One can argue about this for ever, but I would contend that the 'free market' has not, is not and never will be 'free'. The 'market' is simply way too important to be allowed to function freely. This is actually supported by people who continually say, but the market is being 'interfered' with, if it was left alone it would function perfectly! This 'interference' is actually builty into the structure of the 'free market' because it isn't 'free' at all. The market is a controlled market system, not completely 'unfree' but nowhere near 'free', as in not being substantially controlled and steered and 'designed' to disproportionally favour the interests of minority who benefit from the 'free market'. This is of course very simplified, but I've deadline to meet for a manuscript!

Oh, and before I forget, we need to overthrow the current Capitalist economic and social paradigm, before it 'overthrows' us. This too is a mighty big problem to add to the growing list of mega problems we face, but I believe it may be the crucial one. This isn't because I personally haven't enjoyed the many fruits of Capitalism. I have, and over-indulged, yet I think the Capitalist system is doomed, at least the current version. I almost wrote the 'unbridled version', but this would imply that it was somehow 'free' which it simply is not.

Hear, hear.

There is not now- nor ever has been nor ever will be- any such fantasy as a free market economy.
It's rigged in favor of the big players and always will be. Any time the smaller players point this out, you can be sure some patsy for the big players will complain that the smaller players don't appreciate the [non-existing] free market economic system!

And even though there is no better system to efficiently allocate goods, capitalism still can't handle 1) externalities (eg pollution travelling from one property or jurisdiction to another), 2) public goods (eg, health and education), and 3) common property resource dilemmas (eg, fighting over fish in the sea). Thus, most countries have a combination of capitalism and socialism (even the USA has public schools).

This discussion about markets lacks nuance.

People who “believe in” free markets easily point to examples where market outcomes, compared to political outcomes, are superior (e.g. FedEx vs the Post Office). But more has to be said. Markets depend on secure property rights. But what makes property rights secure? In the end: morality and justice.

In a system of masters and slaves, both parties can be thought of as making all sorts of implicit trades (better food for more attentive work, etc) but nobody would argue that such trades make the system just, even if as a result of them all parties are better off. Considerations of justice and morality cannot be set aside.

So, yes, markets do some things well, but they fail in crucial ways. They also do not confront certain important problems having to do with justice, and what’s worse, they have a nasty habit of undermining the moral foundations on which they totally depend.

Is socialism the answer?

No, it is not, because it is not anything different. Socialists mistrust the selfish core of capitalism. What they refuse to see is that the problem of self-interest does not go away just because a man enters politics. In politics, as in markets, the same self-interested impulses are at work. The error of the socialist is to compare a flawed actuality (actually existing markets) with ideals that can only be implemented if men are angels. In such a comparison the actuality always ends up looking bad.

I think the present age could stand a big dose of humility. The ancients were more advanced. They understood that in politics there is no stability, that one arrangement is always degrading into something else: aristocracy to plutocracy to democracy to anarchy to tyranny.....