New answers tagged

0

No its not necessary long run phenomenon it can hold in short run as well. Rather what matters is how competitive markets are and whether there are any market failures such as externalities etc. To be even more specific under the first theorem of welfare economics if markets are competitive, complete, information is symmetric, there are no externalities and ...


-2

The definition that you are using to describe markets is one beloved by neoliberal economists, otherwise known as market fundamentalism. It's very reductive, hence the term. Nomadic societies like the Plains Indians didn't have markets in the way that we now understand them. There would have been exchange and barter, but to understand them as markets is to ...


5

Wherever a society exists, there is repeated exchange. And wherever there is repeated exchange, there are also markets. (Of course, markets can vary in the degree of their development/functioning. One market may be better developed/functioning than another in that it has more frequent transactions, better enforced property rights and contracts, greater ...


-2

If you mean that if there was ever a society in which there was an agreement NOT to produce a market, I'd say no, there was never such a society. Even in socialism there were commercial relationships between humans. NOW it depends on what you understand as a society. I'm not sure but I understand the Amish have no market at all.


Top 50 recent answers are included