Free Markets?

I don't agree that free markets wouldn't allow patents or copyrights. Those concepts promote competition, and invention of new ideas, and that's healthy for any market. Take them away, and you have no incentive for anyone to attempt to invent, or to create.

Having said that, there's an inherent problem with either system: Allow businesses to corner the market, for example, as a part of a completely free market, and they become the sole provider of whatever it is they are selling. That would give them free reign to jack up their prices, at the expense of those that need the product. This is one of the reasons we have monopoly laws that (are supposed to) prevent such a thing. Sadly, even now, they aren't always enforced, or properly interpreted, I'd wager because those in government have stock in those businesses, and stand to get richer than they already are. That's another topic.
On the other hand, having too much oversight and protection, keeps bad businesses doing their shady practices, because nobody can sue for damages in any meaningful way.

To have a proper free market, in any capacity, a balance must be struck between oversight, and free practice. We don't want businesses that are able to charge five thousand dollars for a refrigerator, for example, simply because they're the sole provider, but we don't want that company overprotected from potential lawsuits either.

 

It wouldn't come to that, because as it turns out, not having customers is bad for business all around. Not to mention that we run under that system now already, using cheaper, generic versions of medicines, and drug companies still develop new drugs.

 

I always see people arguing for capitalism by saying "I'm for free market capitalism, but against crony capitalism". Oxymoron. You can't have one without the other.
Competition is good, but the problem with capitalism and, particularly, free markets, is that unregulated they very quickly devolve into what we have now: rampant, utterly ridiculous inequality. You end up with a powerful elite of monopolists and corporate stooges controlling everything in what amounts to a criminal syndicate. The thing to bear in mind, too, is that most of the genuine corporate giants in, say, oil, medicine, or really any field have more often than not achieved their power through despicable means.

Free market capitalism is how you end up with folks like the Rockefeller's, Rothschild's, etc. controlling and shaping the world. Look where that's gotten us.

I'm for small to no government, but in a more anarchistic sense - infrastructure governed literally by the people and for the people. Under capitalism, though, I would argue that such a thing cannot work. It's not to say there wouldn't be innovation or a certain amount of competition. Of course there would. There always will be. Free market capitalism, however, is a disaster. It was always going to be a disaster. It will always be a disaster.

This guy describes my kind of world...

 

In a totally free market the Hutts run what we view as a criminal enterprise selling prostitutes and sex slaves, drugs (that they know are deadly) reselling of stolen loot ect, no food safety laws...

Oh and everyone steals everyone elses copyrights.

You wouldn't be able to tell counterfeit from legit sources and there would be 50 netflix clones all with the same content but no one is really sure which one is legal. (HINT it wouldn't be the best one.

There would also be multiple "Ford" clones selling cars that may or may not be up to the quality control levels nessisary to produce a safe car.

Airbags?

Maybe...

Airbag STICKERS,

Most definitely.


A completely free market is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

OH and there would be roving bands of slavers kidnapping people to sell into slavery.

Basically..



Yeah.. Open market?

Not likely..

Rules are important, without rules you get Uber... people living out of their cars without getting paid enough to actually turn a profit by IRS standards.

I prefer a well regulated market thank you very much.

 

The solution to that is to have the governments buy the rights to produce the drug and distribute it based on the R&D costs.. Then the government distributes it to manufacturers with proven pharma reliability for an annual cost thus spreading the R&D costs out over a decade or more between multiple companies, as well as selling rights overseas.


IE The US government buys pancreatic cancer "recipe" from that drug company for 600 million (turning them a profit) then they distribute it to the drug manufacturers and collect a % tax based on how many doses they sell to recoup the cost to the federal government FOREVER.

The VA and Medicaid pharmacies would the sell the drug free of R&D costs pushing those program costs down.

Then the "race to the big payday" is what causes the drug R&D labs to do it fast, not the promise of selling a $5,000 pill that takes 18c to manufacture.


This would in turn keep everyone motivated to innovate while also bringing the meds to people who need them.


But no one ever asks me.. i'm just a cab driver.

 

A "truly free market" can't ever exist. Once an entity starts gaining power within such a system, they start taking measures to ensure that power continues, making rules that others have to abide by, making that market not "truly free." It's generally always better to have an outside entity regulate a market than to have a participant in the market regulate it.

 

You just gotta love it when 'Americans' talk 'free' market.

Free market to the USA is like Disney ( Eisnerized ) telling America's own Georgians how to vote :

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/business/disney-bob-iger-abortion-georgia/index.html​

Quit being pushed around, my friends - kick those trouble-makers out of town.