"...the free market is a worthless answer to any of the above..." Nit: it's not a free market if the buyer doesn't understand the transaction. What we've seen

"...the free market is a worthless answer to any of the above..." Nit: it's not a free market if the buyer doesn't understand the transaction. What we've seen, especially in the latter half of the 20th century and afterwards, is companies using the complexity of the law to create transactions in which the buyer thinks they're getting a good deal, but in fact they're getting screwed over by lawyers. That's not a free market. That's using government complexity as a club to beat senseless consumers when they don't do things the way you expect them to. It's a form of rent-seeking using the regulatory state. It's important to understand what it is, otherwise you aren't able to propose any reasonable solutions. For example, throwing even more complexity at the problem in an effort to protect consumers would just make matters worse. I'm in favor of your approach, just wanted to point out that 1) it's incomplete, and 2) without an understanding of root causes we'll still be in the same spot 20 years from now