That is the market being free, George.
That is the market being free, George.
But running a call center overseas is not one of these things.
When governments kowtow to corporations, it's the corporations who are then acting as the government. For example, in states like Texas, Alabama, and Wisconsin, laws prohibit automakers from selling vehicles directly to consumers. But these laws only exist because dealer associations wanted and lobbied for them to protect their business. Which is to show that freedom itself isn't a matter of who is kowtowing to whom, but merely whether or not kowtowing is happening whatsoever. If it is, then someone's freedom is being restrained, and said market environment could be argued to not be "free". In fact, this is what Tesla has argued multiple times in court in such states in that these laws are anticompetitive, and violate due process and the commerce clause.
In the first, it's a "free" market because everything moves smoothly and efficiently in ways that make economic mathematicians happy. There's perfect information, all transactions and prices and actor-identities are are known, and it's generally assumed there are no monopolies or monopsonies.
In the second, individual actors are "free" to construct secret deals with special secret prices, non-disclosure agreements, act anonymously through proxies, etc.
At least in US politics, the equivocation is common: Someone appeals to the benefits of the first, while promoting the contradictory mechanics of the second.
But in the sense they mean, the violence of the state precludes a free market. For the record, I do not believe in the validity of money, coercion, usury, violence.
Nor you cannot call it a free market if the government is allowed to favour or penalise one entity or one sector over the other.
I know words don't mean anything these days, but there is no angle in which you can call modern economy a free one.
Is it a free market if there’s antimonopoly agency?
However, a "unregulated free market" is nearly impossible--somw player will eventually drive out competition to maximize profits and some will not be troubled at harming or killing their customers in the name of immediate profit (tobacco, sugared drinks, talc powder, and round-up come to mind immediately but the list is very long).
Is market with enough regulations to ensure competitiveness and transaction transparency (including long-term consequences) truly "free"?
I assume that the pools of either corporate entities and/or their leadership cogs have a much higher percentage of adherence to said belief than the general pool of either buyers and/or sellers excluding such, as the corporate implementation of liability shielding exists specifically to sate this need.
Using that definition amounts to classifying all real markets as non-free.
Unregulated markets cannot exists in reality or in a sound theory, only in wishy-washy fairy tales.
Not to mention, that definitions shift over time. Or that claiming the definition to mean “unregulated” to the exclusion of all other meanings is a form of propaganda-slash-evangelism (and so, duly noted in cad you were unaware, as it can be received quite poorly). Or that “fair” is similarly misinterpretable for the same reasons: I prefer fair markets because I can eat cotton candy and listen to people screaming on the rides as I consider each booth’s offerings - and my interpretation of that statement is, in at least two communities I used to work in, the most contextually appropriate take on it! (AI, of course, can’t keep up with that usage, which is honestly a plus in favor of it, but for the ESL folks trying to figure out what I mean, fair → faire / carnival / festival.)
What we have is a "capitalist market", where those with more power (capital) within the market leverage it to exploit the other participants. Capitalists use their money to extract as much money as possible from a segment of the market, usually destroying it in the process. But for a beautiful moment in time they created a lot of value for shareholders!