Thread: Quiz about money.

What I am getting at is that to discuss economics (or any field) requires talking the same language. Look at the wikipedia definition: Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
"A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of a good and service, labour, savings, investment, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, is coordinated entirely by individual market values (prices, interest rates, wage rates) rather than by governmental regulation, or bureaucratic mandate and dictate.^[1][2] A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which supply or demand are distorted by regulation or direct control by government. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy or free-market anarchism.".

Now compare to what Professor Hudson wrote in the article above, (more of which can be found on his website) To be sure, there are academics that use the definitions as on wikipedia. A historical analysis reveals that terms, definitions, concepts have been altered, some of which begins in the ~1950s. The result is that some economists have a larger more complete historical perspective of economics, and some have not.

In one definition, a free market is free of monopoly, cartels, collusive powers. In the other, the market is free for monopoly, cartels etc to dominate. The definitions have been altered precisely to favour corruption. Shifts of definitions have occurred throughout the field of economics.

Some of the upcoming videos from the Cornell seminar series will be able to answer some of your questions and points, but the videos have not yet come out.

Under free I meant the least degree of government interference. But I am not pretending to have academic knowledge on the issue.