Well that's the main point.

Markets will correct, of course. The problem is how that levelling is made.

But the counter argument from the freemarketeers is:

"Market IS the best solution. Government intervention of any kind would only worsen the outcome."

But government IS already "interfering" markets. In fact there's no place in the world where economy isn't regulated by governments. In practice free market paradises are not seen.

What I'm trying to say is that that counter argument is a fallacy, too.

Anyway, I'm affraid that if the government takes no action, and in the end, PO is a global disaster, they will blame government because it didn't let the markets solve the problem with all its regulations already in place, anyway.

Fernando, you nail it:  There is no such thing as an uregulated market.  The amount of Government subsidies that keep major corporations afloat --in direct contradiction to the trend of market forces (e.g., toward the extinction of United, Northwest, and Chrysler, for example)-- is staggering.  And it isn't 'market forces' that are giving USA pharmaceuticals their immense profits, but the refusal of the government to use its bargaining power to bring down the cost of medicines for seniors, etc.  And what about big agribusiness?  The subsidies go to the big guys, not to the small farmers.  Yet the market force advocates say that it's the market that is driving out small producers.  Oh, and what about the defense industries.  'Scuse me.  And the highway construction business?  Duh!  If the government isn't playing a MAJOR role in how this economy (and the world economy) operates, then why do corporation groups of every ilk spend so much time, money and effort lobbying Congress and ensuring that X candidate gets elected instead of Y candidate?  
Cameron