The myth of the free market?
- Thread starter Niflmir
- Start date
And someone cannot steal your intellectual property either, just like they cannot destroy your house. Which is why it is completely relevant to your argument because you are saying there is no free market in Canada because of intellectual property laws.
You have a contract to protect your physical property and you have a patent to protect your intellectual property. Yet, does the existence of property laws on tangible goods also mean there is no free market in Canada?
Tangible and intangible property are one and the same. It doesn't matter how many premises or how many logical conditions you attach to your argument. Not allowing someone to use your intellectual property in any way they see fit is no different than allowing someone to use your physical property any way they see fit. Thus, railing against intellectual property laws is tantamount to railing against physical property laws. And thus, saying intellectual property rights are evidence of a lack of a free market is tantamount to saying the right to the deed on your house is also evidence of no free market.
If we conclude that all property laws restrict the market, and we've determined that we must apply the same standard to all property, then we must have no property laws by your definition of a free market, which is my definition of anarchy.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Nif plainly said he isn't arguing against free markets, just that by definition the free market is idealized and doesn't practically exist. There are restrictions throughout our economy, that defeats the definition of a free economy does it not? Is that to hard to understand?
Nobody is arguing for or against a free market. Nobody is arguing that a pure free market exists.
N is arguing that patent and copyright laws are evidence that there are no free markets. He is not making a generalized argument about the nature of a free market. He is making a very specific comment.
That is different.
Right, he called copyright laws monopolistic, exclusive rights of copyrights are also referred to as monopoly rights.
Or neighbouring rights, like a broadcaster having protection from unliscensed material being viewed without payment, though the signal is all around us. Some intrepid person might create their own equipment to access all of the wavelengths bombarding us every day. Not allowed because of those neighbouring rights.
Or neighbouring rights, like a broadcaster having protection from unliscensed material being viewed without payment, though the signal is all around us. Some intrepid person might create their own equipment to access all of the wavelengths bombarding us every day. Not allowed because of those neighbouring rights.
Well, yes I’d say that the free market is a myth. It is a concept, and concepts exist in the mind rather then the world. I don’t imagine that many people think that the market concepts even patched up with allowances for market imperfections, non-price factors etc. describe actual behaviour especially well. A useful question might be if the predictive description of behaviour that are derived from market concepts are the best available, and are they adequate.
I wouldn’t pretend to have answers. However, I am aware that predicting behaviour is basic to empirical science, and that the time-frames of predictions are crucial in economics. For example, development of oil fields typically takes years and requires multi-billion dollar investments. Capital investments are allocated by eventual returns, and returns in large part, hinge on the prices of petroleum products years later. Unless things have changed recently, I believe that the best industry 5-year crude oil price forecasts have been wildly wrong. As a result, consumers pay large risk premiums in the present through the effect of speculation etc. as a way of hedging risks from the substantially unknown future. If the future doesn’t turn out as speculators imagine, then the speculative component of present prices misallocate resources. It is a little difficult to bring all things that speculators and investors react to under market concepts.
Risk premiums might be thought to have the effect of reducing the efficiency of resource allocation at the macro-economic level, which also affect decisions at the micro-level. Some measure of protection of corporations from the market such as IP rights also might be thought of as a kind of risk premium that is intended to ensure adequate numbers of producers.
I think that under free market concepts, market imperfections that are obvious in the real world are subsumed in regulating concepts of ideal competition etc. It is a little difficult to model speculators, stock market investors, and well, the intervening effects of the four horsemen are always with us and usually defy modeling. The effective time frames in economics are long, and there significant intervening effects during the time-frame that are not included into the market concept are likely. What according to market concepts are termed imperfections and their effects do exist in the world, and the ability to predict economic behaviour over operative time-frames hasn’t been especially impressive.
And, how are predictive economic forecasts made? Unless styles have changed, at the macro-level, the simple clean market concepts come to be translated into forecasting models of hundreds of equations and many more variables and coefficients (which are estimated by generalized least squares, theory or what ever). The models might be thought of as a thousand patch-ups of the simple market concepts. But, the world we live in is not patched-up. It is our concepts about it that must be patched up. The world simply is, and if we try too hard to explain it, we end up with something that crunches numbers adequately but fails to satisfy the intuition.
Macro-forecasting models frequently do pretty well, if often not well enough. They are risky and uncomfortable to bet you life on. They also have extraordinarily poor intuitive renderings. I suppose it’s fair to term our concepts about the world as myths, but a useful idea might be keeping sight of whether they are useful myths, and if better myths might be available. If we have to represent our myths as a macro-forecasting model. we may wish for better myths.
I wouldn’t pretend to have answers. However, I am aware that predicting behaviour is basic to empirical science, and that the time-frames of predictions are crucial in economics. For example, development of oil fields typically takes years and requires multi-billion dollar investments. Capital investments are allocated by eventual returns, and returns in large part, hinge on the prices of petroleum products years later. Unless things have changed recently, I believe that the best industry 5-year crude oil price forecasts have been wildly wrong. As a result, consumers pay large risk premiums in the present through the effect of speculation etc. as a way of hedging risks from the substantially unknown future. If the future doesn’t turn out as speculators imagine, then the speculative component of present prices misallocate resources. It is a little difficult to bring all things that speculators and investors react to under market concepts.
Risk premiums might be thought to have the effect of reducing the efficiency of resource allocation at the macro-economic level, which also affect decisions at the micro-level. Some measure of protection of corporations from the market such as IP rights also might be thought of as a kind of risk premium that is intended to ensure adequate numbers of producers.
I think that under free market concepts, market imperfections that are obvious in the real world are subsumed in regulating concepts of ideal competition etc. It is a little difficult to model speculators, stock market investors, and well, the intervening effects of the four horsemen are always with us and usually defy modeling. The effective time frames in economics are long, and there significant intervening effects during the time-frame that are not included into the market concept are likely. What according to market concepts are termed imperfections and their effects do exist in the world, and the ability to predict economic behaviour over operative time-frames hasn’t been especially impressive.
And, how are predictive economic forecasts made? Unless styles have changed, at the macro-level, the simple clean market concepts come to be translated into forecasting models of hundreds of equations and many more variables and coefficients (which are estimated by generalized least squares, theory or what ever). The models might be thought of as a thousand patch-ups of the simple market concepts. But, the world we live in is not patched-up. It is our concepts about it that must be patched up. The world simply is, and if we try too hard to explain it, we end up with something that crunches numbers adequately but fails to satisfy the intuition.
Macro-forecasting models frequently do pretty well, if often not well enough. They are risky and uncomfortable to bet you life on. They also have extraordinarily poor intuitive renderings. I suppose it’s fair to term our concepts about the world as myths, but a useful idea might be keeping sight of whether they are useful myths, and if better myths might be available. If we have to represent our myths as a macro-forecasting model. we may wish for better myths.
That is exactly what I am trying to argue.
I am in fact making a very strong, general comment about free markets - that they do not exist in general. If you change your definition to some tautological one, then of course they do. Consider relaxing the definition of free market to exclude "single producer monopolies by way of copyright/patent." Well, then automatically a communism becomes the strongest example of a free market: everything is owned by the state in a communism, so the state owns all intellectual property and consequently is the rightful monopolist and the market is free trivially.
So I ask you these questions, since I really don't understand what your complaint is: What exactly do you mean by pure free market, do you happen to have some other definition? Reasons for intellectual property rights aside, are you arguing that they do not have an impact on the supply in a market?
I would argue they do not. There is nothing stopping you from building a product to fulfill the same need, or a better one, and compete in the same market.
Markets are not about products, they are defined by the needs that can fulfilled (for profit).
The interpretation you give to free market cannot by definition exist, its a paradox. Its like saying you want a positive number less than zero.
Even if someone wants an Iphone, The Iphone isn't the market. Even if its all about brand, dig deeper its not about a brand. Its about what the brand means (status for example), you can just as easily compete in that market by selling something else that meets the same need, and if you wish you could buy the rights to Iphone itself.
You also create a false implication that investors limiting their own supply is a violation of the free market. That IS the market in action, that is an example of free market principles.
Choosing to limit production as a producer is no different than choosing not to buy as a consumer. Supply and Demand (and Return on Investment) dictate the market.
Markets are not about products, they are defined by the needs that can fulfilled (for profit).
The interpretation you give to free market cannot by definition exist, its a paradox. Its like saying you want a positive number less than zero.
Even if someone wants an Iphone, The Iphone isn't the market. Even if its all about brand, dig deeper its not about a brand. Its about what the brand means (status for example), you can just as easily compete in that market by selling something else that meets the same need, and if you wish you could buy the rights to Iphone itself.
You also create a false implication that investors limiting their own supply is a violation of the free market. That IS the market in action, that is an example of free market principles.
Choosing to limit production as a producer is no different than choosing not to buy as a consumer. Supply and Demand (and Return on Investment) dictate the market.
But see, now you have formulated a tautological definition. If the fixed number of producers can control their supply to maximize profits and not utils, then there is no such thing as an non-free market. Supply and demand dictates that a new producer can come in and sell at a lower price, that is why the ultimate conclusion of the free market economy is that the price will be where the supply meets demand. If the price is fixed at anything else than you only have two possibilies: a) it is not a free market b) the economic principals of a free market are wrong. Choosing not to supply in order to increase profits is the penultimate example of a non-free market.
With brands, it is often not that people want a pair of jeans. No, they have to be Tommy Hilfiger, or the Gap, or American Eagle. This is a result of modern ways of thinking of course, I am not denying that there are people that will go out to look for a non specific pair of jeans, but I am affirming that that market has become skewed by the people who go out just to have jeans from the Gap. Are you denying that some people have a need for pants specifically from the Gap? Would you further argue that this doesn't skew the market in any real way?
Also a positive number less than zero is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. Paradoxes are seemingly contradictions but make sense with further understanding. Certainly if there were no intellectual property laws than the market would certainly be a free one, by definition, but it would not be a fair one. Again, my definition might be a bad one, maybe this isn't what people mean when they say free market, but please give me a better one if you think so.
With brands, it is often not that people want a pair of jeans. No, they have to be Tommy Hilfiger, or the Gap, or American Eagle. This is a result of modern ways of thinking of course, I am not denying that there are people that will go out to look for a non specific pair of jeans, but I am affirming that that market has become skewed by the people who go out just to have jeans from the Gap. Are you denying that some people have a need for pants specifically from the Gap? Would you further argue that this doesn't skew the market in any real way?
Also a positive number less than zero is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. Paradoxes are seemingly contradictions but make sense with further understanding. Certainly if there were no intellectual property laws than the market would certainly be a free one, by definition, but it would not be a fair one. Again, my definition might be a bad one, maybe this isn't what people mean when they say free market, but please give me a better one if you think so.
What you are describing is not a free market.
If a band joins togethor to create a monopoly, that is fine. As long as someone else could come in, and if able to secure the rescources produce their own alternative.
But your logic of needing to force suppliers to meet demand is no different than forcing consumers to buy things so that all the supply is used up. Free market does not mean you NEED to create supply, it means that if you don't prices will go up, and at some point they will be high enough it will be viable for someone else to more cheaply enter the market and undercut you.
There is a difference between an enforced monopoly (like Firefighters) and a monopoly of incompetant competition (like Microsoft). The first is against free market principles, the second is the penultimate example of free market principles. Nothing is there to stop competition except the cost of entering the market does not give a good return on investment, supply and demand have leveled to acceptable levels.
What you are describing is not the free market.
As for Brands, I already answered that. Brands do not define markets, needs define markets. Brands fulfill a different need than the product they are on (ie, for Jeans, the Jeans give you clothing, the brand gives you status). An exact brand "Tommy Hilfiger" is not what you are buying, its not what people want to buy either. The want "A popular brand", one year its Levi's, then its Tommy, then its some new brand. That is free market principles right there. One brand fulfills the need (status, popularity, ego) better than its competitor and knocks it from the top spot.
If a band joins togethor to create a monopoly, that is fine. As long as someone else could come in, and if able to secure the rescources produce their own alternative.
But your logic of needing to force suppliers to meet demand is no different than forcing consumers to buy things so that all the supply is used up. Free market does not mean you NEED to create supply, it means that if you don't prices will go up, and at some point they will be high enough it will be viable for someone else to more cheaply enter the market and undercut you.
There is a difference between an enforced monopoly (like Firefighters) and a monopoly of incompetant competition (like Microsoft). The first is against free market principles, the second is the penultimate example of free market principles. Nothing is there to stop competition except the cost of entering the market does not give a good return on investment, supply and demand have leveled to acceptable levels.
What you are describing is not the free market.
As for Brands, I already answered that. Brands do not define markets, needs define markets. Brands fulfill a different need than the product they are on (ie, for Jeans, the Jeans give you clothing, the brand gives you status). An exact brand "Tommy Hilfiger" is not what you are buying, its not what people want to buy either. The want "A popular brand", one year its Levi's, then its Tommy, then its some new brand. That is free market principles right there. One brand fulfills the need (status, popularity, ego) better than its competitor and knocks it from the top spot.
There is no such thing as a free market by N's strict way of thinking. There has never been. Only an anarchy that allows any and all products (plutonium, human organs, poison, original Beatles music without owner's consent) to be bought and sold could be called a free market.
I don't have a complaint other than you seem to make a very important distinction between tangible and intangible property, and treating each very differently.
Your argument is merely a hypothetical esoteric example that not only does not exist, has never existed, and nobody whom I have ever read has ever referred to a free market as the one in which you are describing. Every single author I have read on free markets stipulates or assumes strong property rights. Intellectual property isn't any different.
Your argument is tantamount to saying "Nobody is free because we cannot kill one another because the law forbids it." It is a very binary argument.
Of course intellectual rights restrict supply. But I'll go back to my earlier example. The monopoly you have on your property also restricts supply. Does that mean there is no free market because I cannot tear down your house whenever I please and build a Kentucky Fried Chicken on it? If you say no, then you are restricting supply.
The difference being KFC doesn't get to sit around and wait for my deed to expire, ergo the arbitrary restriction on supply by way of regulation. Not that I have a problem with that (or KFC for that matter other than the fact the munchins always manage to scam the last piece off of me), just that its good to know where the levers are.
A perfectly efficient market is one where all known information at any given time is perfectly reflected in prices. Since all markets are not perfectly efficient, markets tend towards efficiency as information becomes known. Any market is a price discovery process, and that process is that process of information discovery. As information becomes known, prices move to reflect that information. Speculators and investors react to that information to set prices. This is the market concept. The entire market mechanism is the process of price discovery based on information. But because future information is unknown, prices - be it in the spot cash market of the futures market - change as information becomes available.
Certainly time horizons are important - can't build a refinery in a day, can we? Over time prices move to efficiency because returns on capital move to the cost of capital, and industries, over time, gravitate to approximately the same return on capital. That may take years - it certainly did in the oil patch - but it does occur.
It is this process of price discovery which is so critical, as the pricing mechanism sends signals to investors where to allocate capital - higher profit margins, more capital; lower profit margins, less capital. When prices skyrocket, as they have in energy, capital flows into energy. However, for many years, energy was starved of capital, capital flowed out, which is now contributing to skyrocketing prices of today.
That is a condition, not a failure of markets, because nobody has perfect information, including the government which not only does not have perfect information hasn't (much) incentive to respond to market signals.
As an interesting aside, I trained an intern at the end of the 1990s who went to work in the energy division of a private equity department for a large securities firm in Dallas. When I spoke to him around 2000, they couldn't raise money to invest in oil. Everyone was too busy investing in the next dotcom.
But I think expecting the market to precisely hit the short-term and long-term efficient equilibrium price mis-understands the nature of markets. The market isn't an attempt to hit bullseye on a dartboard. Its an ocean wave moving up and down over time as information and other factors become known.
After spending the time to think carefully about people were trying to say and doing relevent research into standard economic theory, this is my balanced reply to the criticisms raised here.
On complaints that somehow I did not capture the idea of "free market" correctly: Check any sort of definition, and they will say not mention any sort of excusive right. I have presented here the normal economical theory of free trade. The things that go by the name of "free trade" in the real world is anything but the economical definition, and that is what I sought to point out here. By free trade, I mean what Adam Smith meant, what Henry Martyn meant, what Dean Baker means, what Edward Luttwak means: no government intervention. Here I framed it in layman's terms as opposed to using esoteric terms like pareto equilibrium and fundamental theorems of welfare economics. This definition is not "Niflmir's definition" this is the accepted definition. And I quote the most democratically accepted of sources: "Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power"
On complaints that a reasonable definition of free trade should include exceptions for exclusive rights: In Canada the very first thing in our constitution is the ability of our government to impose reasonable restrictions to rights. One restriction that they impose to freedom of movement is to allow landowners the ability to refuse access to their land, i.e. "No trespassing." We don't change the meaning of freedom of movement, we simply admit that total freedom of movement does not exist in Canada. A definition of freedom of movement as, "the right to go without permission the places where you have permission to go" is absurd.
On complaints that my argument leads to similar conclusions on physical property: the difference between abstract objects and physical objects is exclusivity. Only one person may have possession of a physical object at once and it is natural law, not government law, which gives me the right to defend myself from forceful theft of my possessions.
On complaints that no free market has ever existed and so my definition is absurd: this is nothing more than a failed reductio ad absurdum. A free market is a theoretical model which leads to strong predictions about market efficiency, it is not meant to be an empirical model. However, look to the Laissez-faire methodology of Britain in the victorian era and the case of China in the current epoch. These nations could hardly be termed anarchy or even close to anarchy but they are certainly examples of nations closer to the theoretical definition of free market.
===============================================================
That summarises my response. There seems to be some confusion as to the intent of my brief essay. The very intent of my essay is to point out that things like the North American Free Trade Agreement are incorrectly named. They attach free trade onto the name as a rhetorical device to make the intention seem more noble. To argue against the free trade agreement because free trade is bad is to fall into a cleverly laid out trap. The free trade agreement is about increasing the ability of corporations (which are government created entities) to seek government intervention when the market is unfavorable for them or to increase their dominance and monopoly globally.
Moreover, all of the predictions about a market which is not free have been fulfilled by these government created entities, that is low efficiency. Drug companies routinely hide negative results, prevent public authors from publishing negative results, and inflate prices up to 2000% over the real cost (cost of production + research and development). Once upon a time only methods of production were patentable, with modern rules the drug itself is patented and so a scientist who discovers a more efficient method for production is banned from publishing/producing, thus decreasing the overall benefit to society.
Finally, I will point out that the mere notion that exclusive rights are the only way to ensure innovation is insulting to a large class of citizens. Namely, me and my fellow scientist, doctors, many engineers, academicians of all kinds and literatis as well. Perhaps you have heard of these ground breaking innovations: quantum mechanics, genetics, general relativity, evolution, electricity, insulin, vaccines, penicillin. All of these innovations were produced by dedicated researchers whose sole purpose was to further human knowledge. To say that a research scientist is somehow less efficient than an industrial science is an insult and baseless when viewed with any amount of historical perspective.
On complaints that somehow I did not capture the idea of "free market" correctly: Check any sort of definition, and they will say not mention any sort of excusive right. I have presented here the normal economical theory of free trade. The things that go by the name of "free trade" in the real world is anything but the economical definition, and that is what I sought to point out here. By free trade, I mean what Adam Smith meant, what Henry Martyn meant, what Dean Baker means, what Edward Luttwak means: no government intervention. Here I framed it in layman's terms as opposed to using esoteric terms like pareto equilibrium and fundamental theorems of welfare economics. This definition is not "Niflmir's definition" this is the accepted definition. And I quote the most democratically accepted of sources: "Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power"
On complaints that a reasonable definition of free trade should include exceptions for exclusive rights: In Canada the very first thing in our constitution is the ability of our government to impose reasonable restrictions to rights. One restriction that they impose to freedom of movement is to allow landowners the ability to refuse access to their land, i.e. "No trespassing." We don't change the meaning of freedom of movement, we simply admit that total freedom of movement does not exist in Canada. A definition of freedom of movement as, "the right to go without permission the places where you have permission to go" is absurd.
On complaints that my argument leads to similar conclusions on physical property: the difference between abstract objects and physical objects is exclusivity. Only one person may have possession of a physical object at once and it is natural law, not government law, which gives me the right to defend myself from forceful theft of my possessions.
On complaints that no free market has ever existed and so my definition is absurd: this is nothing more than a failed reductio ad absurdum. A free market is a theoretical model which leads to strong predictions about market efficiency, it is not meant to be an empirical model. However, look to the Laissez-faire methodology of Britain in the victorian era and the case of China in the current epoch. These nations could hardly be termed anarchy or even close to anarchy but they are certainly examples of nations closer to the theoretical definition of free market.
===============================================================
That summarises my response. There seems to be some confusion as to the intent of my brief essay. The very intent of my essay is to point out that things like the North American Free Trade Agreement are incorrectly named. They attach free trade onto the name as a rhetorical device to make the intention seem more noble. To argue against the free trade agreement because free trade is bad is to fall into a cleverly laid out trap. The free trade agreement is about increasing the ability of corporations (which are government created entities) to seek government intervention when the market is unfavorable for them or to increase their dominance and monopoly globally.
Moreover, all of the predictions about a market which is not free have been fulfilled by these government created entities, that is low efficiency. Drug companies routinely hide negative results, prevent public authors from publishing negative results, and inflate prices up to 2000% over the real cost (cost of production + research and development). Once upon a time only methods of production were patentable, with modern rules the drug itself is patented and so a scientist who discovers a more efficient method for production is banned from publishing/producing, thus decreasing the overall benefit to society.
Finally, I will point out that the mere notion that exclusive rights are the only way to ensure innovation is insulting to a large class of citizens. Namely, me and my fellow scientist, doctors, many engineers, academicians of all kinds and literatis as well. Perhaps you have heard of these ground breaking innovations: quantum mechanics, genetics, general relativity, evolution, electricity, insulin, vaccines, penicillin. All of these innovations were produced by dedicated researchers whose sole purpose was to further human knowledge. To say that a research scientist is somehow less efficient than an industrial science is an insult and baseless when viewed with any amount of historical perspective.
Ah yes “Free markets”….
“Americans sickened from eating Salmonella-tainted eggs every year: More than 650,000.”
“Americans killed from eating Salmonella-tainted eggs every year: 600.”
“Increase in Salmonella poisoning from raw or undercooked eggs between 1976 and 1986: 600%.”
“90% of US chickens are infected with leukosis ‘chicken cancer’ at the time of slaughter.”
“A report by the USDA estimates that 89% of US beef patties contain traces of deadly E. coli strain. Reuters News Service 8/10/00.”
“US pigs raised in total confinement factories where they never see the light of day until being trucked to slaughter: 65 million.”
“US pigs who have pneumonia at time of slaughter: 70%.”
“Primay source of Campylobacter bacteria: contaminated chicken flesh.”
“People in the US who become ill with Campylobacter poisoning every day: more than 5000.”
“American turkeys sufficiently contaminated with Campylobacter to cause illness: 90%.”
“Amount spent annually by Kellogg’s to promote Frosted Flakes: $40 million.”
“Amount spent annually by McDonald’s advertising its products; $800 million.”
“Antibiotics adminstered to people in the US annually to treat diseases; 3 million pounds.”
“Antibiotics adminstered to livestock in the US annually for purposes other than treating disease; 24.6 million pounds.”
“Gallons of oil spilled by the Exxon-Valdez; 12 million.”
“Gallons of putrefying hog urine and feces spilled into the New River in North Carolina on June 21,1995; 25 million.”
“US spending on advertising 2003; $245.5 billion.”
A discussion of "free markets" as exercise in understanding 'economics' is clean, because it doesn't encompass the outcome of the dynamics at work.
A lovely tale of money but little interest in how well this "free market" works in any other terms than ownership and esoteric terms batted around like tennis balls.....
Yes of course let's not pretend for a moment than anything's as important as a buck.
“Americans sickened from eating Salmonella-tainted eggs every year: More than 650,000.”
“Americans killed from eating Salmonella-tainted eggs every year: 600.”
“Increase in Salmonella poisoning from raw or undercooked eggs between 1976 and 1986: 600%.”
“90% of US chickens are infected with leukosis ‘chicken cancer’ at the time of slaughter.”
“A report by the USDA estimates that 89% of US beef patties contain traces of deadly E. coli strain. Reuters News Service 8/10/00.”
“US pigs raised in total confinement factories where they never see the light of day until being trucked to slaughter: 65 million.”
“US pigs who have pneumonia at time of slaughter: 70%.”
“Primay source of Campylobacter bacteria: contaminated chicken flesh.”
“People in the US who become ill with Campylobacter poisoning every day: more than 5000.”
“American turkeys sufficiently contaminated with Campylobacter to cause illness: 90%.”
“Amount spent annually by Kellogg’s to promote Frosted Flakes: $40 million.”
“Amount spent annually by McDonald’s advertising its products; $800 million.”
“Antibiotics adminstered to people in the US annually to treat diseases; 3 million pounds.”
“Antibiotics adminstered to livestock in the US annually for purposes other than treating disease; 24.6 million pounds.”
“Gallons of oil spilled by the Exxon-Valdez; 12 million.”
“Gallons of putrefying hog urine and feces spilled into the New River in North Carolina on June 21,1995; 25 million.”
“US spending on advertising 2003; $245.5 billion.”
A discussion of "free markets" as exercise in understanding 'economics' is clean, because it doesn't encompass the outcome of the dynamics at work.
A lovely tale of money but little interest in how well this "free market" works in any other terms than ownership and esoteric terms batted around like tennis balls.....
Yes of course let's not pretend for a moment than anything's as important as a buck.