That’s only true in a limited sense in any existing capitalist system. If your definition of “free market” is a competitive market with no artificial barriers to entry, that is impossible without state regulation-- otherwise oligopolies emerge followed by regulatory capture. If your definition of “free market” is an unregulated market, it will almost immediately stop being competitive and will be captured by the big players who will manipulate it in their own interests. So there you go, two definitions of “free market,” and existing capitalist systems are neither.
Both definitions of free market (because regulations are never watertight), and the current system, result in the same current oligopily. So okay, maybe you can argue the semantics, the point remains: shouting for ‘free market’ does not solve the inherent, systemic issue of our current situation.
That’s only true in a limited sense in any existing capitalist system. If your definition of “free market” is a competitive market with no artificial barriers to entry, that is impossible without state regulation-- otherwise oligopolies emerge followed by regulatory capture. If your definition of “free market” is an unregulated market, it will almost immediately stop being competitive and will be captured by the big players who will manipulate it in their own interests. So there you go, two definitions of “free market,” and existing capitalist systems are neither.
Both definitions of free market (because regulations are never watertight), and the current system, result in the same current oligopily. So okay, maybe you can argue the semantics, the point remains: shouting for ‘free market’ does not solve the inherent, systemic issue of our current situation.
How is the US neither of those? I don’t get it