Too bad that system only works (and the theory explicitly STATES this) when no particular entity has too much control over it. Then, that entity becomes a parasite. Much of what we call free market capitalism today is in reality that sort of parasitic relationship.
That then asks the following question:
Can we have a true free-market capitalist system?
The market, in practice, consists as much of the information about the market as the market itself - people don't buy the best product - they buy what they believe is the best product, which can be quite different. Therefore, a market leads to specialists in information dissemination (accurate or no), because affecting the perceptions of consumers affects the value of your product at least as effectively as altering the product itself.
So, a market of any kind, free or otherwise, leads to the growth of an industry based around the manipulation of perceptions of that market. This industry must itself be a separate meta-market, an entity that exists parasitically upon the original market.
This satisfies the requirement that a market cannot exist without other parasitic meta-markets. Now, we examine whether these parasitic meta-markets exhibit "too much" control over the market itself.
In any market system, for this informational meta-market to drive the main market, and thus show control over it, it must be sufficiently beneficial to one sector of the market in question, by offering a service that is of positive value. Information dissemination is comparatively effective in providing value to a company, in that it increases the exposure of a product to consumers, and comparatively effective in providing value to consumers, in that they gain knowledge of more alternatives (though this may be spurious value, as not all information is accurate).
Thus, while the information industry cannot exist without the main market, it provides positive value to all actors in that market, and thus has control over all actors in that market.
Now, the danger is when the value that can be gained by this industry is uneven - when the gains from promoting suppliers of products are greater than the gains from consumers thereof.
Industry gains in direct monetary terms from supply-side, but gains in indirect status terms from demand-side. However, the industry in question is concerned chiefly with manipulating status, and is thus able to minimise status losses and maximise status gains. Thus, while it is preferable to gain from both sides, if one side must be favoured, it is easier and more beneficial for the industry to favour the supply-side. This can lead to sufficiently high short-term gains to destroy any competition that focuses on demand-side.
This tells us that this meta-market will inevitably benefit from favouring supply-side, and thus that it will exert its control over these actors. We've shown above that this control is large, and thus that any market with no counterbalancing force to this will inevitably fall prey to it.
By definition, a free market's counterbalancing force (the invisible hand) actually provides positive feedback to this process, meaning that a true free market inevitably evolves to become no longer free.
Could be because that's the American Dream in a nutshell?
Anyone can be successful, right? And therefore, anyone who doesn't succeed has chosen to fail, and thus is unworthy not just of success, but also of support of any kind, like Medicare, education, or aught else.
Slashdot Mirror
That then asks the following question:
Can we have a true free-market capitalist system?
The market, in practice, consists as much of the information about the market as the market itself - people don't buy the best product - they buy what they believe is the best product, which can be quite different. Therefore, a market leads to specialists in information dissemination (accurate or no), because affecting the perceptions of consumers affects the value of your product at least as effectively as altering the product itself.
So, a market of any kind, free or otherwise, leads to the growth of an industry based around the manipulation of perceptions of that market. This industry must itself be a separate meta-market, an entity that exists parasitically upon the original market.
This satisfies the requirement that a market cannot exist without other parasitic meta-markets. Now, we examine whether these parasitic meta-markets exhibit "too much" control over the market itself.
In any market system, for this informational meta-market to drive the main market, and thus show control over it, it must be sufficiently beneficial to one sector of the market in question, by offering a service that is of positive value. Information dissemination is comparatively effective in providing value to a company, in that it increases the exposure of a product to consumers, and comparatively effective in providing value to consumers, in that they gain knowledge of more alternatives (though this may be spurious value, as not all information is accurate).
Thus, while the information industry cannot exist without the main market, it provides positive value to all actors in that market, and thus has control over all actors in that market.
Now, the danger is when the value that can be gained by this industry is uneven - when the gains from promoting suppliers of products are greater than the gains from consumers thereof.
Industry gains in direct monetary terms from supply-side, but gains in indirect status terms from demand-side. However, the industry in question is concerned chiefly with manipulating status, and is thus able to minimise status losses and maximise status gains. Thus, while it is preferable to gain from both sides, if one side must be favoured, it is easier and more beneficial for the industry to favour the supply-side. This can lead to sufficiently high short-term gains to destroy any competition that focuses on demand-side.
This tells us that this meta-market will inevitably benefit from favouring supply-side, and thus that it will exert its control over these actors. We've shown above that this control is large, and thus that any market with no counterbalancing force to this will inevitably fall prey to it.
By definition, a free market's counterbalancing force (the invisible hand) actually provides positive feedback to this process, meaning that a true free market inevitably evolves to become no longer free.
Could be because that's the American Dream in a nutshell?
Anyone can be successful, right?
And therefore, anyone who doesn't succeed has chosen to fail, and thus is unworthy not just of success, but also of support of any kind, like Medicare, education, or aught else.