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.
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 ?
