Indeed. I would argue that the free market, itself, carries no inherent morals. The morals, instead, lie within the consumers, and businesses. If the consumers are opposed to slavery, then, on moral grounds, it would be expected that they would boycott such a business. As such, a business would be inclined to not use such forms of labour since the public wouldn’t give them their business; however, it seems that the populace doesn’t care too much about those under the employ of a company as evidenced the rampant use of child labour, sweatshops, and poor human rights conditions by major corporations with foreign manufacturing – if the public is not opposed to such forms of obviously cheaper labour, then the market will certainly make use of them.
That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices and has the resources to vote with their wallet. Businesses are incentivised to conceal any actions that would cause them to lose customers, not stop those actions. They are also incentivised to eliminate competition so consumers don’t have a choice but to buy from them regardless of business practices.
That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices
This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.
and has the resources to vote with their wallet
This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.
They are also incentivised to eliminate competition
The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.
Indeed. I would argue that the free market, itself, carries no inherent morals. The morals, instead, lie within the consumers, and businesses. If the consumers are opposed to slavery, then, on moral grounds, it would be expected that they would boycott such a business. As such, a business would be inclined to not use such forms of labour since the public wouldn’t give them their business; however, it seems that the populace doesn’t care too much about those under the employ of a company as evidenced the rampant use of child labour, sweatshops, and poor human rights conditions by major corporations with foreign manufacturing – if the public is not opposed to such forms of obviously cheaper labour, then the market will certainly make use of them.
That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices and has the resources to vote with their wallet. Businesses are incentivised to conceal any actions that would cause them to lose customers, not stop those actions. They are also incentivised to eliminate competition so consumers don’t have a choice but to buy from them regardless of business practices.
This is actually a very good point. I’m not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.
This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.
The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.