I mean the main problem there is _NO_ free marked (in the sense of a proper self regulating marked consumers can reasonable influence by their buying decisions)

I mean the main problem there is _NO_ free marked (in the sense of a proper self regulating marked consumers can reasonable influence by their buying decisions). A proper free marked requires that: - People have a choice (no monopolies or oligopoly on any level), - People can see problems and decide to therefore not to buy from a given company => i.e. transparency. We are very far way from this, with how the world and technology moved on the only way to archive it is to require easy accessible transparency, especially of ownership of companies, land and especially in the finanzial/stock market. Even if this means that people privatly investing there in more then small sums losing privacy (because if you move larger amounts of mony you ARE basically a company!) - If a company messes up, the competition should be able to pick up where the original company left of. I.e. Patents and locked down electronic devices are fundamentally non free marked. - probably more stuff I missed. Many of the points above are often not associated with a free marked (at least in the US) potentially the opposite, but they are IMHO essential for a free marked to work like originally intended. Or in other words, the "free marked" the US has IMHO can not work, in the sense that it can't have the positive effects a free marked is supposed to have because the dynamics in thir marked often outright conflicts the dynamics a free marked is supposed to have leading to a continuous degrading marked (from a human/citicen/society POV).