I'm not entirely sure but I don't think their point - with econ terms removed - is particularly profound. I think they're saying "the West" is so capitalist ev

I'm not entirely sure but I don't think their point - with econ terms removed - is particularly profound. I think they're saying "the West" is so capitalist even the stuff people complain restricts free markets doesn't actually. If that's what they're saying I think they're wrong. For a good summary of why, see https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/ https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/ Rephrased: > Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is The West is very pro market, so when people argue for free markets they are usually arguing against... > a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities, ... making companies pay for the harms they cause (an example of internalizing a negative externality would be charging a factory for the CO2 they emit) > perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical. ... or maybe having the government own the company in the narrow spaces that makes more sense (probably they're referring to utility companies, but usually the argument for the government controlling that sort of company is slightly different) >×That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets. In other words when people cry "free markets" they're usually arguing against solutions that would result in slightly regulated but free enough markets.