[tossandthrow]

That is up to a fair, well governed, market to decide that.

And before you say something along the lines of: "Well, the market want McDonalds food and snort themselves to death in cocaine" - let's just stop it there and think, in silence, about what a fair market is.

[nickpp]

So what is a "fair market" then? Also "well governed"?!

Free markets on the other hand have already devised pretty effective ways to measure value and allocate resources.

[tossandthrow]

Try pondering on the opposite for a bit: a market where the people with the biggest guns can coerce others to give up valuables. Where participants are actively left to die because the governing body only allow a single person to treat ill people. Etc.

When we have a grasp of an unfair malgoverned market, then we can think about what a fair we'll governed market is.

It is probably not the same for you and I.

[nickpp]

No idea what you are talking about.

> market where the people with the biggest guns can coerce

That is not a free market - free markets require rule of law to function.

> governing body only allow a single person to treat ill people

That is a heavily regulated market. Indeed, the less regulation on a market, the better it works.

Not idea what all this has to do with "fair" or what "fair markets" are.

[tossandthrow]

I am not sure if you catch the point? It is OK that you have the political belief that governments should have less regulation (It is after all a US based forum this one) - but there is not support that this inherently gives a free market.

A free market has two core properties: Supply and demand decides pricing and voluntary exchanges.

Down stream effects of these two are:

1. We need competition to have choice: Only have a single search provider and a single social network does not give that. 2. We need to have fair compensation to have voluntary exchanges: People who need money might involuntarily go into a labor contract to stay alive. 3. ... I am sure you can expand on this list yourself.

> Free markets on the other hand have already devised pretty effective ways to measure value and allocate resources.

It is very well established that there exist no free market: "While no pure free market economies actually exist ..." - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp.

What you are discussing is pure politics and has nothing to do with any discourse of "scientific" economics - which indeed is what I tried to refuse to go into by saying that we can think about these things in silence.

However, if we do talk about economic freedom, then it seems like the US is on a 25th place over taken by more than 10 EU countries - all with foundational systems that are pro regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[nickpp]

> I am not sure if you catch the point?

I definitely don't, especially pertaining to the actual question I asked:

>> participants are appraised based on the value they provide to the society

>How do you measure that? And who decides?

I wasn't talking about "pure free markets", I am not interested about philosophizing and talking politics - just concrete, real, actionable points.

LE: I live in the EU and saying Western European countries offer more economic freedom than the US is joke. The actual reality proves it: European economy has fallen badly behind the US. Reasons include overregulation, anti-business and anti-corporation climate.