It's on my reading list, I tend to find that all of marx criticisms or capitalism can be remedied by very minimal free market regulation. The Marxist theories always struck me as a massive overreaction to the inherent differences in the capability of individuals.

Is it not the case that a monopoly prevents competitors from bringing an alternate product to market. By utilising legislation, corporate espionage and the artificial inflation of needed rescources an established company can make competition non viable and prevents the consumer from voting with their custom by ensuring only one option remains. In politics it's called a dictatorship in commerce it's a monopoly.

@faultfiction you mean what's wrong with a benevolent dictator? How do you develop or improve without the ability to compare two products. Company A has a product, company B is trying to develop a product, if company A prevents the development of company B product how can the markets compare them. If company B brings its product to market and the markets choose company A enmass this is a fair win.

@faultfiction are we not discussing the intersection of free markets and monopolies ?

@faultfiction can I just ask what your understanding of a free market and a monopoly is ? I think we may be talking at cross purposes.

@faultfiction ok so in your opinion if a market has regulation that applies to all parties, and all parties have the right to lobby the regulatory bodies is this still a free market. Or are you arguing from a position of free market absolutism?

@faultfiction sorry I'm new to the discord and this conversation so I'm just trying to get a handle on your view. My view of a free market is that the consumer has a right to choose between available products and ideas without the interference of a third party. Vendors and creators should also have the right to present products and ideas to the consumer market without being blocked by regulation or competitors operating in a manor expressly designed to prevent competition in the market place.

@faultfiction regulation around safety and fit for purpose regulations I do not see as unnecessary as this ensures a consumer is not endangered financially or bodily.

Ah sorry. Just trying to ensure the message gets to it's intended target, duly noted.

Two companies deciding to work together in principle is not a problem, it really depends on motivations. If they are working together to reduce costs and this is passed onto the consumer then no its not a problem. If two companies join forces with the sole intent of creating a hostile environment to smaller competitors or the artificially raise prices to a consumer then it is a problem. It also depends on the product, energy companies in the UK for example have in the past all collaborated to raise prices together forcing consumers to pay higher prices for lack of a competitor to move too.

Wacka the free market and a relatively uninhibited ability to bring products and services to that market are two sides of the same coin they are a symbiotic relationship, one cannot exist without the other sky delineating them seems pointless

So how does that market exist without also having the relatively unrestricted ability to develop products and services. The market is a demand that needs fulfilling, if your preventing from fulfilling it then you have nothing.

I agree with you wacka, unregulated free markets become exploitative very quickly.

Sorry wacka, I'm not one to fire dictionary definitions at people, but a free market is a market where the prices of goods and services are determined by the demand of the consumer with little or no regulatory control.

My whole argument rests on the need for the bare minimum of regulation to ensure consumers are not exploited and the solutions to the markets demands are fit for purpose and safe. This obviously requires a regulatory body and this in my opinion should be controlled by a Democratic framework nested inside that of a democratic governmental structure.

How do you know if its never presented to the consumer?

The regulation of a free market isnt an on/off, yes /no question. It's one of degrees.

Broadly speaking yes.

An unsafe product would be analogous to a persons speech preventing another person from from exercising their free speech.

Yes but the agency would have oversight from government, and government is elected by the people, who broadly speaking are the market.

Um no not really Orionstar. It's a concept that has existed for thousands of years. It has emerged in almost every politically and technologically advanced society.

Human error and corruption affects everything orionstar, you need to look at the principle in its entirety not just focus on the worst aspects of it.

My point is corruption and human error would equally affect a market with no regulation so it's not a valid criticism.

More importantly it's far easier to exploit a market with no regs. How would you solve problem like a cabal of energy companies charging extortionate prices, whilst they are also buying up all their prospective competitors without regulation, or would we all simply be expected to have to pay insanely high prices for gas water and electricity?