You're mixing free market and laissez faire. Any market without monopolistic forces and where prices are set freely by the balance of supply and demand and competitive forces is essentially a free market.
No, I’m not. Your description here is fine, but it does not fit a huge chunk of the real economy, which was the point. Healthcare is just one example of many (agriculture, energy, telecom, etc.)
> Healthcare is just one example of many (agriculture, energy, telecom, etc.)
That depends on the country. Energy and telecom are quite free markets in many countries, especially with local loop unbundling and separation of generation, transmission and distribution.
And compare that to "Almost nothing is a free market" which you claimed. Now it's the opposite: most markets are free, but some, which depend on restricted physical infrastructure, are not.
No - My claim was narrower than that. In essence, that while we tend to think of the USA as very free market, in fact a huge fraction of the US economy is very much not free market. Enough so that any claim about free markets leading to strength in US economy is at least worth a second look.
At any rate I’m obviously not big articulate in the time I have for here, so I’ll leqve it at that.
You literally said: "Almost nothing is a free market".
Yes I did, in a broader context, which it is commonly assumed the reader is following.
The things distorting these markets in the US are typically nothing as simple as land, natural resources, etc... more they are policy decisions and politics. Suggesting otherwise is facile.