Replies

Wow, such hate over an academic subject. What is your screen name on DU?

OK, so let me break this down for you in a simple example that hopefully you can understand (which is also the same example my prof used in my MBA program ... not something I got from Google). I will focus on your requirement that free markets have information symmetry.

Most people would consider the stock market to be the ultimate example of a free market. Prices change minute by minute. So ... lets say that I am a buyer, and you are a seller. You want to sell the stock because you have "information" that tells you that the stock is not worth holding onto any longer. This information could be from a service you subscribe to, or a tip from your stockbroker, or maybe you tried to buy the product and had a bad experience, or maybe it is just a hunch. Regardless, this is YOUR information.

I on the other hand, have my information. Mine also could have come from a service I subscribe to, or a tip from my stockbroker, or maybe you I to buy the product and had a fantastic experience, or maybe it is just a hunch. Regardless, this is MY information.

In the end, our willingness to do a transaction right now, and this price, is based not on Information Symmetry, but completely on Information Asymmetry. In fact, if we had information symmetry, there is a good chance that you would no longer be willing to sell, or I may no longer be willing to buy. Information symmetry would also say that this stock would not change in price until some piece of information changed, which could be days, weeks, months. We all know stocks are more volatile than information about them. This is why Information Symmetry is not only NOT a requirement for a Free Market, it is antithetical to a Free Market.

My final note to you is ... calm down dude. You are taking criticism way too seriously, and way too personally. I was simply trying to clear up a misconception that you were communicating before others took it as fact. You were wrong, and calling me names is not going to change the fact that you used the wrong term in the wrong context. I am not trying to cause permanent injury to your psyche here so chill out. I see that you have been a member almost as long as I have ... so you know that there are a lot of more important things being discussed on FR to get your panties in a wad over than the definition of Free Market. If you want, we can agree to disagree, but stop acting like getting called out is the worst thing that ever happened to you.

Thanks for the condescension. That is why I called you names. What we are arguing about isn't just what you call something, but rather what we are really about e.g. laissez faire capitalism, accepting the market failures that seem inevitable or striving towards markets with full competition and free of undue influence be it government or private.

Now, in this context we are talking about the "health care" "market."

Nothing could be further from what you call an "ideal" free market or what most of us just call a free market. Long gone does a doctor charge what the local market will bear for his house calls (e.g. payment with a side of ham or some such).

Further health care is not really a "consumer" "product" anyway. Public health is a public good. Everyone has an interest in the eradication of deadly communicable disease, hence only the most rabid libertine (not even libertarian) eshews the power of government to impose quarantine. The efficacy of innoculations depends not upon me getting one or you getting one, but so many people getting them that the infectious "network" is broken and there is no path of communication through a broad community or the country as a whole.

We have health care insurance, which is regulated because we all have an interest in insurance actually being effective for all its purchasers (not just health care, but auto insurance, product liability insurance, etc.) and not just the one's who were fortunate enough to purchase from a sound company.

And no the stock market is not an "ideal" free market. The Fed is in, and wall street brokers and hedge funds are in, and companies are in buying back their own shares, etc. , and so prices get pushed way out of line for very long periods of time from a level that those who do fundamental calculations of value consider fair value, and in the correction we get 2008 or 1929-193??, or tulips, or whatever.

So yeah, you can hypothesize a "free market" defined as free of any government regulation or interference. I have no idea to what end, but certainly not the end under discussion here, health care.

In order to argue free markets you have to get rid of all government regulation regarding public health, health inspections of restaurants, agricultural inspections, NIH research and all government funded university research.

I don't think it a useful thing to think about, actually. But apparently you do.