> This is not free market, but a captured regulated market
Agreed that market capture is a problem, but regulation is absolutely necessary for a free market to function well; these two things are not antonyms.
Regulation is needed to set up the rules of the game: everyone conforms to these rules, and if anyone breaks the rules, here are the consequences. Above this, companies can and should determine their own higher standards (e.g. you looking for honest insurance inspectors).
When something goes wrong, one of a few things is possible. Maybe the regulation was too lax, and risky even when followed. Maybe a company wasn't following the existing rules. Maybe the rules allow for small amounts of risk, and this is one of those accepted incidents.
In this case, it seems clear that the impact was not small, and can't/shouldn't have been an acceptable outcome. As such, one of two things should happen:
* Rules should change to mitigate the chances of other similar events.
* The rules were sufficient but ignored, in which case some severe penalties need to be applied.
You're right that government can't do everything perfectly, and private businesses are definitely the main drivers of a good free market. The government absolutely must provide clear rules to those businesses on what the society will accept, and severely punish non-compliance with those rules.
Agreed that market capture is a problem, but regulation is absolutely necessary for a free market to function well; these two things are not antonyms.
Regulation is needed to set up the rules of the game: everyone conforms to these rules, and if anyone breaks the rules, here are the consequences. Above this, companies can and should determine their own higher standards (e.g. you looking for honest insurance inspectors).
When something goes wrong, one of a few things is possible. Maybe the regulation was too lax, and risky even when followed. Maybe a company wasn't following the existing rules. Maybe the rules allow for small amounts of risk, and this is one of those accepted incidents.
In this case, it seems clear that the impact was not small, and can't/shouldn't have been an acceptable outcome. As such, one of two things should happen:
* Rules should change to mitigate the chances of other similar events. * The rules were sufficient but ignored, in which case some severe penalties need to be applied.
You're right that government can't do everything perfectly, and private businesses are definitely the main drivers of a good free market. The government absolutely must provide clear rules to those businesses on what the society will accept, and severely punish non-compliance with those rules.