Sure, lots of people mouth the words, but every capitalist I can observe tries to restrict the market just as soon as he gets a foot in the door. Even hairdressers try to restrict entry of competitors. Every profession works hard to restrict entry. Once upon a time you could get to be a doctor or a lawyer by apprenticing to one, but no longer.
I haven’t worked hard to restrict entry my profession. Have you?
I thought I understood basic microeconomics till I started talking to a friend who sells on Amazon. I got really good grades and everything!
I’m actively lobbying to increase entry into my profession. Legalize home distilling!
To be precise, capitalists fervently advocate a free market for everybody else, especially the companies they are buying from, but secretly wish for a monopoly for themselves.
I think the barriers to entry come more from outside professions than inside, as a general rule. Governments tend to listen to people who have gotten burned by poorly trained professionals, and try to make sure that doesn’t happen again.
Which is exactly what any advocate of free markets would predict. In fact it’s exactly what Adam Smith predicted in The Wealth of Nations: “Rarely do two or three members of the same trade meet together, but it results in a conspiracy against the public.”* In other words, Smith was well aware that members of a profession have a motivation to act together in ways that help them get more money from their buyers, and passing laws to restrict competitors is one obvious way that plays out.
Any advocate of free markets knows that the best solution is to have a government which has strict limits on what economic regulations it can impose, as the American federal government largely did through the 19th century into the early 20th. Once the government has the ability to impose economic regulation, commercial interest groups will inevitably use their influence to make the government pass rules that restrict competition with themselves and their members.
*Quoting from memory so I may be off by a few words.
Which was a particularly shitty time for workers, BTW.
My understanding is that a totally free market will devolve to a monopoly or commodity. This applies to product, service and also labor for the goods. So either you have something very special and be part of the very few who can charge their price, or you are one of the heard getting the price given you, which will be low.
No, there’s no true Scotsman. That includes Adam Smith. He was neither Scottish nor a believer in the free market.
The notion of a free market means that the market is free to move without government intervention, not that individuals are free to do whatever they choose without regard for any rules. For a market to be free requires careful regulation to prevent anti-competitive practices. In general, Libertarians don’t understand how an effective free market economy works any better than Communists, because Libertarians don’t understand that free markets require careful regulation in order to function.
In a sensibly run market, nothing should depend on the goodwill of market participants to behave fairly. It is down to the legal framework and sensible market regulations to enforce fair competition. Then the only necessary requirement for an individual participant is that they must follow the law. If anti-competitive practices are rife, don’t blame human nature, blame the poor regulatory framework.
ETA: in other words, pretty much exactly the opposite of what ITR champion said.
A quick google search turns up four states where you can still apprentice to a lawyer.
Well of course they do. Everyone does.
The observation that people want individually what they will vote the opposite of, because they understand that selfish needs and collective action don’t work the same, is second year economics stuff.
I think everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Of course I’m not going to pay more than I absolutely have to. I will happily vote for a needed tax increase that I would not individually volunteer to pay. That’s common sense.
Lots and lots and lots of people believe in the free market. Sure, if the subsidy lands on their desk they’ll take it, since if the system is broken you might as well make hay while the sun shines.
Having said that, ignorance of economics and what constitutes a free market can mean a person just doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
As long as it’s a year later than the OP’s statement, it’s all good.
I think, having said that, you need to come back and tell us third-year stuff about what the free market *really *is.
One can be a believer in the free market and yet think there should be high educational and professional standards for entry into a profession.
Training helps ensure good standards within the professions in providing their services to the public. We want doctors who won’t kill us, lawyers who won’t undercut iour rights, electricians who won’t cause our houses to burn down.
Strong professional standards are entirely consistent with the free market.
Leaving aside the second part, how was he not Scottish?
It’s a feature.
He put sugar on his porridge, obviously.
And ITR Champion, do you seriously believe that the solution to monopolies is for the government to be powerless to create regulations against monopolies? Or that the early 20th century was noted for the lack of monopolies?
I think you meant to say he wasn’t Holy or Roman or an Empire.
He was certainly both Scottish and a believerin the free market as he and most economists defined it for most of the next two centuries.
He was also against monopoly and mercantilism (“the practice of artificially maintaining a trade surplus on the erroneous belief that doing so increased wealth”) and therefore a free-trader. He couldn’t possibly have been right about everything in a modern economy such as ours, but we’d be better off if more people studied what he actually advocated for. You know, first year stuff.
Ninety-nine percent of people believe in a free market.
The other one percent own everything.