then I can discuss each factor and explain why its important, but that's getting us pretty far afield).
"The state is monolithic legal entity of unlimited power" - this is not part of the definition because it's unnecessary baggage. We don't even need to mention a state, or define what the word "state" means, because the nine factors are all we need to establish pareto efficieny. If we have the nine factors, we can have zero states, one state, a thousand states; the states can have limited or unlimited power, etc.
You might say, "I don't like your definition, bitterroot, let's use mine instead." Your definition of a free market seems to be: (1) the state is monolithic legal entity of unlimited power, and (2) the state does not regulate, tax, or otherwise influence the market. There are two reasons why I don't like your definition. Reason 1: You pulled it out of your *ss. Reason 2: It's not a useful definition.
What do I mean "it's not a useful definition?" I mean that it doesn't tell us anything about the market. Is the market regulated? Maybe. It might be regulated by a cartel, or a corporation, or a church, just not by a "monolithic legal entity." Is the market efficient? Maybe. There might be huge, terrible externalities that make the market's allocation of resources super inefficient and harmful. Is it a competitive market? Maybe. Or maybe the entire market consists of a single, gigantic monopolistic corporation. So I dislike your definition because it's meaningless. We can't make a single useful prediction about how your "free market" behaves, or what it's like to live there.
You're right. The free market is an entirely theoretical concept that cannot exist in reality. As such, so long as we're talking about the free market, you should be assuming that we're talking about it in a theoretical stand-point.
But, as I've written repeatedly, the theoretical concept of a free market doesn't even take into consideration political and social matters. They're a non-factor. A rational individual within that world acts only in their financial interest.
You're the one who keeps trying to get out of this theoretical world and input values that were never figured into it. It is clear-cut what a rational being within a world of a free market would do.
And, no, a state is not defined as having unlimited powers in within the theoretical arguments regarding free market. I don't even know where you came up with that idea. A state is just some organized government that holds control over a certain group of people.
I've never done this.
Does anyone else think it's a little crazy how sensitive we're getting to trying to erase all possible offensive remarks (dealing with race and sexual preference) on social media?
We are, 100%, arguing about a concept.
The concept of a free market is a very important one in economics because an ideal free market is a perfectly Pareto-efficient place. This means that in a free market, there's no way to rearrange the distribution of resources and make everyone better off.
If we're going to define an abstract concept like a free market, we need to make sure that our definition includes everything it needs to be complete while excluding unnecessary baggage.
I articulated a nine-factor definition of a free market. You cannot exclude any of these factors and still get to Pareto efficiency. (If you disagree with this statement, then I can discuss each factor and explain why its important, but that's getting us pretty far afield).
"The state is monolithic legal entity of unlimited power" - this is not part of the definition because it's unnecessary baggage. We don't even need to mention a state, or define what the word "state" means, because the nine factors are all we need to establish pareto efficieny. If we have the nine factors, we can have zero states, one state, a thousand states; the states can have limited or unlimited power, etc.
You might say, "I don't like your definition, bitterroot, let's use mine instead." Your definition of a free market seems to be: (1) the state is monolithic legal entity of unlimited power, and (2) the state does not regulate, tax, or otherwise influence the market. There are two reasons why I don't like your definition. Reason 1: You pulled it out of your *ss. Reason 2: It's not a useful definition.
What do I mean "it's not a useful definition?" I mean that it doesn't tell us anything about the market. Is the market regulated? Maybe. It might be regulated by a cartel, or a corporation, or a church, just not by a "monolithic legal entity." Is the market efficient? Maybe. There might be huge, terrible externalities that make the market's allocation of resources super inefficient and harmful. Is it a competitive market? Maybe. Or maybe the entire market consists of a single, gigantic monopolistic corporation. So I dislike your definition because it's meaningless. We can't make a single useful prediction about how your "free market" behaves, or what it's like to live there.