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.

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)

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