Does a free market need an element of production to qualify as a fre market? If not then maybe the trade in trading cards is close to being a free market, especially since the introduction of the internet and the mas of information that it brings.

If I want a particular card the price is set by previous supply and demand. The market sets the price and continues to make alterations based on volumn of purchases and or trades.

The market is so insignificant that it isn't affected by government interferance.

In a way people do produce in that market, because they buy new cards every once in a while, bringing more into the economy. So, that is a free market of sorts, however it has very poor balance of information, which is a problem for it.

"I wonder if it's true that 3rd world countries tend to have freer markets than 1st world countries. Countries like Brazil have pretty free markets, and you tend to see the worst extremes of wealth and poverty
Correlation doesn't mean causation though"

Brazil doesn't really have a free market. I would describe it as less free than that of the United States. If you sort countries according to their "economic freedom" as measured by the Index of Economic Freedom and the Economic Freedom of the World reports then you can see that third world countries generally have less economic freedom. This is probably because of the presence of corruption, autocracy, and a failure to assert property rights such that theft and robbery are commonplace. But then, like you said, correlation does not equal causation, so I would be wary about what conclusions you can draw from those indices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

Here are two interesting papers, admittedly from the libertarian Cato Institute that aim to argue that "economic freedom" leads to greater happiness and that it is more effective than democracy in reducing violence. But then again, you could probably find articles arguing the opposite. I've definitely read a couple of articles that also argued that socialism makes people happier since world surveys show that the happiest people are in places like socialist northern Europe. But then, like you said, the danger is always correlation does not equal causation.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8179
http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2005/efw2005-2.pdf

wrong diplomat, capitalism is inherently flawed.
its a good idea, I'll give you that. you know, the harder you work the better off you are, but thats not the way it shakes out. its like communism, a beautiful dream, but totally unworkable (read:exploitative) in reality

chrisp, the prsence of corruption doesnt go hand in hand with capitalism?

Corruption occurs in non-capitalist countries too. Ask anyone from a former communst country.

or a current communist country.

Indeed.

I'm not saying corruption isnt everywhere.
I'm saying you cant disregard an example of capitalism because corruption is present.

The point that Chrispminis was making was that capitalilsm was not necessarily the *cause* of the corruption in Brazil.

Sicarius, corruption is not at all a part of capitalism. Corruption stifles the mechanisms by which capitalism works. Capitalism would have smaller government, by which corruption, if present, would be lessened in effect. Any companies with corruption present could be outcompeted by companies where profits are reinvested rather than going into the pockets of corrupt management. I'll stress again that America is not a capitalist country. It's very much a mixed economy. I think you attribute too many problems to capitalism. Correlation does not equal causation. =)

you seem to presume that I use america as my baseline for capitalism. untrue.
I use adam smith.
if you have a different baseline I would be glad to look into it.

It is important to understand the distintion between causation and correlation otherwise you could end up *fixing* the wrong problem. For example you could remove capitalism from Brazil, but you would still have the corruption.

or like when industry ruins the planet and people try to fix it with more industry

'the solution is just around the corner...'
'technology will save us...'
'mars colonies...'

Adam Smith is one of the good guys of history. His ideas helped to improve the standard of living in Britain - for all. The protectionists wanted to deny poor people cheap food imports. Adam Smith argued that by allowing free trade that the country would be better off as a whole.

I agree with you Sicarius that it is naive to think we can do what ever we want because "technology will save us". That is called counting your chickens before they hatch.

Sicarius, first of all, you must realise that corruption rarely helps you in a Capitalist society (Intel, for instance, has been fined to the tune of over 1% of the value of itself for corruption). Secondly, you must realise that it is rarer than you think, and thirdly, you must not confuse corporatism with capitalism.

Environmental issues are equally easily solved under capitalism. Just as we need government for maintaining street lights, we need government to maintain the environment, stopping pollution. The way you do that is to, on an international scale, agree acceptable levels of emissions, and then make it so that companies have to buy the right to emit these pollutants. That way, those companies that can most easily change will, those that can't will pay for it. Then, slowly reduce the quotas, so companies will do everything they can to change, or else, close down.

No one has given capitalism a fair chance. Even in America, way back in the late 1700s/early 1800s, the Federalist Party was undermining capitalism, even though we'd just won a war to create it. Throughout the years, no politician in America has given capitalism a fair chance. America has been a (very corrupt) representative democracy for most of its history, but has recently seen a socialism relapse.

If someone gave capitalism the chance it deserves, America would thrive until the Rapture.

Or until Ragnarok.

Free markets don't exist for long on there own. Every thriving pattern of exchange attracts an entity of power to control it. I don't want to sound mystical, I am going for abstract.

It does not matter how primitive or advanced the surroundings. I the developing world were weak governments(or no government) exists. War Lords, tribes, clans, multinationals, extra national governmental entities will gain control of the market and run it to their interests. This will usually run afoul of any good intentions for the population.

Wish I could contiue but I have got company.

To Sicarious: free markets are only possible with a government of, for and by the people. Communities must be organized at many levels to deal with this. A necessary evil. It requires an educated and engaged population to make it successful. That is probably the one requirement that will insure that free markets will never truly exist. Government isn't the problem. It is that the vast majority of people who have not matured to a point where they will be able to be engaged in the process.