> The free market is people peacefully trading with each other.
Then few if any free markets actually exist.
Some traders are indeed "peaceful." The brute fact, though, is that that many market participants actively seek out ways:
A) to inhibit competition, or even prevent it completely, for example by anticompetitive business practices; and/or ...
B) to make the public pick up the tab for costs while keeping revenues for themselves -- think pollution costs and bank bailouts, to name just two examples; and/or ...
[EDIT:] C) in some cases, to flat-out lie, cheat, and steal.
FOOTNOTE: As I understand it, economists refer to B as privatizing profits while socializing costs, a.k.a. "externalities."
These human tendencies to do A, B, and C above appear to be fundamental facts of life. Left unchecked, they can have a corrosive effect on markets.
There's ample room for evidence-based debates about how best to deal with these tendencies. But it doesn't seem to have done much good to insist that free markets are a cure-all -- it's reminiscent of the old economist joke whose punch line is "we'll just assume we have a can opener."
> Most government is coercion. I don't see how more of it is a solution.
It's certainly true that when government regulation is driven by untested ideology, or by private interests, it can make things worse by discouraging private initiative and effort. (Some of the ways market predators try to do A and B above is by encouraging government actors to enact legislation and regulations that favor them.) We've certainly seen that happen at various times in various places.
But governmental regulation, selectively applied, can also be at least a partial solution, to the extent it can help keep market predators from doing A, B, and C above.
> But governmental regulation, selectively applied, can also be at
> least a partial solution, to the extent it can help keep market
> predators from doing A, B, and C above.
I would postulate that this is probably nigh impossible due to the human nature of the legistators/regulators themselves. In other words, it's impossible to prevent market predators for using government to their benefit.
Right, in reality, government regulation is the cheapest way to make he public pay for the costs while keeping the profits.
However, those who propose government regulation seem to not perceive government as anything other than an objective benevolent force, and when they are presented with evidence of government being corrupt, they blame the corporations for corrupting them.
Obviously the government does not 'become corrupt' because of the corporations, but for the most part the corporations are the people with the deepest pockets to lobby legislators/regulators. The more money there is to be made by being a stooge for a specific industry (or single corporation) the more likely there is that at least one legislator/regulator will become their champion.
I postulate that if there were less (or no) corporate lobbying of legislators/regulators, then there would be significantly less corruption. Blaming the corporations for corrupting the government, while naive, isn't that far from the mark.
The essence of a free market relies on the enforcement of property and contract laws, which requires government enforcement. The alternative is local fiefdoms run by robber barons, and we know that doesn't work.
Government is the worst way of regulating and enforcing a free market, except for everything else that's been tried.
Then few if any free markets actually exist.
Some traders are indeed "peaceful." The brute fact, though, is that that many market participants actively seek out ways:
A) to inhibit competition, or even prevent it completely, for example by anticompetitive business practices; and/or ...
B) to make the public pick up the tab for costs while keeping revenues for themselves -- think pollution costs and bank bailouts, to name just two examples; and/or ...
[EDIT:] C) in some cases, to flat-out lie, cheat, and steal.
FOOTNOTE: As I understand it, economists refer to B as privatizing profits while socializing costs, a.k.a. "externalities."
These human tendencies to do A, B, and C above appear to be fundamental facts of life. Left unchecked, they can have a corrosive effect on markets.
There's ample room for evidence-based debates about how best to deal with these tendencies. But it doesn't seem to have done much good to insist that free markets are a cure-all -- it's reminiscent of the old economist joke whose punch line is "we'll just assume we have a can opener."
> Most government is coercion. I don't see how more of it is a solution.
It's certainly true that when government regulation is driven by untested ideology, or by private interests, it can make things worse by discouraging private initiative and effort. (Some of the ways market predators try to do A and B above is by encouraging government actors to enact legislation and regulations that favor them.) We've certainly seen that happen at various times in various places.
But governmental regulation, selectively applied, can also be at least a partial solution, to the extent it can help keep market predators from doing A, B, and C above.