So many people in this message board hold strong normative opinions of free markets (namely, that they are inherently good) and don't understand the basics of t

So many people in this message board hold strong normative opinions of free markets (namely, that they are inherently good) and don't understand the basics of them. It surprises me, because economics seem so aligned with this board's interests, and usually the conversations about these kinds of topics here are informed or at least interesting. The "free market" seems to always be an exception. Here are a few _basic economic_ reasons why you might not want a "free" market to determine the price of some good: 1. It's "free" but not actually free. For a free market to exhibit the beautiful self-organization and maximization of surplus, you need: a. Zero-cost (or at least low-barrier), voluntary entry/exit from the marketplace b. Many participants c. Information transparency (a) doesn't apply to housing, healthcare, food, or anything else that's required for survival, so there are no theoretical guarantees about "free" markets in those cases. 2. Self-organization and maximal surplus are not sufficient. This is a question of values, and usually is a question of valuing equality over efficiency. You might want, for example, for everyone to have a access to something (like a home) even if it comes at an economic cost. 3. There are costly externalities. Sometimes markets can self-organize and provide efficient distribution of resources, but also cause a lot of problems that aren't captured in the supply/demand curve. For example, not having a home might cause you to do things that is socially harmful that you wouldn't otherwise do. Like using the sidewalks as a toilet.