I had a good time reading your essay. You made a lot of points, and a couple stood out to me. I would have liked to see more summarizing, but then again, Bylund does not give much after a few sentences. I mostly agree with your idea that a freer market is better than the current system.

A free market allows unbridled competition which serves to directly benefit the consumer, so society as a whole would be better off.

When you mentioned this, I could not help but think about all the times a freer market has actively weakened consumer choice and power. The development of anti-trust laws was based on the rise of price fixing. We have seen compact discs, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), capacitors, perfume, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), air cargo, and, in more recent years, even tuna all fall victim to profit seeking price fixing. Do I even need to mention the medical prescription drug market?

The impacts can be far-reaching, affecting small businesses, consumer choice, and, depending on the market sector, even the price of goods and services. There are some proponents for price-fixing, though; some believe it can ensure a stable market for both consumers and producers and that any short-term benefit of increased price competition will force some producers out of the market. This can then cause product shortages and raise prices. To that, I would say when do we, if ever, see a company fix prices in the name of the consumer? All of the examples I gave were moments where the fixing was done in the name of profits.

Although we may never see a pure free market, I think a lot of the ideas and reasons behind it can be implemented to loosen restrictions and increase quality of life for consumers. Doing away with things like tariffs and embargoes would allow people to trade more freely with other countries and also may open doors due to freed up resources from domestic companies. It would be interesting to see the impact just a few free market policies on our current economy.

This is why I mostly agree with this conclusion. I find it more measured than the early statement at the beginning of the essay. I mostly agree because the idea of a freer market would allow it to respond to the changing world quicker. The amount of legislation in place can sometimes get in the way of what the basic market is: a voluntary exchange for goods valued by all parties involved. Being able to freely trade with someone from the other side of the world without a tariff and/or embargo sounds like it gives consumers and smaller businesses more power. But I can't help but think of the unregulated wild west being treated as...well, the wild west. Think about the power someone may have with financial, product, and logistical backing when entering a market that does not even have a competitor. In a "free" market, they could effectively rob the consumers of their money by taking away any potential choice before it even arrives. Some sense of a freer market seems logically more beneficial, but within that same logic, I can see that in that complete freedom there is more opportunity for chaos.