Yeah, there are a bunch of state enforced barriers to entry that restrict competition, as well as various special legal and financial protections.

It's not even close to a free market. America isn't even in the 90th percentile of economic freedom (https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report), and most of the countries ahead of it aren't widely thought of as free market bastions.

Yes, we're very happy with the results. It's objectively more successful by almost every metric than any other system.

Complaining is easy. Yes, everything could always be better. Indeed, the "default" for all of human history was both worse and less capitalistic.

1 FCC 1 FDA 1 FAA 1 USDA

It'd actually be more capitalistic for these industries just to be state run enterprises so consumers know which throat to choke and competition/innovation to emerge as parallel or shadow industries

Capitalists get rich --> people demand regulation on capitalists --> Capitalists get richer --> people demand more regulation on capitalists

Regulation destroys capitalists from the bottom up...and you are left with what we have.

Bastiat nailed it in his essay Capital and Interest (http://bastiat.org/en/capital_and_interest.html):

"Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a population of a thousand inhabitants, destitute of all capital thus defined. It will assuredly perish by the pangs of hunger. Let us suppose a case hardly less cruel. Let us suppose that ten of these savages are provided with instruments and provisions sufficient to work and to live themselves until harvest time, as well as to remunerate the services of ninety laborers. The inevitable result will be the death of nine hundred human beings. It is clear then, that since nine hundred and ninety men, urged by want, will crowd upon the supports which would only maintain a hundred, the ten capitalists will be masters of the market. They will obtain labor on the hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, or the highest bidder. And observe this -- if these capitalists entertain such pious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal privations on themselves, in order to diminish the sufferings of some of their brethren, this generosity, which attaches to morality, will be as noble in its principle as useful in its effects. But if, duped by that false philosophy which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle with economic laws, they take to remunerating labor largely, far from doing good, they will do harm. They will give double wages, it may be, but then, forty-five men will be better provided for, whilst forty-five others will come to augment the number of those who are sinking into the grave. Upon this supposition, it is not the lowering of wages which is the mischief, it is the scarcity of capital. Low wages are not the cause, but the effect of the evil. I may add, that they are to a certain extent the remedy. It acts in this way; it distributes the burden of suffering as much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity of sustenance permits.

Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, there should be a hundred, two hundred, five hundred -- is it not evident that the condition of the whole population, and, above all, that of the prolétaires, will be more and more improved? Is it not evident that, apart from every consideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better pay for it? -- that they themselves will be in a better condition to form capitals, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing facility of realizing equality and well-being? Would it not be madness in them to admit such doctrines, and to act in a way which would drain the source of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of saving? Let them learn this lesson, then; doubtless, capitals are good for those who possess them: who denies it? but they are also useful to those who have not yet been able to form them; and it is important to those who have them not, that others should have them.

Yes, if the prolétaires knew their true interests, they would seek, with the greatest care, what circumstances are, and what are not favorable to saving, in order to favor the former and to discourage the latter. They would sympathize with every measure which tends to the rapid formation of capitals. They would be enthusiastic promoters of peace, liberty, order, security, the union of classes and peoples, economy, moderation in public expenses, simplicity in the machinery of Government; for it is under the sway of all these circumstances that saving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, invites those persons to become the formers of capital who were formerly under the necessity of borrowing upon hard conditions. They would repel with energy the warlike spirit, which diverts from its true course so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing spirit, which deranges the equitable distribution of riches, in the way by which liberty alone can realize it; the multitude of public services, which attack our purses only to check our liberty; and, in short, those subversive, hateful, thoughtless doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent its formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, to the special disadvantage of the workers, who bring it into operation. Well, and in this respect is not the revolution of February a hard lesson? Is it not evident, that the insecurity it has thrown into the world of business, on the one hand; and, on the other, the advancement of the fatal theories to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, have almost penetrated into the regions of the Legislature, have everywhere raised the rate of interest? Is it not evident, that from that time the "prolétaires" have found greater difficulty in procuring those materials, instruments, and provisions, without which labor is impossible? Is it not that which has caused stoppages; and do not stoppages, in their turn, lower wages? Thus there is a deficiency of labor to the "prolétaires", from the same cause which loads the objects they consume with an increase of price, in consequence of the rise of interest. High interest, low wages, means in other words that the same article preserves its price, but that the part of the capitalist has invaded, without profiting himself, that of the workman. "

Multiple players driven to innovate, improve quality, and reduce costs to win customers. The problem in America today is that in several major industries competition has eroded over time. Consolidation through mergers has created a handful of dominant players who wield disproportionate influence over prices, access, and even public policy.

When five corporations control nearly all of the media market and a few airlines carry almost all passengers there is less incentive to offer better service or lower prices. The meat processing and pharmaceutical industries follow that same pattern which magnifies the power of lobbyists and entrenches regulations that serve incumbents over challengers. Consumers are left with the illusion of choice but face uniform pricing models and limited innovation.

Even though the US does not have a truly free market it is free enough to allow people more prosperity than an economy with less freedom.

What is frustrating is when people say they believe in free markets with their mouths but don't with their actions. When people think the government is corrupt and incompetent but expect that same institution to outsmart corporations. It's deeply flawed logic. And most of all, if we had a free market for money we would have many other problems solved. Not all, but many problems are made worse by fiat money.

Take the dollar and the guns and USA becomes zimbabwe

A "free market" is not the same as a fair one. The US does not have a fair market. Even the Austrian school believed in a level playing field. Regulation is not the issue, it's what the government chooses to regulate.

Some infrastructures and supply chains are strategic - and some are not. The Panama canal is strategic- if China controls it they can more easily ship Venezuelas oil to China and refine it and send manufactured goods in return. Roads, rail and electricity supply and shipping canals, can sometimes be natural monopolies and thus strategic assets. If your economy is a primary producer then the processing and export of your produce can be a strategic supply chain- if foreign markets who want those products you produce gain capture and control of the processing and export supply chain then you risk becoming a banana republic. If your economy requires refined rare earths as crucial components for your military and high tech manufacturing then you had better not become dependent upon a competing nation who develop a monopoly over the supply of rare earths. Only a government can watch for and prevent such strategic pitfalls as the investment required to refine rare earths is not viable for free market investors to make. The direct returns to investors are not adequate to justify private capital investment - the true return is instead to the wider economy that retains supply and avoids becoming subservient to a dominant foreign supplier.

The strongest economy is one where government works to maximise the productive potential of free markets by minimising external and internal supply chain and market rigging. As famously noted by Adam Smith, it is the natural tendency for merchants to conspire against consumers and without a government vigilant and active against such market fixing, free markets cannot thrive.

The strongest economy requires a government with the incentive to develop it. Only a government has the mandate and power to limit cartels and monopolies, to invest in strategic infrastructure, to ensure secure supply chains and markets, to ensure its citizens have good access to education and skills development, to build a strong military which can protect the nation and project power to maximise access to resources and markets. In all successful empires of the past, including the rise of America such a government role played a central part in the building of prosperity. Unfortunately due to uncontrolled corporate funding of politics capital has come to own western governments, making a mockery of democracy. people have grown disillusioned and apathetic and crony capitalism has come to direct your governments, not in the nations and the people best interests, but in the interests of a select few wealthy rich pricks.

Free market operate locally, you can't have free (regulated) market. One or the other.

Bookmarked for next TM7 update from ~AGORA!

Are you fucking kidding me? The most important commodity that takes part in the all the transactions (money) is centrally planned. How could you possibly call the market 'free' in that scenario?