[xorglorb]

The late 1800s and early 1990s were crony capitalism, encouraged by a corrupt court system and naive immigrants who bought into the political machines. A fully free market actively discourages monopolies by removing all barriers for competition, and encouraging disruptive startups.

[libraryatnight]

This may come off as ignorant, because I don't know tons about economics or capitalist history, but is the U.S. capable of surviving a removal of the barriers? Given the size and political influence of our corporations? And flexing my ignorance again, is there a real world example of success for fully free market functioning?

Genuinely interested, but I don't know if I'm expressing myself properly, so don't eviscerate me ;)

[xorglorb]

If the US were to attempt to remove the barriers to entry, it would have to be very carefully with a scalpel and not destroy them all in one blow with a hammer. One approach which would help curb corporate power would be to start removing the civil liability limits on many sectors. To use the oil industry as an example, the reason BP got off so lightly after causing damage to nearly all industries reliant on the gulf coast was that there was a $75M cap on civil damages, where without that cap, BP easily could have gone out of business after being sued under Tort law.

The United States in it's early days was a decent example of a near-free market functioning, as there was no central bank and minimal regulation on business.

Also, I'm glad to see you're interested in learning more. Economic theory is a very nuanced subject, with many differing opinions, studies and models. One that I wish I knew much better.

[sanjiallblue]

Yeah, because as 2008 taught us, removing regulation and "opening barriers" to free up Capitalism sure as shootin' is the way to go!

Good god... How the hell could anyone argue against regulation after the nightmare the derivatives market has been.

[libraryatnight]

Thanks for the great answer, I appreciate it :) I'll continue reading up, too.

[xorglorb]

By the way, if you are interested in the Austrian School of economics, which advocates a free market, the Ludwig van Mises Institute has a very expansive collection of over 4100 articles, books and essays freely availiable as PDFs and eBooks here (http://mises.org/literature.aspx).

Also, I recommend reading about the Keynesian School of Economics, which advocates central planning in the form of a central bank (The Federal Reserve), so you can best make your own decision. Wikipedia has very good introductions to both schools, and can provide a basis for your further readings.

[mbreese]

Are you going to argue that there is a sufficiently low barrier to enter the mobile phone market? At some point the costs to enter a market are so large that a disruptive force can't feasibly form. In that case, free market forces can't act, so it becomes impossible to have a fully free market.

[xorglorb]

The mobile phone market has been disrupted time and time again, the most recent example being the iPhone. The iPhone was a revolutionary new technology on the market, and was quickly followed by Android, which improved on many features leading to benefit for the consumer.

If you are referring to cell carriers, there is a high infrastructure cost, however even that does not prevent disruption. A standard cell tower can cost upwards of two million dollars, however the OpenBTS project has shown that software radios can significantly reduce the cost to the tens of thousands of dollars per tower. This, combined with a limited initital rollout can keep the infrastructure costs under one hundred million, not an unreasonable number for venture capital funding once the technology is proven.

[jackvalentine]

You might be able to get the tower cost down, but how do you reduce the cost of wireless spectrum which must be regulated by necessity?

[esrauch]

Even assuming that such technology exists and is viable (which I really doubt considering the major telcos would easily be using the technology if it was the miracle cure that you are suggesting) the fact that a cell phone that doesn't work in different states much less cities is hardly a cell phone at all. If you can't even use the same phone at your workplace and your home then it isn't even a cell phone, it's a cordless phone attached to a landline.