Well there are actually indications about market self regulation, both in theory and praxis, historical examples etc. but that's academic discussion, since as we agreed in real life no chance of reaching it (for sure not any time soon) 🤷
Discussion
So far noone provided me such indications, neither i found myself. I am not asking you to dig for this now, but next time you come accross to that, please remember to send me a link. I am really interested.
So free market is a utopia? What we do in real life then? Do you agree that it all about who benefit the rules, the society or the oligarchs?
Heh.
We are now getting much deeper in the rabbit hole:)
This leads to culture, human brain evolution etc. (Basically the human brain is evolved be transactional but in primitive environment of small tribes around 100 people. But nowadays the situation around us is totally different and evolution is not that quick to catch up).
In my point of view free market in pure form is thus sort of utopia in today's world. But still the closer we get generally better it works (BTC for example, or steep increase of living conditions of formerly communist countries after fall of Soviet empire).
What to do on society level again is a bit different question.
I don't have any solution and less so simple and practical solution for the society to work. Clearly going back to life of tribes can't work for huge majority of people.
But again I would always go for less interventions rather then more, decentralization instead of centralization, more personal choice etc. Because this is again closer to what our "prehistoric" brain is sort of capable of managing.
Not sure what exactly are you looking for in terms of sources , since I'm afraid we are again not clear on definition of market self regulation :)
(Simple price increase when something is scarce is self regulation mechanism and we see it all around us; companies offering not longer wanted products bankrupting is self regulation, people moving from old industry moving to new is self regulation...)
For start maybe?
Aha. I can't tell about ex soviet countries, in my country the closer we get to free market the more we burn 😀. That is for sure. I think the same happens to other countries too, but a lot depends on trickle down, the kind of oligarchs of the country and the size. Not a standard though. What you told for example about the price and aboundance of a product, is almost the same for regulated markets also. The main difference of the free market is about borders and tariffs i think. Laissez faire, laissez passe as Adam Smith was saying.
Well but again you need to look for real underplaying purpose, in all cases I saw it was not because of free market but someone using rhetoric of free market but I reality regulating, intervening, centralizing, or plainly stealing 😅.
The main problem/difference of regulated market is distortion of information (aka price) thus ALWAYS making market less effective then it could be in theory.
Price is the most effective messenger of information we know of and the whole world is so complex that no centrally planned system can ever substitute it (and I'm even taking the situation where authority is working in good faith which is not the case in reality, in reality decisions are made to be reelected, to get personal gain etc.)
What you say in the first paragraph is especially true. The problem is, it is not clear who wants to steal or not. So when i hear free market... 🤬. Glad you don't fall for it.
Yes price is information (and more).
I also don't like centralisef plans in general. But right now, you can call decentralisation the right of each country to have its own rules, but this is intervention so probably you don't mean that. What do you mean by decentralisation?
I mean put every decision to lowest level possible for each of that issue (Ideally down to individua in most cases).
So generally yes, country better then EU, region better then country, village better etc. etc.
Simplified example: Village can decide if to invest into pavement or to playground (not possible nowadays because EU is setting rules for what subsides can be used to and so on)
Funny side note: Actually this should be basic principle of EU and it's written everywhere in EU documents - the subsidiarity principle. Unfortunately in praxis they say everything is matter of over national importance, so everything need to be decided on EU level 😅
Ok i agree with that.
So to conclude, in the note below, you are not against the french farmers since their opponents didn't play with real free market conditions but exploited regulations in the name of free market
Right or not?
nostr:nevent1qqsyzytchrmpln6xlvd2ueay9npuxj780lrfw70eljf0pyk2rxxs7zgzrk83a
Yeah.
In this case is very hard to pick side since the whole industry in EU is so regulated and subsidized that it would be hard to find something farther from free market 😅.
But as usually the farmers (and consumers) at the end of that chain are the one suffering most.
I am with the farmers. Local food production should be protected. Also consuming fuel to send food in a place far away does not sound ideal at all to me.
Maybe there should be rules and internventions for specific stuff. Maybe not for some others. Different situations may need different approach. I usually don't support the "one size fits all" view...
Yes i agree with that. Let me refrase. I support local food production specifically, especially the one that comes from small farmers and not big food industries (small farmers is the usual case here in Greece).
100%
If you are in the mood, we can go deeper to the rabbit hole. By chance i read this article today, just now (it is a recent article). https://canadianpatriot.org/2025/01/07/how-an-austrian-and-british-malthusian-brainwashed-a-generation-of-americans-2/
What do you think?