> A free market would have various accrediting bodies This is actually an example of market distortion. For me, I view the use of "Free markets" to be implied

> A free market would have various accrediting bodies This is actually an example of market distortion. For me, I view the use of "Free markets" to be implied uses of "competitive markets" and Perfect Competition is defined as follows: > the situation prevailing in a market in which buyers and sellers are so numerous and well informed that all elements of monopoly are absent and the market price of a commodity is beyond the control of individual buyers and sellers. An accrediting body (of any type) is a symptom of a market where buyers are not (and perhaps cannot) be well informed enough to make decisions that maximize their utility/benefit. Now you might think, at this point, that's ridiculous! No one can be well informed about every potential market decision they make in their lives. And you would be right, this is why it's an unachievable ideal: > Though there is no actual perfectly competitive market in the real world, a number of approximations exist [2] Moreover, there exist market externalities whose burdens aren't appropriately placed on the responsible actor. The classic example is pollution, which can often be modeled as a social cost rather than a supplier cost [3]. Now accrediting bodies and government regulation can be good steps at correcting these distortions, but they aren't perfect...as anyone who has hired a licensed contractor and gotten poor results can attest. > Then why don't houses crumble, long after they are built? There is a lot of government regulation that tries to correct for this. But even then, a lot of homes have significant issues despite things such as home inspectors, building permits, contract licenses etc. My parent's fairly expensive home, for instance, had a chimney that was nailed to their roof and ended up falling over in a windy storm causing roof and water damage. The house was new construction, inspected, and part of a large development. But a lot of government regulation is actually an argument in support of the points made in this publication...as it means that the market was not suitable to laissez-faire handling [4]. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=perfect+competition&oq=perfect+competition&aqs=chrome..69i57.3849j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=perfect+competition&oq=perfe... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire Edit: I am moving fast and simplifying significantly, but I would be happy to address follow up questions/go into more detail if interested. But, as a disclaimer, I am far from an expert...I just have a limited understanding of some precious few Economic fundamental concepts.