has a pure 'free market' ever existed?

[sfiorare]

Which part of it?
It all seems irrelevant to me.

let's say this part:

In economics, a model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques.

this part:

Overview

In general terms, economic models have two functions: first as a simplification of and abstraction from observed data, and second as a means of selection of data based on a paradigm of econometric study.

and the part sub-titled: Restrictive, unrealistic assumptions

[Travis Retriever]

let's say this part:

In economics, a model is a theoretical construct that represents economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them. The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques.

this part:

Overview

In general terms, economic models have two functions: first as a simplification of and abstraction from observed data, and second as a means of selection of data based on a paradigm of econometric study.

and the part sub-titled: Restrictive, unrealistic assumptions

I see nothing in there that pertains to my post.
So more red herring.

[sfiorare]

I see nothing in there that pertains to my post.
So more red herring.

just out of curiosity, have you ever taken any economics classes?

[MrBogosity]

it took a little while for the people to get there, so it depends on exactly what date you're referring to

These had been established cities under Mexican rule.

that's my point, a free market didn't exist in california and hasn't ever existed anywhere

Except that we're talking about a period IN BETWEEN the two states you keep mentioning.

[sfiorare]

These had been established cities under Mexican rule.

which cities?

Except that we're talking about a period IN BETWEEN the two states you keep mentioning.

what specific time does "in between" refer to?

[MrBogosity]

All of the cities I mentioned were established when California was a part of Mexico.

The rest of your question has been answered. I can only conclude that you're either stalling or evading now.

[sfiorare]

San Francisco was a big city, mostly because of the port. They boomed during the gold rush. Sacramento and San Jose had a lot to do with it, too. All of the cities I mentioned were established when California was a part of Mexico.

san francisco was a more like a shanty town and i guess you can say sac was a city, but i'd call it a small town

The citizens of Sacramento adopted a city charter in 1849, which was recognized by the state legislature in 1850. Sacramento is the oldest incorporated city in California, incorporated on February 27, 1850. During the early 1850s the Sacramento valley was devastated by floods, fires and cholera epidemics. Despite this, because of its position just downstream from the Mother Lode in the Sierra Nevada, the new city grew, quickly reaching a population of 10,000.

Except that we're talking about a period IN BETWEEN the two states you keep mentioning.

let's say 8/1848 when the guadalupe treaty reached california until 4/1849 when riley served as the military governor , so that's about 8 months of no state government, but san francisco, san jose and sacramento had city governments; it just doesn't seem like there's a strong case for a pure 'free market' at that time, especially when this is what's recorded about that period:

Gold had profoundly adverse effects on California society. The annual yield of the gold fields in dollars was an incredible 10 million in '48; 40 million in '49; 50 million in '50; and an average of 60 million each year from '51 to '57. According to the State census there were 255,000 Californians in '52, about 100,000 or one-third of whom were miners. If the annual yield of gold was 60 million dollars in '52, the average annual earnings per miner would be $600 or about $2 per day - except that some individual miners made fortunes, while the struggling majority averaged little more than a dollar a day at a time when the wages for common labor were four or five times higher. So much for the hopes of striking it rich in the California gold fields. Add the isolation, hardship and dearth of family life to the inadequate and precarious income of most miners, and we can understand how gold mining contributed to the loosening of moral restraint. The result was a plague of vice and crime during the Gold Rush, especially in San Francisco.

By the beginning of 1849 San Francisco had become a vortex of heterogeneous people arriving overland and on a myriad fleet of vessels. Hundreds of them were vacated and left swinging at anchor in Yerba Buena Cove, abandoned by passengers and crew alike who decamped for the diggings. Population of the town was placed at 3000 in March 1849; 5000 in July; 15,000 in October; and by the end of the year, 30,000. In 1850 the population was 35,000, and still it grew. San Francisco was mainly an encampment of tents and flimsy shelters improvised of planks, brush or earth, ranked row on row along the hills above the Cove. Open fires were necessary for cooking and warmth. Wildfires kindled by them, and by arsonists, swept repeatedly through the shanty town, that was promptly rebuilt. Supplies and services of every sort were rapidly exhausted and prices quickly rose to fantastic heights. To add to the hardship and peril of the immigrants, there was among the new arrivals, mostly male, a disproportionate representation of the restless and disorderly who created a reign of crime including murders and heinous lawlessness of every kind. The depredations of the criminals, and the corrupt politicians who took over city government, were controlled ultimately only by intervention of the Vigilance Committees of 1851 and 1856...

http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap2/chap2-sect6.html

there's more at the above link that indicates what a chaotic and violent time the gold rush days were

[VectorM]

there's more at the above link that indicates what a chaotic and violent time the gold rush days were

Compared to what?

[sfiorare]

Compared to what?

it's not a comparison

the following is offered as a refutation of wood's video in the original post:

Towns offered bounty hunters cash for every Indian head or scalp they obtained. Rewards ranged from $5 for every severed head in Shasta City in 1855 to 25 cents for a scalp in Honey Lake in 1863. One resident of Shasta City wrote about how he remembers seeing men bringing mules to town, each laden with eight to twelve Indian heads. Other regions passed laws that called for collective punishment for the whole village for crimes committed by Indians, up to the destruction of the entire village and all of its inhabitants. These policies led to the destruction of as many as 150 Native communities.

In both 1851 and 1852 California paid out $1 million--revenue from the gold fields--to militias that hunted down and slaughtered Indians. In 1857, the state issued $400,000 in bonds to pay for anti-Indian militias.

http://revcom.us/a/v21/1030-039/1039/gold1.htm

[VectorM]

it's not a comparison

You really posses no common sense, do you?

[sfiorare]

You really posses no common sense, do you?

certainly, i do

[Gumba Masta]

It started out being quite socialist, with everyone's production going into a common kitty.

Do you think it would've been more succesfull if the production would've gone into a common doggie?

[MrBogosity]

san francisco was a more like a shanty town

San Francisco was a bustling port town.

and i guess you can say sac was a city, but i'd call it a small town

Who cares what YOU'D call it? Weren't you the one saying we shouldn't be judging then by today's standards?

The only thing the rest of your post shows is that you can copy and paste. What any of it has to do with our discussion is a mystery resolved only in your head.

[MrBogosity]

Towns offered bounty hunters cash for every Indian head or scalp they obtained.

Government again.

What did the considerably numerous free market players do?

In both 1851 and 1852 California paid out $1 million--revenue from the gold fields--to militias that hunted down and slaughtered Indians.

Government again.

Do you even UNDERSTAND what this debate is about?

[sfiorare]

Government again.

What did the considerably numerous free market players do?

Government again.

Do you even UNDERSTAND what this debate is about?

it seems like you keep making my point for me, even in the time in between mexican rule and american rule, there were municipal governments; so there was no pure 'free market' system operating in california