> That one was caused by manipulation by politicians, not market forces.
Funny how you then go on to explain it was market _actors_ that drove the politicians to act, but that this is nevertheless totally not an example of market _forces_.
> That one was caused by manipulation by politicians, not market forces.
Funny how you then go on to explain it was market _actors_ that drove the politicians to act, but that this is nevertheless totally not an example of market _forces_.
Market forces are usually meant in the spherical cow sense, not that the cow has politicians on their pockets.
Here it's useful to point out that free markets can't exist without an external force keeping them in check.
There is nothing that says free markets cannot exist without an external force keeping them in check. We choose / have chosen to create forces to keep them in check because we believe it is better than the alternative on some metric, but it is not inherent in the model. It is also up for debate whether free markets with checks are even the panacea that we treat them as, but social and psychological inertia is in many ways much stronger than the physical phenomenon by the same name.