> The root premise of free market (with transparency and regulation) is [...]
I'm not aware of the existence of such a free market, properly regulated, outside of liberal economics textbooks. The claim that free markets are intrinsically efficient is based on unsupportable assumptions about the behaviour of "economic agents" (i.e. individuals).
Incidentally, this notion of a "free market (with transparency and regulation)" appears to be a contradiction in terms. If the market is subject to rules, then in what sense is it free? What kinds of regulation are consistent with the market's freedom? There must be some kinds of regulation that would render a market non-free; for example, rules on who can own a business. Can you regulate press ownership in a free market? Is there such a thing as a person that is "unfit" to be a company director?
I'm not aware of the existence of such a free market, properly regulated, outside of liberal economics textbooks. The claim that free markets are intrinsically efficient is based on unsupportable assumptions about the behaviour of "economic agents" (i.e. individuals).
Incidentally, this notion of a "free market (with transparency and regulation)" appears to be a contradiction in terms. If the market is subject to rules, then in what sense is it free? What kinds of regulation are consistent with the market's freedom? There must be some kinds of regulation that would render a market non-free; for example, rules on who can own a business. Can you regulate press ownership in a free market? Is there such a thing as a person that is "unfit" to be a company director?