Free-market systems have to guarantee that there will be competition. It is one of the rules. Without competition, you would have to take the «free» out of free-market system.
Stock exchange
On the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, traders compete with each other to buy and sell shares.
The Importance of Competition
Imagine that you are hungry, and you want a sandwich. If there are a lot of different sandwich shops in competition with each other, then you will have a lot of choices. In fact, you will probably have fairly good choices. Because you can go to someone else, each shop is competing to get your business. This kind of competition gives the consumer a lot of good choices. They have got a lot of things to freely choose among.
But what if there were only one sandwich vendor? As a consumer, you would have to go to this one sandwich vendor and take what they had. Maybe they only have tuna fish sandwiches that cost $20. You do not even like tuna fish sandwiches, and you definitely do not want to pay $20 for one. But what other choice do you have? You have to buy the $20 tuna-fish sandwich or go hungry. You can always choose no sandwich and starve, but that is not much of a choice, is it? If your freedom consists solely of choosing between something you do not want – an expensive sandwich you won’t like – and something else you do not want – starvation – then it is hardly worth calling it freedom. Without competition, consumers do not have the freedom they are supposed to have.
The Profit Motive
Free choice, private property, and competition are at the heart of the free-market system. They are so important that there are rules protecting them.
We saw before that games often have properties in addition to the rules. Such properties are not enforced like rules, but they affect how a game is played. Properties of the free-market system are often called market forces.
One important market force in a capitalist system is the profit motive. Producers make a profit by selling a good or service for more than it costs to produce. The difference between the total cost of production and the selling price is the producer’s profit. If the cost is greater, the producer suffers a loss and will struggle to stay in business.
There is no rule that says you have to follow the profit motive because there does not need to be such a rule. It is obvious to any producer that a profit is better than a loss. In the free-market system, the profit motive exists without any kind of coercion.
Profit and Competition
The profit motive is extremely important for the free-market system. Because of competition, efficiency and innovation often result from this drive to make a profit. If you are competing with others, you cannot afford waste. Waste increases costs, which cuts into profit. So producers work hard to be as efficient as possible.
Competition keeps prices low, which means that producers cannot just make up for inefficiency by raising prices. The incentive to be efficient and innovative is an example of market forces.
The profit motive can also work against competition. If you really want to make a lot of money, it would be better not to have any competition. That way, you could sell your goods and services for a much higher price and make more profit. Profit seekers have an incentive to get rid of competitors, if they can, to make more profit. This is another reason it is necessary for the government to make laws protecting competition.
What is So Free About a Free Market?
You have seen that the free-market system is based on free choice, private property, competition, and the profit motive. These rules and properties create one particular version of the game of economics. It is just one version, but it is the game that most societies play.
Advocates of the free-market system might argue that the most important goal is freedom. Freedom is so desirable, they might say, that it makes it worthwhile to sacrifice other goals. Some advocates of the free-market system, however, think that we might not need to make these sacrifices. They believe that pursuing freedom allows us to reach the other goals as well.
Adam Smith was an early advocate of the free-market system. In the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written, he published a book called An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. It is often simply called The Wealth of Nations.
Modern free-market advocates often cite Adam Smith to support their claim that freedom is the most important economic goal. Read some of what Smith said so you can judge the claims of the free-market supporters who agree with his reasoning.
Adam Smith is sometimes called the founder of capitalism.
Read the following excerpt from The Wealth of Nations and think about the things that Adam Smith said about the free-market system.
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it ….
The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman, and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper. To judge whether he is fit to be employed, may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ an improper person, is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive…
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise