Talk:Free market - Wikipedia

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)Reply

I would like to put forth that "free market" equates to unregulated, no-rules markets. Of course, the degree to which transactions are regulated is a relative measure; thus, what we consider a free market can still be regulated. Also, I believe that whether a free market works to have supply and demand give us prices is wholly separate. It is economic theory that is irrelevant to having a free market or not. Thus, all discourse on supply and demand is tangential to the definition of a free market. It is true that a free, perfect market has merit as an assumption in economic theory.Sigiheri (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please note Wikipedia article should not contain original research, and all information has to be verified. If you could cite a source for your edit, you are welcome to change the opening sentence. --Artoasis (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not doing original research. Isn't it obvious that you don't need to discuss "perfect markets" or supply and demand? Why do I need a cite to explain why you don't need to discuss something perfect markets? My question is why do you feel the need to talk about perfect markets here in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think free market is more about free competition than the absence of regulation. The current lead presents a better idea of the concept of "free market" and its conditions, and besides, the wording sounds more encyclopaedic. If you really want to rephraze the lead, I suggest you propose your version here first, and see if you can reach some consensus with other editors. The process may take a while but it is usually how things work here, by consensus building.--Artoasis (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

We are debating one issue, which is what does "free" mean in the term "free market". If I am correct and free refers to free from regulation, then my edit should stand, correct? Well, this is what free means in the free market context. Adam Smith, the free market father, was arguing for deregulating markets when he condemned mercantilism and the Economist, the free market magazine, started as a propaganda rag to repeal regulations on grain. There is simply no doubt that free in free market refers to freedom from regulations. Free to compete is the same thing--free from regulations to compete. If you disagree, please provide a cite. Thanks.Sigiheri (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Per dictionary.com Free market---an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (most people disregard the monopolies part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

There needs to be a clear distinction between fact and theory. The idea that an unregulated market necessary leads to supply and demand setting prices is a theory, not a fact. Thus, I propose the theory be separate from the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 08:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If supply and demand don't set prices, what does? "Supply" means how many widgets people are willing to sell at a given price, and "demand" means how many widgets people will buy at a given price; the price at which these two numbers are equal is the "market-clearing" price, to which we expect widget prices to converge. The usual criticism against deregulation is that monopoly/monopsony or collusion (unlike regulation, ha ha) distorts the supply curve or the demand curve, but the resulting curves still determine the price. —Tamfang (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, I would argue that you are providing a theory that, if people behave rationally, seems very plausible. But if people do not act rationally, the predictions of the theory may not hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The existence of supply and demand curves doesn't depend on rationality (EDIT: or "perfection"), it seems to me; but perhaps you can suggest an example (real or hypothetical) of what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Supply and demand curves don't depend on absolutely rational actors; they simply require actors who are willing to buy or sell at a certain price, surely..? (Of course there can be other factors apart from price). bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am only trying to distinguish facts from theory. I think that fact is that free markets = unregulated markets. How a free market impacts the economy is economic theory, which is orthogonal to the fact, imo.Sigiheri (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Forget about "facts" versus "theory". What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Orthogonal? Theories are judged first by their compatibility with fact, so they can't be completely independent of fact. —Tamfang (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

One can't understand any complex phenomenon without a theory ... —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but we are not talking about complex phenomenon are we?08:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

A system consisting of billions of transactions a day, driven by innumerable motivations — nah, nothing complex about that. —Tamfang (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, a free market simply means unregulated market. What happens in an unregulated v regulated market is where the theories, analysis, and complexity comes in. Thus, again, we should make certain to distinguish between fact and theory, esp. since the theory as you mention is complex.09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Sigiheri (talk)

Seems to me the lede ought to give some hint as to why a difference between free and other markets is of interest, but have it your way:

The facts are a vast number of transactions; any connexion among them is a matter of theory. "Prices" are transient attributes of these atomic transactions, whose relevance is a matter of theory. "The market" (free or otherwise) is a hypothetical construct, best not mentioned at all. —Tamfang (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Classical Definition of Free Markets should be put back in the article. 24.36.13.102 (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

This slow-burning edit war has been going on since July. Sigiheri and Big Large Monster, take your fingers off the revert button, please. We have a talkpage which is a perfect place to discuss improvements to the article. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Adam Smith discarded subjective value theory and ...". Adam Smith died in 1790 and AFAIK Subjective theory of value began with Carl Menger circa 1871. This needs a citation badly. The tone of the rest of the article has far too much political spin. The length of coverage of "Socialist economics" seems badly out of place here. 107.10.0.181 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The socialist stuff on wikipedia almost always undermines validity and is poorly sourced. (we should remember Noam Chomsky is a linguist and books are better sources than youtube videos) But it's a nightmare to try and make valid because there's always a political war going on with some editors using a page to push a personal point rather than describing an idea accurately (regardless of if they agree with it)! If you look at the recent edits on libertarianism there's now an entire post on something called "Marxist Libertarianism". I know socialist libertarianism is valid, but my understanding is that libertarian socialism was the anti-marxist part of the socialist political debate. And people will censor any attempts to add classical liberal history to the liberalism page AND the classical liberal philosophy to the classical liberalism page! But if they make it impossible to be valid at least we can make their point pushing valid. e.g. I don't think that the meaning of "free" market actually is controversial in modern use (unless someone can source that the meaning is controversial?). But if socialist editors want to introduce the political point that "free" market is ambiguous I thought the best thing was to describe the historical developments in economic thought like Adam Smiths monopoly theory, Marx' exploitation labour value theory, and Menger's redevelopment of praxeology. It's wrong to make wiki articles a political war but we can't act like owners and just delete the whole thing about "ambiguous meaning of free" even if it is point pushing. I think we should give them room but make sure that the information accurately explains the debate and is well sourced without any editor attempting to conclude the debate themselves on the wiki page. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, for WP:NPOV, like undue weight, bad research, lack of impartial tone and loaded language.

I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, but I urge the editors of this article to review the contributions by Rothbardanswer, who has a history (documented on user talk page) of pushing POV, right up to edit wars and borderline vandalism, to basically spam heterodox economics and 'anarcho-capitalist' dogma as some undisputed gospel of universally-accepted truth, everywhere there's a tiny little hope of a crevice to cram it into. It's honestly testing my patience to keep the article on market anarchism from becoming a brochure for Murray Rothbard, so maybe someone more familiar with Wikipedia policy knows how to proceed when someone uses the site to narrate one's own political views in the third person. I'm tired of picking scare quotes out of a salad of unsourced and unsubstantiated, wildly distorted claims, and pleading that we just use the talk page instead of the undo button. Finx (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

1). Finx, I'm not going to get in a political argument with you. Whatever you assume my politics to be is irrelevant. Our only job as editors is to accurately describe and source the most relevant information on whatever the article is about. A free market is a technical issue of economic science. Every edit I've ever made to this page has been given citation to the most relevant and eminent economists. The only edits I've EVER made to the "free market anarchism" page was the lead. That entire article that takes you through De Molinari to Rothbard was written by multiple contributers of which I am not one. You know this, because on the talk page you're harasing multiple editors saying that they should delete their contributions because they conflict with your own personal idea of what anarchism means. But our ideas aren't what's at issue. The fact is that these people, movements, writers and philosophies did or do exists. If you hate Molinari's idea of defence then the proper course is to have a your own refutation published and hope it garners popularity. Even then I think Molinari would still have a place as a historical figure. These articles are about non-neutral subjects. But we ourselves are supposed to be neutral about them. I don't go onto Marxist pages and start arguing about how defunct and evil their ideas are. It isn't relevant to the article. Badgering multiple people on the talk page with your political opinions isn't on. "Free market anarchism" is a well written and cited article.

The main bone of contention you seemed to have with MY EDIT was when I corrected your definition of the individualist anarchists. This was my main source [1], that you deleted without explanation. The point I made was that the individualists had a bifurcation between political philosophy and some idiosyncratic economic theories. Politically they were what you may call "right-libertarians". As individualists they were defined by their moral belief in private property and the labour theory of property (Lockean homesteading) (not to bee confused with the Marxian labour theory of value). But in terms of economics each one had quasi-socialist ideas. What the text I sourced brings out is that these inconsistencies were actually just errors in economic theory. If they had pursued all their political philosophies markets would have worked differently.

I've just looked at the tyrade you posted at me on the "free market anarchism" page and I have to say again I'm not arguing political philosophy with you.

2). My recent edit read: A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of a good or service, wage rates, interest rates, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods is coordinated entirely by market values (price) rather than by governmental regulation or bureaucratic mandate and dictate.

Spylab (I don't know if that name means he monitors editors he may disagree with) changed this too: free market is an economic system in which the costs and distribution of goods and services, wage rates, interest rates — along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods — are coordinated by supply and demand and market values rather than by governments or bureaucracies.

I don't know why this edit was made. This is beginning to become an edit war but 'm really only concerned with validity I don't see why the emphasis has to be on the Marxist phrase "means of production". That's just another word for capital goods. but also the edit actually makes the sentence nonsensical. As I said in an earlier edit wages and interest rates ARE prices. The sentence structure is confused to make out that supply and demand and prices are disparate forces coordinating an economy. But you have to ask; the supply and demand of what?. The supply and demand of labour is determined by wage rates (just another name for prices). The supply and demand of loans and savings is coordinated by the interest rate (the price of borrowing). The stucture of capital and consumer goods is determined by commodity prices. I honestly don't understand why this edit keeps being made. I'm going to correct the lead so that it actually makes sense. If anyone has objection please message back. Rothbardanswer (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is not the talk page to discuss "free-market anarchism". That article's talk page (which I have politely but in vain asked you to use to explain your edits) can be found here. I am not interested in editing this article, however, so I won't turn this talk page into any more of a forum or soapbox. It was a word of caution to this article's editors about what, at a glance, looked like yet more POV pushing, which those who've done the research on this topic may or may not want to examine. In the meantime, you have been doing yet more POV pushing everywhere, considering you have been warned again for edit warring and blocked from editing a prominent article to spam mises.org (yet again). Finx (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The language of the content posted by Rothbardanswer is indeed very loaded and referenced by a primary source by Frédéric Bastiat. I have changed the language of the current lede to a more neutral and factual tone. -Battlecry 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

After discussion a recent edit was made here: [[2]]. It should be remembered that a free market is a technical issue of economic science NOT a political point. Any edits should ideally make reference to economic text books or treatises.

This is plain wrong to separate economics from politics as they were tied together at the time the term "free market" was first in the corn law arguments.Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

These last edits completely undermine the validity of the article and aren't supported by the source. The phrasing is incorrect and incoherant now. "Setting of prices" means nothing. Prices are qualitatie psychic data that becomes cardinal data through action. A free market can determine an approxomate democratic aggregate but it is never at equilibrium. It certainly isn't "set" by anyone. Unexplained deletion of "Free market anarchism" and sources by User: Battlecry. I looked on his user page and he's openly socialist so this may be political POV pushing.

Ad hominem attacks are NOT appropriate. Who are you to call others names?Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! haha. All his edits are simply deletions of sources and properly structured sentences. I haven't even accused him of anything other than deleting my contributions in what seems a malicious way.

Calling Battlecry names is an ad hominem attack and inappropriate for Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attackSigiheri (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to edit the text so it is correct and I'll give multiple citations to the relevant sources.

Notes: 1). Supply and demand doesn't mean anything without reference. e.g. the supply and demand of labour, savings, goods, services, skills. 2). Supply and demand and the structure and hierarchy of capital and consumer good are coordinated by prices (value) 3). A price is psychic. (subjective value theory). To say that a price is "distorted" by mandate and dictate is not loaded language. it is a technical issue of economic science without any political bias to say that a price is undistorted on a free market. 4). A free market is not a structure. A free market is existence in the absence of state regulation.

What does it mean: "free market is existence..."Sigiheri (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quite frankly I've said this too many times and it is finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you. Period. What do you think a free market is? Poverty isn't imposed. Economics is the study of human action. A free market is just existnce without a state. It doesn't preclude any of the features of any specific market. Just the absence of the state. I'm not here to defend economic science. I'm here to contribute without getting drawn into defensive edit wars.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rothdardanswer is standing by his post that "a free market is existence in the absence of state regulation". Parsing the sentence, "a free market is existence". How does this make any sense? When questioned, Rothardanswer replies, the question, is, "finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you" Then on his own page Rothardanswer says that he is always very polite to people. I feel he is hurting the editing of this free market page, not helping. Sigiheri (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

5). "Monopolies" is a politically loaded and ambiguous term. A price can't be monopolised on a free market in the absence of government violence, threat or legality. See: [[3]] Rothbardanswer (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to support an economic argument with a youtube video, walking away from the article now is the least unhappy of the possible outcomes for you, and I would strongly recommend that course of action. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I actually can't believe you asked me why my tone changed. Every comment you make is passive aggressive.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I haven't cited a youtube video in the article. The article now has multiple citations to economic textbooks.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page is getting worse not better. Can we stop using Dictionary.com as a source. We have the internet and can easily determine the origin of the term "free market". For example, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/richard-cobden-creator-of-the-free-market#axzz2H8IUL6IE

This article shows that the term "free market" was around well before neo-classical economics and the idea that supply and demand set price. Thus, I would argue that "free market" should be discussed in terms of its historical significance in politics (i.e., the corn laws). Also, it should be discussed in terms of classical economics, not neo-classical economics.

The free market is an economic concept more than a political one. If you go to the article on gravity you won't find a classical definition from Copernicus in the lead. Have you looked at my edit? [[4]] They've just deleted citation and damaged sentence structure. I don't see how my edit made the page worse and not better?

Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The suggestion that we should use economics textbooks only is preposterous, imo. The term and concept of a "free market", simply meaning without regulation, arose before the neo-classical economic theories.Sigiheri (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article should reference the Manchester school, imo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_capitalismSigiheri (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't contribute dictionary.com. Cobden is a GREAT source but why do you think the classical economists are better than the more advanced so called "Austrians"? seems silly.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Once again with the inappropriate remark that my post is "silly". But you are always "polite" aren't you? The reason is that the term "free market" arose prior to neo-classical economics and way before the Austrian school.Sigiheri (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to put all this aggitation aside (but from first to last comment you've been condescending to me and it's all spiralled into LAYERS of demonstrable hypocrisy) but who cares, back to the article! :) I don't think we should use the originator of the phrase as gospel. Why does a historical source trump contemporary sources? Better yet why not have both? They don't conflict.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply