Commodities used to be proper free markets. Many suppliers and many buyers of a product that was the same regardless of the supplier.

This lead to low prices and/or differentiation with new products.

Most of these markets were too good, so in general we now have a few big companies buying up the lion share of the supply so they can set the price regardless. For example soy, just to name one

Sorry, when you say "gloriously free market", do you mean whatever it takes EU, helicopter money (or, rewinding a decade, Greenspan put) US, or factory of the world China? :)

My point is that it's not a real market economy if the risk premium -- and in China's case, the exchange rate -- is rigged. And it has been, since the 90s.

EDIT: For clarity, I'm agreeing with you, since you were being facetious.

Where are these unregulated markets? Are you trading with your neighbor? If so, good, the more of that the better.

> That's not where the interesting discussion is. The interesting discussion is with the notion that free unregulated markets are universally good and will naturally lead to positive outcomes because...

The textbook desirable outcome is that competitive markets minimize suppliers'surplus which is good for consumers.

Not that this doesn't mean unregulated markets. Monopolies and oligopolies acting like a monopoly are textbook examples of pathological markets where suppliers can maximize their surplus.

I think pretty much everyone would agree that the current situation is a failure of regulation not over regulation. Regulator and legislation have been constantly weakened in the name of international competitiveness since Reagan.

But these markets are only "free" if you ignore the net $5.5 trillion the Fed has printed post GFC.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL

What they probably mean is that it is not a fair market, that there is no balance in purchasing power, pushing small scale buyers away while supply slowly catches up (or doesn't)

Which doesn't sound like a free market to me. Capping production to keep asset price high is one of the most straightforward default examples of market-distorting interventions there is.

Prices are decided at the margins. Having PE and REITs at every single table, even if their actual ownership is small as a %, makes huge differences.

> not allowed to build any houses in most places people want to live

Or to convert them into apartment buildings

Read your response again. You are reinforcing my argument in case you did not notice...

I should point out the relevance of my argument, is completely independent from the fact the reply to this questions of yours, is higher than zero.

So dont see this reply as a justification. Just as a note that you failed to do basic diligence on distortions that are well known. And as I said, that are not relevant to the analogy.

"When Wall Street Is Your Landlord" - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/singl...

"In one Atlanta zip code, they bought almost 90 percent of the 7,500 homes sold between January 2011 and June 2012"

China blocked from buying ASML machines?

Adam Smith had already clarified free market refers to a market free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.

You are confusing market outcome with market structure.

Incumbent owners preventing the construction of more supply to maintain their own property values is not "free market". This is very basic stuff