Inside the FREE MARKET the government is supposed to regulate against MONOPOLIES and OLIGOPOLIES!
I understand economics very well—it's one of my favorite subjects.
You're misunderstanding what it means to have a free market.
A free market simply means that the price system is managed automatically—there are no central planners controlling prices.
Since prices are determined by supply and demand, they adjust naturally without the need for micromanagement.
However, within a free market, we have something called market failures.
Monopolies and oligopolies are examples of market failures—they are not supposed to exist unchecked; they are meant to be broken up.
A free market does not mean businesses can do whatever they want.
It means that the cost of goods is regulated organically through supply and demand rather than centralized control.
In a communist economy, the price system and supply management are handled manually by central planners—often using tools like spreadsheets.
Your understanding of the free market is incorrect.
Nothing wrong with monopolies, as you would know if you really studied the free market. Oligopolies are much the same, with multiple participants under a common market policy.
A free market means that every person is free to purchase (or not) what is available at an acceptable price. Exactly, prices are determined by supply and demand.
There are no "market failures." That is what people call circumstances that they are not pleased with. Monopolies are not global. The man who invents the first automobile is still in competition with walking, horses, wind-wagons, and railroads. The competition simply moves to a higher level. That would still be true even if additional automobile manufacturers come along and join a guild of automobile vendors. (Then you get constructs like General Motors. Time drives the situation into fewer vendors. Happened in automobiles. Happened in airliners.)
Intervening in the market to destroy monopolies or oligopolies because they are offensive to you is "management of the market." Big time.
By the way, your idea of a free market leads necessarily to the elimination of patents and copyrights, which is abolition of one's right to intellectual property. A person obtains a patent or copyright in order to have a monopoly over the production and sale of his invention, publication, artwork, music, or motion picture. It would also disrupt the ownership of radio channels, which are monopolies granted by a kind of deed. Shall we include the Internet? I assume you have no problem with some scam artist coming out with greatawakening1.win?
Like I said, the vendor sets the price. When the price goes up, demand decreases. When the price goes down, the supply will diminish---unless the product has lost popularity. This is indeed organic, as I explained. So, we don't go anywhere by repeating truisms. The only difference between us is that i accept these truisms.
You are asserting things about monopolies and oligopolies that are untrue. They are no different from a "big" vendor. They do not control supply vs. demand, and you haven't shown that they can. The only way they can do that is by invoking government coercive power to hinder, discourage, or eliminate competition---but that is not a free market, and it requires government intervention (which I oppose). You, on the other hand, would cheerfully use government intervention to rearrange the market according to your tastes (and I also oppose that). I don't think that is the droid you are looking for.
What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain.
"What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain."
What product and market are you talking about???
Most of those inventors, authors, performers and film producers HAVE OTHER PEOPLE COMPETING AGAINST THEM!!
LOL!
Inside the FREE MARKET the government is supposed to regulate against MONOPOLIES and OLIGOPOLIES!
I understand economics very well—it's one of my favorite subjects.
You're misunderstanding what it means to have a free market.
A free market simply means that the price system is managed automatically—there are no central planners controlling prices.
Since prices are determined by supply and demand, they adjust naturally without the need for micromanagement.
However, within a free market, we have something called market failures.
Monopolies and oligopolies are examples of market failures—they are not supposed to exist unchecked; they are meant to be broken up.
A free market does not mean businesses can do whatever they want. It means that the cost of goods is regulated organically through supply and demand rather than centralized control.
In a communist economy, the price system and supply management are handled manually by central planners—often using tools like spreadsheets.
Your understanding of the free market is incorrect.
Nothing wrong with monopolies, as you would know if you really studied the free market. Oligopolies are much the same, with multiple participants under a common market policy.
A free market means that every person is free to purchase (or not) what is available at an acceptable price. Exactly, prices are determined by supply and demand.
There are no "market failures." That is what people call circumstances that they are not pleased with. Monopolies are not global. The man who invents the first automobile is still in competition with walking, horses, wind-wagons, and railroads. The competition simply moves to a higher level. That would still be true even if additional automobile manufacturers come along and join a guild of automobile vendors. (Then you get constructs like General Motors. Time drives the situation into fewer vendors. Happened in automobiles. Happened in airliners.)
Intervening in the market to destroy monopolies or oligopolies because they are offensive to you is "management of the market." Big time.
By the way, your idea of a free market leads necessarily to the elimination of patents and copyrights, which is abolition of one's right to intellectual property. A person obtains a patent or copyright in order to have a monopoly over the production and sale of his invention, publication, artwork, music, or motion picture. It would also disrupt the ownership of radio channels, which are monopolies granted by a kind of deed. Shall we include the Internet? I assume you have no problem with some scam artist coming out with greatawakening1.win?
LOL!
Not true.
A free market is based on a price system that is set by each vendor.
When the price goes up. Supply will increase while demand decreases.
When the price goes down. Supply will decrease while demand increases.
THIS IS ORGANIC AND NOT CONTROLLED BY ANY SPECIAL GROUP.
Monopolies and oligopolies have the POWER TO CONTROL SUPPLY vs DEMAND no different then the government.
A free market means NO INDIVIDUAL or SMALL GROUP controls supply vs demand.
If you are ok with monopolies and oligopolies. That is no different than the government controlling supply or demand.
The goals is to remove a single player or small group of players from MARKET CONTROL.
If you cannot understand this.
I don't know what to tell you.
Like I said, the vendor sets the price. When the price goes up, demand decreases. When the price goes down, the supply will diminish---unless the product has lost popularity. This is indeed organic, as I explained. So, we don't go anywhere by repeating truisms. The only difference between us is that i accept these truisms.
You are asserting things about monopolies and oligopolies that are untrue. They are no different from a "big" vendor. They do not control supply vs. demand, and you haven't shown that they can. The only way they can do that is by invoking government coercive power to hinder, discourage, or eliminate competition---but that is not a free market, and it requires government intervention (which I oppose). You, on the other hand, would cheerfully use government intervention to rearrange the market according to your tastes (and I also oppose that). I don't think that is the droid you are looking for.
What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain.
You are not understanding my point of view.
A Big Vendor isn't the problem.
It's when there is NO COMPETITION to big vendor in a certain market space.
Hence the word COMPETITION!
And yes.. that VENDOR IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE "NATURAL" COMPETITION!
If it's only one vendor supplying something critical. They have to be regulated.
You said
"What are you going to do with all the inventors, authors, performers, and film producers who have a monopoly on their products? I notice you have dodged this issue. If you cannot understand this...it's not because I haven't tried to explain."
What product and market are you talking about???
Most of those inventors, authors, performers and film producers HAVE OTHER PEOPLE COMPETING AGAINST THEM!!