Why would that be an achievement? On contrary it should be seen as an achievement and enabler for competition that this is not the case. Ie. Monopolistic behavior.
As bad as Google and Facebook may be, they are publicly traded, transparent, their existence gives the US a very good geopolitical asset, their creation lifted a lot of people into out of the middle class into the upper class.
We really cannot say the same about any EU corporation.
I want a market where participants are appraised based on the value they provide to the society.
How do you measure that? And who decides?
And before you say something along the lines of: "Well, the market want McDonalds food and snort themselves to death in cocaine" - let's just stop it there and think, in silence, about what a fair market is.
Free markets on the other hand have already devised pretty effective ways to measure value and allocate resources.
When we have a grasp of an unfair malgoverned market, then we can think about what a fair we'll governed market is.
It is probably not the same for you and I.
> market where the people with the biggest guns can coerce
That is not a free market - free markets require rule of law to function.
> governing body only allow a single person to treat ill people
That is a heavily regulated market. Indeed, the less regulation on a market, the better it works.
Not idea what all this has to do with "fair" or what "fair markets" are.
A free market has two core properties: Supply and demand decides pricing and voluntary exchanges.
Down stream effects of these two are:
1. We need competition to have choice: Only have a single search provider and a single social network does not give that. 2. We need to have fair compensation to have voluntary exchanges: People who need money might involuntarily go into a labor contract to stay alive. 3. ... I am sure you can expand on this list yourself.
> Free markets on the other hand have already devised pretty effective ways to measure value and allocate resources.
It is very well established that there exist no free market: "While no pure free market economies actually exist ..." - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp.
What you are discussing is pure politics and has nothing to do with any discourse of "scientific" economics - which indeed is what I tried to refuse to go into by saying that we can think about these things in silence.
However, if we do talk about economic freedom, then it seems like the US is on a 25th place over taken by more than 10 EU countries - all with foundational systems that are pro regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
I definitely don't, especially pertaining to the actual question I asked:
>> participants are appraised based on the value they provide to the society
>How do you measure that? And who decides?
I wasn't talking about "pure free markets", I am not interested about philosophizing and talking politics - just concrete, real, actionable points.
LE: I live in the EU and saying Western European countries offer more economic freedom than the US is joke. The actual reality proves it: European economy has fallen badly behind the US. Reasons include overregulation, anti-business and anti-corporation climate.
Anyhow, you are right, and that is the infamous downwards spiral and lack of sovereignty to the market.
Either we see increased protectionism, increased inequality, or we pull our selves together and make a plain global playing field (eg. Through minimum taxation schemes).
Europe has a huge technological base and has the capability to affect its own destiny.
As we speak, companies like Rocket Factory Augsburg are developing cheap access to orbit.
By contrast, the lack of competition in Europe holds down any newcomer. The only big companies today are those that have already be big companies for many years. That is not a natural state in a competitive market… normally new companies thrive and take market share while others decline and whither away.
The fact that Europe has no new big companies just proves that old big companies are monopolizing the market and using anti-competitive tactics to keep out any newcomer. That’s bad for Europe’s consumers.