No I can't. Many thousands of words have been written on this topic, but if you look up a definition you'll find several. Take your pick. The only thing I would say in this regard is that regardless of the definition you choose, such a market does not exist in reality, except perhaps as a localized example in microeconomics. There is disagreement among the various schools of economic thought on the definition of "Free Markets" [see the links I've provided] but there is no disagreement about their existence in the macroeconomic world -- they don't exist. For this reason if you try to look up a definition of "Free Markets" in an economics textbook, you may not find it. Instead economists seem to prefer to speak of ideal constructs such as "a competitive market system" or "private enterprise system" or perhaps "laissez faire capitalism". These constructs don't actually exist either. If only economists could develop a model of a market that, at the same time, was both useful and very closely represented a real macroeconomic market, economics would no longer be the "Dismal Science" and economists would no longer have to be lumped together with the sociologists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value (this may have something to do with your apple orange exchange) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market (this is a great article, I highly recommend it.) finally I would encourage you to get hold of a copy of "Capital in the 21st Century" by Thomas Piketty. What's good about Piketty's monumental work, among many things, is that it draws clear lines between models and reality.
Yes, of course, they are most directly to blame, as it was Reagan's economists, such as Wendy Gramm, that started the whole supply-side ball rolling, and that has done so much damage. We have got a hangover from it today. We need to get back to supply side economics as quickly as possible. It was Reagan economists who took so much progressiveness out of the tax brackets that we ended up with nearly a flat tax. That was truly disastrous as it fueled the wealth distribution we have today. An ECONOMIC DISASTER.
Hello piezoe: You don't have a good understanding of economics if you can't even define a free market or value. Claiming free markets hardly ever exists and then claiming “there is no disagreement about their existence in the macroeconomic world -- they don't exist.” begs the question. How can you know some thing doesn't exist if you can't define it ? Your reply has no facts or logic to back up your claim. You say they perhaps exist as a localized example in microeconomics but not in the macroeconomic world. The obvious question is why is that ? But you can't define a free market so you can't answer the obvious question. You then you go off on a tangent about models and reality. Models of some thing you can't even define and you say doesn't exist ? You don't need a 696 page paper weight to know how to “draw a clear line between models and reality”. Models of reality are designed to predict reality and are judged on their ability to predict what happens in reality. See how easy that was. No need to go down the Piketty rabbit hole. And what's the point of your links ? How are they going to answer a question you don't know the answer to your self. Instead of despairing about poor models and saying “If only economists could develop a model of a market that, at the same time, was both useful and very closely represented a real macroeconomic market..” Why not look at reality and compare free market economies versus socialist economies. For example South Korea versus North Korea, or West Germany versus Communist East Germany or Hong Kong versus Communist China. In each case under capitalism which requires free markets, the people are better off. Do you have an explanation for this ? May be your insistence that free markets don't exist or hardly exist is because any examples I present are not perfectly free therefore they don't exist. Kind of like saying we don't have free speech in the United States because there are some things we are not allowed to say. Or we don't really have the right to pursue happiness in the United States because people who get happiness from harming others are not allowed to do that. After Mao Zedong's death in 1976, the leader of China, Deng Xiaoping implemented many free market economic reforms in China that would have had Mao Zedong rolling in his grave. A free market as you know is by definition not a centrally planned economy. Seems strange that if China was doing so great with its "centrally planned economy" that they would be making these free market changes. Shouldn't they be making their economy even more centrally planned ? Deng Xiaoping lived under Communism and saw its failures. After seeing the success of the free market in other Asian countries for example Japan, Singapore and South Korea, Deng Xiaoping decided to introduce free market reforms to China. Thanks to him the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Chinese was raised and China is now the second strongest economy in the world after the United States. Deng Xiaoping said about his free market reforms "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat". China is now the second strongest economy in the world because they turned away from their socialist centrally planned economy towards a more capitalist like free market economy. The world is full of countries with free markets that work far better than the centrally planned, centrally owned and controlled ones. Are they perfect free markets ? No. But name one human institution that is perfect. So again I ask you. How do you explain why the free market economy countries I mentioned above do so much better than the non free market economy countries ?
I gave you an excellent link to virtually all the various definitions that are used. There are too many definitions to bother with here. Also if you google "Free Markets" you will turn up several succinct definitions, such as the one on Investipedia, etc. Please google, or use the good link I gave you. I explained to you why, if you were to look up "Free Market" in the index of a basic economics text you might not find an index entry. Please see my comments in that regard. Good luck in your search for a definition that pleases you.
America's middle class is hollowing out in many cities In 9 out of 10 cities, middle-income families are disappearing. "America's middle class is hollowing out. In cities across the country from Seattle to Boston, the middle class is shrinking as more Americans either climb up into higher income brackets or slip further into lower income groups, according to Pew Research Center data released this week. In nine out of 10 cities, there are fewer middle-class families since 2000. "These trends in the middle class are reflective of rising income inequality," said Rakesh Kochhar, associate director of research at the Pew Research Center. "This trend has been part and parcel of the national economy for the last 30 to 40 years." From 2000 to 2014, the share of adults living in middle income households fell in 203 of 229 U.S. metropolitan areas, according to Pew's analysis of government data. While it's known that rising income disparity is fueling the shrinking middle, the new analysis shows this national trend playing out in many cities — with the middle-class decline described as "often substantial," according to the report. The drop in the middle-class share measured 6 percentage points or more in 53 metro areas, compared with a four-point drop nationally. Drilling down further, the new data reveals the availability of a skilled local workforce and high quality jobs, whether tied to technology or the oil industry, can make or break the ability of families to accumulate wealth. "Being skilled is useful," Kochhar said. "High tech will always rule up the income ladder. And global changes matter," he said...." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/13/americas-middle-class-is-hollowing-out-in-many-cities.html
Wendy’s fast food restaurant chain says it will begin offering self-serve kiosks at its 6,000-plus locations across America, making them available to costumers by the end of 2016. The fast food giant’s decision to move toward automation comes just as “Fight for $15”–a progressive protest movement, pushing minimum wage hikes–is applying pressure on state governments to raise wages for low-skilled fast food workers. Penegor says several franchises are being squeezed by wage inflation. California’s 250-plus franchise-owned Wendy’s are struggling with the state’s $10 minimum wage, which will soon spike to $15. Franchise-operated Wendy’s restaurants in New York–where minimum wage is $15–can’t compensate for that state’s crushing wage increase. “You know there are some people out there who naively say that these wages can simply be passed along in terms of price increases,” Brolick said last August. “I don’t think that the average franchisee believes that.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...s-wage-increases-squeeze-fast-food-companies/
Opps, I meant we've got to get back to demand side economics. Oh well. Consider yourself lucky if you didn't bother to read the above post. Iv'e been out typing my computer lately. That's one reason for so many typos. Another is my terrible typing. But the mistake above isn't a typo, it's early senility.