[_heimdall]

Free markets generally only make sense when at the same scope of the ruling government. When country A can manipulate markets in ways that country B can't or won't, eventually country B will attempt to make trade rules that level the playing field.

Its also worth noting we don't really have free markets in the US anyway.

[fc417fc802]

> Its also worth noting we don't really have free markets in the US anyway.

That entirely depends on what is meant by the term. Markets that are largely free appear (IMO) to have won out worldwide quite some time ago.

[_heimdall]

The definition matters for sure. IMO, markets (like speech) are either free or they aren't.

We have a lot of government intervention in markets today. From subsidies to tax incentives to regulations and import tariffs, markets are much more controlled than it seems on the surface.

[inigyou]

A free market can't exist without heavy government interference (property rights to start with) but not all markers with heavy government interference are free, either

[_heimdall]

Market regulation and protection of property rights are quite different though. Protecting rights agreed upon by a strong majority of the population isn't really heavy government intervention in my opinion.

[inigyou]

They're literally the exact same thing.