[ta8645]

It sounds like you're advocating for a centrally planned market that allocates resources according to a grand, rational vision. A free market will by definition be messy, sometimes inefficient, adhoc, and defy any notion of a grand vision. You have to trust the free market to produce the best results in the long run, and to be the most responsive to change (opportunity).

[stahtops]

The “free market” cannot exist. It’s impossible.

All you can ever do is trade manipulation. By who and to what agenda.

[marenkay]

Not really. The opposite. The current market is centralized a lot more than people want to see or admit. I had trust in the free market for a long time but it has not really materialized the best results. As can be seen by the current state of affairs. Everyone fighting over who gets to have money and production is not freedom, it's a war without guns.

Just to make this clear, a truly free market would be desirable but I don't see it materialize on this world.

[TulliusCicero]

> The current market is centralized a lot more than people want to see or admit.

You completely misread their comment. They said central planning, as in, a command economy.

[marenkay]

Considering I talked about a truly free market, central planning then seems to be a weird reaction. Why would that be related? It's not like I suggested a Chinese system, I advocated for one which is free from monopoly and focusses on local production and diversity for sourcing goods.

[stahtops]

A truly free market? But free from monopolies and adhering to <insert constraints>?

Kind of sounds like a regulation and not a truly free market.

[marenkay]

Finally someone might get that the concept of a free market is a fairy tale