Or actually mean free market when we talk about "free markets". That is, we should make it very clear that the market rules shouldn't change to benefit specific corporations.
That's all well and fine until one market segment (finance) can grind capital for unrelated industries into the ground by crunching credit. It's a classic ecosystem problem, some of the critters in the pond are going to rise above others in the chain, and that can cause ill effects everywhere if not properly controlled.
Given that one of the defining characteristics of humanity is that we've been cultivating ecosystems for millenia, it's not that much of a stretch to say we're going to cultivate our own invented ecosystems for the betterment of the system. It's actually a stretch to say -- we're just going to throw all these actors into a system of shared responsibility, and they'll just work it out.
In my view there is no free market. It's all man made rules. The only free market I can think of is total anarchy with no state enforcing any rules. The (probably physically) strongest wins.
Yes. I had a similar realization as GP during the financial crisis. I realized how small a minority of people actually want free markets, themselves included.
What about all the market rules that were originally created to protect specific (groups of) corporations from competition?
I'd argue they should change in response to challenges by new entrants, unless actually necessary to deliver some actually valuable benefit to the public.
Stopping corporate-driven regulatory change now just locks in the position of whoever got their regulatory capture done early.
