I have set up a framework for an article that readers could use as an introduction to the concept and as a gateway to a range of more specialised articles. Comments and contributions are invited. Nick Gardner 09:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In current popular American political discourse, the "market" is thrown about as an ideal, but there are serious oversimplifications. While, all too often, the word is simply a talisman and little thought goes into its meaning, my own thought is that a "free market" is ideally a "perfect market", with the counterintuitive idea that it is usually necessary to have some independent oversight to avoid market manipulation, insider information, etc. The current financial markets deviate from classic assumption on value, and the supply and demand of real goods and services is subordinated to short-term value of (at best) common stock and probably at worst, exotic financial instruments.
Should the tragedy of the commons be here?
Howard C. Berkowitz 07:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. We are of like mind on this, and I intend to take in your points as I struggle through the drafting - but they may not be fully covered until I get to the paragraph on policy implications.
- Nick Gardner 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The section on market characteristics contains a link to another section on "competition policy" which does not exist, but is certainly necessary. Marx pointed out that unrestricted competition tends to the creation of monopolies. Most governments attempt to prevent this through regulations. It is paradoxical that the existence of a "free" market, with its supposed benefits, depends on government intervention. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)