Hey there. Do you think this is an accurate statement? If not, why?
The market is like a giant democratic voting machine where everyone gets to vote for what they want–if there’s a need for it, the people vote with their wallets and purchase it. (Assuming some government middle man isn’t standing in the way.) If this sounds wrong to you, you don’t have a full understanding of the term “free market”.
And for extra points (hah), how would you define the term “free market” in 2-3 sentences or less to someone who’s a complete idiot or communist?
it is a very coarse analogy that has many fails, even if it works on some levels. hence to tar anyone to whom it ‘sounds wrong’ as ignorant of ‘free market’ economics seems disingenuous
For one thing, in a democratic vote, minorities have to accept the majority’s choice. A free market allows minorities to get what they want.
This is important too. It’s not one-vote-per-person. On a market, the “vote” of someone who feels strongly about an issue is worth much more than the “vote” of someone who is basically indifferent.
Come on, that’s a childish reason. We all know the market democracy is not an equal voting system. It’s obvious Mises knew the same. The number of votes each person gets is determined by the intensity of the demand he/she satisfies.
Even the fact that consumers can’t have anything they wish against the producers’ wishes does not break the analogy with a democracy. The democracy gives candidates the right to participate/abstain from elections.
The market is not a democracy. A democracy is a zero sum game. A democracy establishes a monopoly via populism.
It is a real penalty to liberty, if you prop up democracy by conflating it with markets, and likewise diminish markets by conflating them with democracy.
I realize, it works on people. That’s probably because it is confused so it is easy for people who doublethink to hold market and democracy in mind at the same time.
A market is not a zero sum game. Democracy is a zero sum game. Democracy has winners and losers. In a market, everyone is a winner, including the people who don’t participate.
Even in a parliamentary democracy, representation is not proportional. In a market, every single individual’s interests are represented, even if no two of them agree.
I covered it later in my response. I just can’t believe you would advance proportional representation, when a democracy by definition has to yield less than 100% representation where there is more than 1 view, and more voters than representatives. A market represents EVERYONE whether they participate or not, whether they are completely alone.
C’mon. I don’t think it is too much to ask you to think this through.