Not really. Wikipedia defines it as "an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority." That means that sellers are free to do whatever they want.
A free market assumes that there is healthy competition among sellers, so they do not have incentive to collude. In a healthy market, if five sellers colluded to keep the price high, a sixth seller should pop up and undercut the colluding sellers to capture business from the overpriced colluding sellers.
[−]Systemerror7A69 · 2026-11-15 Sun 12:41 UTC ·
link
Sure, but that's really naive in practice, isn't it? Because "a new competitor comes in" really isn't as easy as it sounds, especially in chips for example. Getting to the point where you can actually compete is really, really, really difficult and requires a lot of investment (money, time and resources).
Like many aspects of idealized Capitalism, I think it doesn't work in practice nearly as well as it does in theory. Which is why we made laws about this sort of stuff a long time ago. But they've not really been super strictly enforced for a while has been my impression. Perhaps they should be again?
Difficult when Capital is global and the companies making all this stuff are global. But I think they'd accept a US court decision given the centrality of that market...
If the government doesn't intervene, there's no control, so sellers can do whatever they please. Hence price fixing, dumping, monopolies, etc., are all possible in a free market. There's no contradiction.
> [If] price is not set by supply and demand, [...] you do not have a free market
You can't even define what "set by supply and demand" means. Supply and demand are variables in some equation that does not and cannot capture reality.
So it doesn't just work like that in practice.
Difficult when Capital is global and the companies making all this stuff are global. But I think they'd accept a US court decision given the centrality of that market...
- price of goods is set by supply and demand
- the government doesn't intervene (for example through subsidies)
Price fixing is defined by:
- all the sellers (or buyers) agreeing on and therefore setting the price
- price is not set by supply and demand, therefore you do not have a free market
If the government doesn't intervene, there's no control, so sellers can do whatever they please. Hence price fixing, dumping, monopolies, etc., are all possible in a free market. There's no contradiction.
> [If] price is not set by supply and demand, [...] you do not have a free market
You can't even define what "set by supply and demand" means. Supply and demand are variables in some equation that does not and cannot capture reality.