Talk:Free market

Criticisms

I've re-workered the section a bit, buyt the only bit that requires justification is my removal of the catholic position. Specifically, I removed it because it didn't constitue criticism of the market- all but the last statement was pro-markets, and the last is irrelivant- just becuase you are against A being used to excuse B doesn't mean you are against A (or, in fact, B...). For example, I support economic growth, but don't allow it to be used as an excuse for slavery or human rights abuses. Larklight (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would advise to keep the section: first, each and every article dealing with political science or economic theory should include a criticism section in order to put forward ongoing debates; it's a matter of coherence and intellectual integrity; secondly, there are critics related specifically to "free market" rather than "capitalism" as a whole (see Martin J. Whitman supra). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaolian (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a little disturbed by the initial definition of free market. There is a tendency to use this term interchangably with laissez faire. It is not the same thing. The way this is defined only furthurs this misunderstanding. The definition needs to be more general. By the way this is defined it also serves more as propaganda supporting one school of thought over others. It attempts to define this school of thought as status quo, when it clearly is not. Free market is an ideal of what the mechanism of a fair market price might look like. The term says little about how it is achieved. By including the term laissez faire into the definition it makes assumptions that are clearly not agreed upon. To clarify, free market ideals can be embraced while at the same time rejecting laissez-faire. One is not proven to lead to another nor is one proven to be required to achieve the other. They are two seperate concepts thought to be related. This needs to be reworked.--Schnoodler (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. If you can find citations for that position I think those clarification would be greatly beneficial to the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't how one can put this in the article but for some time I have felt that the notion of a 'free market' implies five things about people: (1)people are intelligent, (2)people are knowledgable, (3)people are rational, (4)people are moral, (5)people are ethical. If ANY of these factors are missing, a free maket no longer exists. It is obvious to me that the basic reason for the world-wide economic debacle is the absence of all or most of the preceding factors. What's the solution. Recognition of these factors and regulation to curb excesses.Alloco1 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A competing theory is that "regulation" will cause such debacles unless the regulators are intelligent, knowledgeable, rational, moral and ethical. —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly describes a market where the government does not use laws to regulate the market while the criticisms use strawman tactics against the belief that the government should not take part in the market. The strawman argument "these failures range from military services to roads, and some would argue, to health care" clearly imply a scenario where the government's contributions is completely absent. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion for a resolution here is to rename the § "Negative Perceptions". Renamed the Social Darwinism subsection because Simulation is just a wrong word. Lycurgus (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ARCHIVE HERE

Suggest cut and paste everything above to archive page, this page over 200K. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Property?

Okay, I'm looking this over and it does not explain HOW property comes into existence in a free market and how it is enforced. It seems that property IS government regulation, or if it can be done without government the mechanisms should be touched upon. Anyway, this is an important area I think.

Moved this to this thread which I created so it doesn't snag archive processing. Lycurgus (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Natural" law of supply and demand

I don't see why we need the word "natural" in the first paragraph. It suffices to say "law of supply and demand" without the "natural". Whether the law of supply and demand is "natural" is disputed by notable economists. For instance, Joseph Stiglitz would argue that the law of supply and demand is a simplification that requires certain idealised conditions to function as a predictable law, conditions that don't always exist in the real, "natural" world. It is not for Wikipedia to judge whether this law is "- we should let the reader decide for him/herself.

I will therefore remove the word "natural", which was introduced in a POV-pushing session "clean up" by JLMadrigal [1] and revert the statement to its original state before 23 November 2007. Cambrasaconfab 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a nod to 'natural law' is quite appropriate. While I understand that you might want to avoid the term natural in front of supply and demand as it can be presumptive out of historical context, the ideal of free market was borne out of natural law or more specifically the natural law of supply and demand. It might actually be something to consider more and expand upon in this page.--Schnoodler (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Supply and Demand are THEORIES not Laws. Check the wiki article on supply and demand and you will see the many theories that attempt to define/observe supply and demand. ----------some idiot

Force and Fraud

I put the part about “force and fraud” back in because it appears someone edited it out. For the original, and long running, Wiki definition you can confirm here: http://www.answers.com/topic/free-market?cat=biz-fin

Kuni Leml (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)User:Kuni Leml

I took out "force and fraud"...defination has proven wrong if the Enron bankruptcy proves anything. Any defination used anywhere should be changed to reflect this inaccurate statement.

So Enron defines all free market workings? This is an ideal system we're talking about. Soxwon (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archival

I took the liberty of manually archiving the contents of this talk page (see the archive box at the top of the page). I left everything from 2008. Hope that helps :) -FrankTobia (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Defining coercion

Coercion is a rather important concept in defining what constitutes a free market, and it wasn't linked until pretty late in the article. I added a link at the first occurrence. I think more coverage is needed about what constitutes coercion in this context. For example, is a worker in a company town coerced into buying at the company store? -- SpareSimian (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because the company store is not physically taking him and bringing him to the store and forcible taking the money out of his pocket, nor does it threaten to attack him physically if he doesn't shop there. That's what's meant by coercion, in the free market concept. It's talking about physical force or threat of physical force. Richard Blatant (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blaming the government is too simplistic

I've noticed that in some articles surrounding the subject of free markets, there's too much emphasis on government being the sole source of market fetters - or, on the presentation that government involvement is the defining feature.

Monopolies and Guilds hardly constitute good examples of free markets; yet they are often no longer protected by the state. Unions have historically had the clout to prevent non-union labor from gaining employment, even when they were illegal - compare Smith's apprenticeships (law of the land) to labor unions in the US (which used to be illegal). Likewise, anticompetitive behavior amongst domestic firms is not so much different from bi-lateral trade agreements, except in the consent and involvement of the state.

An important aspect of advocation for free markets historically, has been the recognition that groups claiming to act in other's best interest, often were not. They can leverage the government in such endeavors, but they can go around it too; they often do both.

Blaming everything on the government sounds a little helpless and innocent. Blablablob (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are lots of sources that disagree with your conclusion. A monopoly as not part of a functioning freemarket by definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as no coercion is involved it's free market. There's nothing logically inconsistent about a monopoly existing in a free market. As long as coercion is not being used to maintain a monopoly, it's still a free market. What's not a free market is when government maintains the monopoly. This is because coercion is being used. For example it's illegal to compete with the U.S. postal service. You seem to be conflating free market with a market of perfect competititon. A free market doesn't have to have perfect competititon. It just has to have no coercion. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coercion in the sense of free markets is different than coercion in the sense of physical domination or intimidation. Coercion in free markets is really about interference in the mechanism of achieving a 'natural' price. A lack of choices (competition) while not being physically coersive can be a barrier when considering a free market. It interferes with a persons ability to go elsewhere and make a better choice. That's not to say a better choice would be available. It allows for the possibility of one party to maximize thier benefit at the expense of another. It is in direct contrast to the free market ideal where upon both parties are maximizing thier benefit and thus opt for the exchange. Price controls no matter if applied by government regulation or monopoly are coersive in a free market sense as it restricts one or more parties from making the best choice. Or in another way to look at it, it can reduce the cummulative value of that transaction. It's no longer a free market while still being free of physical coercion. That's not to say that regulation or industry efforts can't result in a free market or even raise the value of future transactions (ex. joint research, weights and measures etc.) It's so important for intellectual discourse to seperate out the definitions from schools of thought. What is a free market is a vastly different topic than how it is achieved. We must be able to seperate the two to have a basis of dialogue. The definition must be non preferential and non assumptive. --Schnoodler (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to swap redirects

Currently, "unregulated market" redirects here. I propose that we reverse this by renaming the article "unregulated market" and redirecting "free market" to it. Why? Because "free market" is a propaganda term, which tries to equate capitalism with freedom. Since millions of people (myself included) equate capitalism with slavery, such propaganda constitutes an WP:NPOV violation. My proposal is not a violation of NPOV, because what we're talking about when we say "free market" is in fact an unregulated [capitalist] market. All I'm proposing is that we apply the duck test and not use propaganda terms to describe ducks -- even though doing so might be popular in certain circles (WP is supposed to be a resource for everyone, not just pro-this or anti-that).

Now comes the part where the overwhelmingly American and overwhelmingly pro-capitalist editors of the English Wikipedia commence with their overwhelming flood of "Oppose" responses, which will be taken as evidence that my logic is somehow flawed. Begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. "Unregulated" is more specific than "free" and is a better parallel to "regulated market". JudahH (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Free market" as described in this article is a POV propaganda term, along with libertarian usages of "coercion" and "force and fraud". Perhaps there should be two articles: "Free market (libertarian)" and "Free market (economics)" (and the latter would be a redirect from or to "unregulated market". The two ideas would be explained quite differently, even if they were really the same thing. (And they're not the same thing: the libertarian idea is heavily entangled with an enormous number of other issues in their ideology.) Mhuben (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Free market" is analogous to the term "Free Speech." Free Speech does not mean unregulated speech, it means that speech is protected. The same applies with the term free market. The intro to the article specifies two sets of regulations that the concept for a free market endorses, rules against "coercion" and "force and fraud." This would make the term 'unregulated' inaccurate. Also the term 'unregulated' would run afoul of the same WP:NPOV policy that it is claimed that "Free Market" is against, simply substituting a positive connotation for a negative one does not make for a neutral point of view. Also in popular discourse the term used to refer to the ideas described in the article is "Free Market." This is the term that I used to land at the page, and I would suspect the term used for most other people use to land at the page.Epv84 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No Ideal Free Market

I removed a sentence saying, essentially that an ideal free market could not exist because coercion is necessary to uphold property rights and contracts. While this is true, no coercion need be involved in the trading of such rights and contracts. Upholding property rights is the province of government; trading them is the province of the market. Therefore I see no need for distracting qualifiers regarding the "freedom" of the market. JudahH (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Force and Fraud

I put the part about “force and fraud” back in again because it appears that someone edited it out again. The Free Market is not anarchy. For the original, and long running, Wiki definition you can confirm here: http://www.answers.com/topic/free-market?cat=biz-fin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuni Leml (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

I couldn't find an appropriate template message, but the citations throughout the article could use a great deal of cleanup. There are plenty of excesses and repetitions, where simple ref names could be used. A general conformity on the citation style/format would be helpful as well. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

contradictions

I'm going to revert these recent additions. They seem to have WP:POV problems. It's not entirely clear what can be attributed to the reference, and the reference needs more info (book? article? page numbers?) in order to verify. If there's stuff which is in the reference which is important, it can possibly be put into the article more carefully. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how the addition seemed questionable, though I think a full reverse is a little touchy. Its probably better to pass on the slippery slope argument which I deleted, but I moved the contradictions part to criticism, where I meant to put it, and made it more clear that they are the ideas of Klein and Saul. Page numbers might be a little silly as they both point out contradictions many times, Klein a few times and Saul at least twice a chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A full revert seemed (and still seems, though I'll hold of for the moment) the cleanest way to deal with it. The phrasing of the additions is POV, which can probably be solved by more careful phrasing. Maybe, "Klein and Saul argue there are contradictions inherent in the idea of free market capitalist theory..." instead, for instance. Essentially, the material should be put in so that the reader can't tell the article writer agrees with Klein and Saul.

• Is "duo-tri-mego-ogliopolies" an expression from one of those authors? If so, it should be attributed, if not, it should be cut out.
• Page numbers (possibly a small range of numbers, just... something) need to be provided. Someone trying to WP:VERIFY the ideas from Klein and Saul shouldn't have to go blindly to the book(s), not knowing where to find them.
• I'd suggest choosing one book from Klein, rather than both No Logo and Shock Doctrine.
• The <ref> for Saul lists "The End of Globalism". Should that actually be The Collapse of Globalism: And the Reinvention of the World?

CRETOG8(t/c) 05:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This recent version is an improvement. It's still a bit POV in wording, but much closer to neutral. There's still at least two of the problems I mentioned above. (1) What is "duo-tri-mego-ogliopolies"? (2) What's a better ref for Saul List?

perpetuation of ignorance

What communist edited this article? It's supposed to be about what a free market is and how a free market works. But instead it's largely a diatribe about how there's no such thing as a working free market; or free markets are bad; don't work; are the same as anarchy or chaos. This is perpetuation of ignorance, not an encyclopedia. Is there someone who actually knows something about economics who can re-edit this crap? SecretaryNotSure (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The ideology of 'free market' is not something to do with the 'truth' of economics. It is historical and political too. Free market is a blanket phrase. There is no science in it. It is a belief, like the belief in God(s).Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

t.I.H.

The free market is believed to self-regulate in the most efficient and just way. Adam Smith attributed this characteristic to the invisible hand, which he thought was responsible for urging society towards prosperity. Some scholars (like Ludwig von Mises) have argued that this notion possesses features of a divine presence.

Eh? Didn't Smith say "guided by self-interest as if by an invisible hand"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Invisible hands puppeteer! They do not magically maintain freedom! - Why to bring mythologies of invisible hand while one is expecting something 'scientific' or 'neutral' or 'objective' about the idea of free market from this article? Beliefs should be treated as beliefs not as 'truths'.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and my complaint here was that Smith's belief was presented inaccurately. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

opinions stated as self-evident fact

Two prominent Canadian authors (both very hostile to the "Chicago School" philosophy) point out contradictions inherent in the idea of free market capitalist theory in its purest form. While it is argued that the market must be free (of government regulation or intervention) in order to sustain itself, it becomes nessesary [sic] that the government rescue it during its biggest crises and disasters, which is a double contradiction; crises happen without regulation and the government is expected to positively regulate it (enforce basic economic laws) and to negatively regulate it (bail it out). While proponents may argue that different measures need to be taken, a government can never allow an economy to collapse. Naomi Klein illustrates this roughly in her work No Logo and more rigorously in The Shock Doctrine. John Ralston Saul (former Governor General Regent) more humorously illustrates this through various examples in The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World.

It is asserted here as if uncontroversial that "crises happen without regulation", though "crises" is undefined and no example is given; and that "a government can never allow an economy to collapse" although numerous governments have caused economies to collapse. At least some libertarians have vigorously denounced the recent bailouts as doing more harm than they purport to avert; if others insist that such bailouts are necessary, that is hardly a contradiction within free market ideology.

Could the wording be improved? —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

With those three blunders removed, there's nothing left. —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Simulation Of Biological Laws

Hence critics of the free market argue that the imitation of the laws of life in society is awkward, has no solid basis in the natural sciences and may lead to adverse or unpredictable consequences.

It's true that the original Social Darwinists put too much emphasis on competition, both in the natural world and in human society. These "critics of the free market" are aware that cooperation is important in nature, but apparently continue to believe that it does not exist in the market — an essentially cooperative institution! (Every market transaction is a cooperation between buyer and seller.) The section is thus incoherent. —76.28.213.53 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The section does need help. I've removed several things which aren't sufficiently referenced, but that doesn't leave a lot. There are those who put a lot of value on this comparison, and I expect there are likewise critics, so it would be good to have referenced material. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The social world do not function by the 'laws' and patterns of biological or 'natural' world. There is no 'competition' just like that in 'market' in the natural or biological world. The biological/natural world is not a world of rational/irrational individuals with historically embodied beliefs and fictitious norms. The simulation is naive. It is wrong. There is nothing 'neutral' about the loaded arguments of 'evolutionism' or 'funtionalism' with which free-market is justified. Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Drono

Thanks for your contribution, I think its something like your recent writing on the type rather than existence of government intervention that can help bring some balance and consensus between free market writers and those antagonistic to pure free market ideas. Shabidoo | Talk 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfree Market?

Can a market that is not freed from monopoly interests or forces of fraud and deceit be called "free market"?Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede says that "A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce private contracts and the ownership of property" so the answer to your question is "yes, of course" on that definition. ;-)

However, that is effectively defining one end of a spectrum. In practice, most markets are somewhere nearer the middle of the spectrum; specifically, they have some form of regulation which aims to prevent or mitigate harm caused by monopoly interests, fraud, and deceit (and certain other externalities). Such regulation is, in "freer" economies, often much better at preventing harm than in less-free economies. License raj, and all that...

You'd have to be pretty radical to argue that an economy can't be "really" free as long as it has laws preventing fraud, insider dealing, or monopoly abuse. bobrayner (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is not "freedom" itself a 'pretty radical' idea? Is freedom an anti-thesis of regulation? Many philosophers juxtapose "freedom" with "unfreedom"- say for instance poverty, unemployment, lack of human dignity, being deceived, cheated, controlled, dominated, over-powered... Is it not- the ideas like "private" or "property" are fluid concepts,--and-- essentially political? Is the 'license raj' prevalent in the software rights far restricting and enforcing 'unfreedom' than 'free-software'? Is it freedom to license 'private' interests in 'public' or beyond public resources- like the forest, or oil fields etc? Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Free Market something 'natural' or truth in itself?

'Free-market' can only be discussed as a theoretical fiction or an ideology. It is not an objective social fact. At the best it is a dream- just like communism or socialism. It is a belief. The 'natural' or 'evolutionary credentials' of free market is as shallow as that of Nazism. 'Free market' is not a prevalent "truth" or description of a "reality". An article on free-market should concentrate on what is done with the claims of 'free market'. Writing on "free market" cannot follow the style of a writing on the newton's second law or about electromagnetism.Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot to say on the subject. However, this is not a forum. If you can find any reliable sources that support your beliefs, we might be able to update the article accordingly. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Similarly, there is no way of conceptually distinguishing “monopoly price” from free-market price. But if a concept has no possible grounding in reality, then it is an empty and illusory, and not a meaningful, concept." (Rothbard, Murray Newton (2004) "Man, economy, and state with Power and market: government and economy" Ludwig von Mises Institute; Page 698)

Friedman, Kenneth S. (2003) Myths of the free market is another reference work. On better WP:RS ground is Lappé, Frances Moore (2006) Democracy's edge: choosing to save our country by bringing democracy to life Wiley pg 64-65 which shows that "The free market doesn't exist."

For those looking using Google books here is a little trick to limit the nonsense: use inpublisher:"wiley", inpublisher:"sage", inpublisher:"Oxford University", and other similar limiters separate the wheat from the chaff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Forum vs. Conversation

Look, I am no fan in any way of the myth of pure absolute free market ideology, but this is a talk page about the article and what the ideology is, not about if free market ideology is true or not. There is ample space in "criticisms of" section of the article. These conversations should not be about trying to convert people but, if you are inclined to be against the free market, how to best write in the "criticisms of" section, how to make it concise, represent the general opinions of writers with text that can be referenced and address everything else said in the article (in a concise way as its only a small part of the article).

If you want to let go, I invite you to write more on the "anti globalization" page. Shabidoo | Talk 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

another bad example

In World on Fire, Amy Chua argues that free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of the "market-dominant minority". <ref> "A few rich people, many of them aristocrats, own 69 per cent of the land in Britain. As a result, house prices are so high, millions can't afford to buy a home. The NS launches a campaign to end this feudal system" </ref>

I don't suppose "this feudal system" could have anything to do with, I dunno, several centuries of feudalism? Or with more recent state (non-market) actions expressly designed to create concentrations of land ownership, such as the enclosures? —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tamfang. As per section above, the talk page is not a forum for globalization bashing. While I may agree with you on a lot of the things you say, I think it would be better to work on the anti globalization page, or the criticisms section on this article and how to improve it. I think everyone here knows that a small amount of people are very rich and they have a lot of control on the world. What you are saying is nothing new to anyone here and does not improve the article. I would also invite you to become an activist and give lectures and campaign for what you believe in and what not (you can do a lot of good if you get up and go do something), but this is a talk page on an article about the free market, not a soap box. —Shabidoo | Talk 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chua's book actually focuses on a slightly different area - where democracy is a new introduction, where there's already an ethnic minority and some clear haves/havenots on ethnic lines - and I think the Spectator has rather missed the point. The book might be a good source for a related article, but not this one, I think.

I'd agree with Tamfang on one point; in the UK the concentration of much land in a few hands was present (and, I suspect, worse) under feudal conditions, and this concentration was largely brought about by activities that were emphatically not free trade. So, to blame free markets for this inequality would be silly. bobrayner (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Shabidoo, I know but ... do we have to admit transparent nonsense without comment, just because someone once published it? — Why do you think it would be better to work on the anti globalization page, and how? —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Later I wonder why Shabidoo thinks my complaint had anything to do with "globalization". —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pareto efficiency and Distribution of wealth

Guys, the last paragraph on the Distribution of Wealth section don't follow from the previous paragraph. The paragraph I am referring to is the one starting with "On the other hand more recent research".

It confuses two different concepts that happen to have similar names. Pareto distribution is a type of statistical distribution that is sometimes used to represent "wealth" inequality. Pareto efficiency refers to government policies that improve everyone's well being without hurting anyone. Granted, a Pareto optimization (one step in Pareto efficiency) may affect the distribution of income -- but that's not how it's being used. Just delete that last paragraph.--Rpmcruz (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a confusion between Pareto efficiency and Pareto distribution which created those problems, since there seemed to be a lot of non-distributional stuff there. I pulled it all out, leaving the section pretty small. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Index of Economic Freedom section problems...

The last quote in this section is taken completely out of context. I've read the cited article, which is written by two professors of economics who DO think that economic freedom INCREASES economic growth (they state this in the paper as having been settled already both empirically and theoretically). This quote, which says that there is no consensus about the relationship between POLITICAL SYSTEMS and economic growth, has nothing to do with this section of the wiki article, since it is about the relationship between ECONOMIC SYSTEMS and economic growth (which is also what the cited paper is about, with that one sentence about POLITICAL systems). Here is the full paragraph from the cited paper which will provide context for the quote in question: "Reports from around the world strongly suggest that countries which have reduced the direct involvement of governments in economic activities show rising rates of growth. These reports often connect such alleged relationship to policies of privatization, changes in laws which make the relevant countries more accommodating to foreign and domestic private business, as well as to other measures which allow citizens to enjoy the fruit of their labor. The degree of implementation of such policies vary among countries partly because of differences in the institutional, social and cultural baggage they inherited and adopted. In recent years a significant amount of work has been devoted to the investigation of a possible connection between the political system and economic growth. For a variety of reasons there is no consensus about that relationship, especially not about the direction of causality, if any." Wilrdavis (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If the article doesn't really reflect what the source says, then feel free to correct the article. Are there any other relevant sources that we could call on? bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The source does not seem to me to be the problem. That essay is highly relevant and comes from a legitimate source, however the conclusions made in it, based on empirical evidence, seem to contradict those implied by this section... Maybe someone else who is better than writing objectively than me could read it and rewrite the section. Here is the link to the essay in question: http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/Ayal_and_Karras.pdf Wilrdavis (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken Bobrayner's suggestion and re-written one sentence from this section to correct this obvious mistake. The newly written sentence reads "Some economists, like Milton Friedman and other Laissez-faire economists have argued that there is a direct relationship between economic growth and economic freedom, and studies suggest this is true." It is cited with the paper which was originally taken out of context and used as evidence that there has not been a correlation established between economic freedom and economic growth. But since the essay is perfectly relevant, and of high quality, I have used it as evidence for the claim that economic freedom DOES lead to economic growth, which the essay concludes. Also, I removed the citation from the following sentence because it does not support the claim made: "Continuous debates among scholars on methodological issues in empirical studies of the connection between economic freedom and economic growth still try to find out what is the relationship, if any." I want this to be clear because I predict someone will attempt to change it back, given that the liberal bias of people who are predisposed to edit wikipedia will not allow for there to be cited evidence that free markets work, even though there is evidence of this.Wilrdavis (talk)

"free market" or "free-market"?

This article goes back and forth between "free market" and "free-market"

So which is it?

byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2011

As I understand quirky grammar rules, if "market" is the noun, then it should be "free market", but if there's another noun and the phrase "free-market" is being used to describe it, then it gets a hyphen, like in "free-market economy". CRETOG8(t/c) 05:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cretog8 has it right. Some exceptions are made depending on context and readership. For example, health care workers may omit the hyphen from, say, white cell count, because they feel that the term is crystal clear without it. See compound modifier.

The lede should mention how various people's definitions of these terms (both economists' and laypeople's) handle regulation of the technical-specification type

I'm skimming the lede, and it currently seems to go on at length about market-driven trade itself, and any regulation of it (such as price controls), but it doesn't seem to mention regulation of the technical-specification type, for example, technical standards such as the fact that power tools that don't have grounding conductors must be double insulated, or environmental protection regulation (such as that coal-fired power plants need to produce less than X kilos per year of pollutant Y for every Z kilowatts of energy produced) or employment standards (such as that children under 14 must have a work permit in order to work). Can someone with an economics degree clarify this? Thanks. — ¾-10 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The definition

Free market means price is decided freely by the seller and buyer normally through supply and demand. As well, a producer has free choice it what is produced and a buyer has free choice in what is bought, within the confines of what is legal (illegal free market is called a black market).

Capitalism concerns economic rights. Individuals and corporations have rights to their capital protected by the government, known as private property. (not protected by the government is anarcho capitalism). Democratic capitalism involves government intervention when it comes to taxation, regulation, fraud, etc. through an elected government.

"Free countries" Have varying degrees of Free Market Democratic Capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing some change to the article? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin J Whitman

The opinions of one person do not deserve their own four-paragraph section unless that person is a major contributor to the topic. This is certainly not true of Mr Whitman, whose own "biographical" Wikipedia article reads like a manifesto and contains no references to anything not written by him. It seems sensible to me to merge a brief statement of his opinion into the other criticism sections or delete them altogether as it's not clear why his viewpoint is significant. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since that passage also exists in his article, I replaced it with a See also link. —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommend to rework this article.

It is incoherent and filled with fallacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.196.151 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deregulation

The section entitled "Deregulation" (under Laissez faire) espouses a singular perspective which is not representative of the economic science or political history of this subject. It could be dropped without harming the quality this article. The section unnecessarily complicates the subject of Laissez faire. I would like to see some feedback before dropping it. JohnPritchard (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)