I was thinking about free markets. When many people talk about ‘Free ‘ markets I wonder exactly what they mean. Is it ‘Free’ as in laissez-faire? Is it ‘Free’ as in ‘no monopolies but anything else goes’? Is it ‘Free’ as in caveat empor? Or is it ‘Free’ as in open and above board – a level playing field with free access to all? Somehow I don’t think the last option fits with most uses of ‘Free Market’.
I was thinking about free markets in terms of rivers. Some people think that rivers should be free. They should flow unobstructed, where ever nature takes them. People have noticed that building communities along rivers led to many good things. Not only do they get the enhanced agriculture from the constantly refreshed alluvial plain, but they also have a handy transport highway on the river itself. The communities learn to deal with the annual floods that refresh the fields. Life is good and everyone prospers. But, once a generation the river runs wild, floods outside its expected fields, diverts its path, gouges new channels, leaves communities high and dry, threatens prosperity, induces change. All-in-all, rivers may cause more damage in one year than all the good produced since the last catastrophe.