Actually, it probably would thanks to Congress blatantly interfering with the free market for decades. With the assistance of lobbyists of course.
Milk prices are only PARTIALLY due to market considerations.
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...an-milk-prices
Originally Posted by chefnerd
My point exactly.
IMHO the "free market" or "free markets" are a myth like unicorns, elves and dragons.
Think about it. Economics is a human invention as is money. Neither exist without people or governments. For several thousand years the predominant form of government was monarchy or dictatorship. Monarchs and dictators have always controlled (and taxed heavily) most important aspects of their economies and money, especially food, gold, land, anything that can be used for weapons and anything else valuable like silver, gems, etc...
Economies and economics has existed for at least 5000 years, probably much more. One of the oldest known markets was the silk road, but it was far from free being taxed all throughout its length for protection and passage at a minimum. The first known "free" market other than barter economies was tulips in the Netherlands around 1600. It didn't take long for short selling to be banned (making it no longer a free market) and there was a huge bubble and crash a few years later. The point being that you can't have markets without money and people and you never get money and people without rules (which makes the markets not free of course). I am all for making many markets freer and think that will often make them work more efficiently, but only to a point. I used to think I was an anarchist when I was young (before libertarian came into vogue as a philosophical position) but then I grew up. So in my view the only question left is how free should markets be to work efficiently and well for the good of society and how we we define that phrase "good for society" so we can mostly agree on the goal? Sudan and Somalia are pretty darn free and libertarian, but I think few of us would choose to move there.